Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft Envronmental Impact Statement Volume 1 of 2 9/14/2000
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT l, ,,,, , ( 9 ` ,. ,f r 9v , `if 'r�r i- .,, y,. . , . !lw t ill tZ, �� it / t �J/1 ./p� u '4 0;bech At, J .r1 j R :-- o r p ; ./ . 6o A � � ; ' Irl a 1. y o C. i yam" ,,. \, ,, �r „ ./.:,,.4e, } , ,, ii',,.-' Ate. ( o,- \`i "..:i ` t / 7:':// % Avg �\ i. : ';,,: ofi(ga i.1 .l,` ,� /�il� i e„, ,;,,,,,,,, ;,-,..,, , „,,-„,,, /,,,,,:,, , , ,, ,, --,,-, \,,- ,,,,/,- -#:,,././0,V v(4-&,/ —, ' ' ;._ ,.'-,-, , 'Ff."' • gel}_ ��y.✓ t w,/P4y /" - .„,f,,r-c „.„, , ,,,._,, ,A• ' ,,%,,,,':---„:'=,-, -=-.,-. '----'7-e,',-- i- 4 qp -,,,---,..--. .5?„ - If,,e,4' /z) i:YAI V/,' ,' .,2`,.• •:‘>, . '',-'/„.4. -, ,7 FIFTH AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL AREA PLAN AND RETAIL CENTER PROJECT CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK Lead Agency: City Council of New Rochelle September, 2000 Volume 1 of 2 of Wir' i T• �oc.�.::�- v D vis & How--Ts, P. C. ae av7..rzs= - *2:5.'''179CO,V'.Y. 10640 X9141 866-5600 sei,L1 66G-6267 September 14,2000 Honorable Mayor Timothy C, Idoni and Members of the City Council City of New Rochelle City Hall, 515 North Avenue New Rochelle, NY 10801-3416 Re: Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mayor Idoni and Members of the City Council: IK A is very pleased to submit the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") evaluating the proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan, IKEA'S proposed redevelopment under this plan, and related actions. IKEA,in consultation with New Rochelle's team of consultants and stag,put all its resources behind completing this detailed evaluation of the potential impacts and necessary mitigation related to the proposed project. IKEA refined this analysis over the last six months based on input from the City to meet the high standards set in the approved DEIS Scope, We believe this effort produced a comprehensive DEIS that establishes a firm foundation to commence the public review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and its implementing regulations ("SEQRA Regulations"). IKEA looks forward to beginning the public review of the proposed project. We understand that before the formal public review begins,the City Council,as lead agency for the environmental Analysis required under the SEQRA Regulations, must first accept the DEIS as complete with regard to the approved scope. To include the public in the project review•as early as possible,however, IKEA will provide you with additional copies to be placed in the New Rochelle City Hall and Library. We also will provide two copies to the Town and Village of MPrnaroneck, Larellmant, Scarsdale and Eastchester. TINEA is excited about the prospect of being in New Rochelle, and is committed to adequately addressing the reasonable concerns related to the project. We respectfully request that you accept this comprehensive DEIS as soon as possible to allow the formal public review to begin. Respectfully submitted, Frederick I. KoeLsch FIX/Ird Enclosure FAINTDCtS106251%101\1217a MIDO1VI1_WPJ D 12 7 0i , DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FIFTH AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL AREA PLAN AND RETAIL CENTER PROJECT City of New Rochelle, New York Lead Agency: City Council of New Rochelle City Hall, 515 North Avenue New Rochelle, New York 10801 Attn.: Mayor Timothy C. Idoni or City Manager Peter Korn Project Sponsor: Project Engineer: IKEA North America Bohler Engineering, P.C. 496 West Germantown Pike 776 Mountain Boulevard Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Watchung, NJ 07076 (908)668-8300 DEIS Prepared by: Project Architect: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. MCG Architecture, Bowling Green Offices 10 North Street 11 Broadway, Suite 831 Cold Spring, NY 10516 New York, NY 10004 (914) 265-4400 (212)425-0744 Legal Counsel: Traffic Engineer: Shamberg Marwell Hocherman Davis& Hollis, P.C. Vollmer Associates, LLP 55 Smith Street 50 West 23rd Street Mount Kisco, NY 10549 New York, NY 10010 (914) 666-5600 (212) 366-5600 New Rochelle Program Manager: Planning Consultant to New Rochelle: Mark Stellato, Department of Planning Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc. 515 North Avenue 34 South Broadway New Rochelle, NY 10801 White Plains, NY 10601 (914)654-2191 (914) 949-7336 New Rochelle Special Counsel: Michael Zarin, Zarin & Steinmetz 81 Main Street, Suite 415 White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 682-7800 DEIS Acceptance Date: Public Hearing Date: Comments must be received by Lead Agency: September 2000 Volume 1 of 2 Table of Contents September 14, 2000 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, New York Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIONS 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Background 2-2 2.2.1 Master Plans and Economic Development Studies 2-2 2.2.2 Proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area 2-5 2.2.3 Proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan 2-6 2.2.4 Proposed Fifth Avenue Retail Center Project 2-7 2.3 Required Actions 2-9 2.3.1 Adoption of Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan 2-9 2.3.2 Adoption of Zoning Regulations Governing the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area 2-10 2.3.3 Selection of the Qualified and Eligible Sponsor for Redevelopment 2-10 2.3.4 Execution of Land Acquisition and Disposition Agreement 2-11 2.3.5 Land Acquisition 2-12 2.3.6 Site Plan Approval 2-16 2.3.7 Changes to City Official Map/Modifications to Redevelopment Area Roadways 2-16 2.4 Other Implementing Actions/Involved Agencies 2-16 2.4.1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2-16 2.4.2 New York State Thruway Authority 2-17 2.4.3 New York State Department of Transportation 2-17 2.4.4 Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities and Westchester County Health Department 2-17 2.4.5 Westchester County Planning Board 2-17 2.5 Interested Agencies 2-17 2.6 Description of Proposed Retail Center Project 2-17 2.6.1 Redevelopment Area Characteristics 2-17 2.6.2 Retail Center Project Description and Site Layout 2-19 2.6.3 Parking Area Layout 2-22 2.6.4 Landscape Plan 2-22 2.6.5 Lighting Plan 2-23 2.6.6 Redevelopment Area and Off-site Transportation Improvements 2-24 2.6.7 Drainage/Stormwater Management Plans 2-26 2.6.8 Utilities, 2-26 2.6.9 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 2-26 2.6.10 Snow Storage Han 2-27 2.7 Construction and Operation 2-27 2.7.1 Demolition ,and Construction Schedule 2-27 2.7.2 Operation 2-28 TOC-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Table of Contents September 14,2000 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT, AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS 3.1-1 3.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy 3.1-1 3.1.1 Introduction 3.1-1 3.1.2 Study Area Definitions 3.1-1 3.1.3 Redevelopment Area Development History 3.1-2 3.1.4 Existing Land Use 3.1-6 3.1.5 Existing Zoning Regulations 3.1-13 3.1.6 Existing Public Policy 3.1-17 3.1.7 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions 3.1-24 3.1.8 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions 3.1-28 3.1.9 Public Policy 3.1-34 3.1.10 Overall Market for Industrial Space 3.1-39 3.1.11 Job Retention and Economic Development Policies 3.1-43 3.2 Topography, Geology, Soils, and Hydrogeology 3.2-1 3.2.1 Existing Conditions 3.2-1 3.2.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions 3.2-4 3.2.3 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions 3.2-4 3.3 Terrestrial Ecology 3.3-1 3.3.1 Existing Conditions 3.3-1 3.3.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions 3.3-2 3.3.3 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions 3.3-2 3.4 Surface Water, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management 3.4-1 3.4.1 Existing Conditions 3.4-1 3.4.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions 3.4-4 3.4.3 Future Conditions With Proposed Actions 3.4-4 3.5 Neighborhood Character 3.5-1 3.5.1 Existing Conditions 3.5-2 3.5.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions 3.5-4 3.5.3 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions 3.5-5 3.6 Visual Character 3.6-1 3.6.1 Existing Conditions 3.6-1 3.6.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions 3.6-7 3.6.3 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions 3.6-8 3.6.4 Conclusions 3.6-12 3.7 Historic and Archeological Resources 3.7-1 3.7.1 Existing Conditions 3.7-1 3.7.2 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions 3.7-4 TOC-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Proje't A�,1 Table of Contents September 14, 2000 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions 3.8-1 3.8.1 Demographic and Socioeconomic Background 3.8-2 3.8.2 Existing Redevelopment Area Businesses 3.8-10 3.8.3 Current Commercial Activity: New Rochelle and Westchester 3.8-10 3.8.4 Market Analysis 3.8-12 3.8.5 Commercial Character Assessment 3.8-15 3.8.6 Fiscal Environment 3.8-17 3.8.7 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions 3.8-19 3.8.8 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions 3.8-23 3.8.9 Mitigation Measures 3.8-45 3.9 Transportation and Traffic 3.9-1 3.9.1 Introduction and Summary 3.9-1 3.9.2 Study Methodology 3.9-6 3.9.3 Existing Road Network 3.9-7 3.9.4 Scope of Study 3.9-9 3.9.5 Existing Traffic Conditions 3.9-11 3.9.6 Level of Service Criteria 3.9-13 3.9.7 1999 Existing Conditions 3.9-15 3.9.8 Future No-Build Condition 3.9-16 3.9.9 Existing Traffic Eliminated As A Result of Proposed Actions 3.9-18 3.9.10 Traffic Generated by the Proposed Retail Center Project 3.9-19 3.9.11 Traffic Distribution and Assignment 3.9-20 3.9.12 Future Build Condition 3.9-23 3.9.13 Traffic Impact Assessment and Mitigation 3.9-24 3.9.14 New England Thruway Toll Plaza and Ramps 3.9-38 3.9.15 Retail Center Truck Trips and Routing 3.9-41 3.9.16 Construction Worker and Truck Trips 3.9-43 3.9.17 Delivery Policies and Services 3.9-44 3.9.18 Parking 3.9-45 3.9.19 Sight Distance 3.9-46 3.9.20 Public Transit 3.9-46 3.9.21 Pedestrians 3.9-48 3.9.22 Operating Plan for Special Events 3.9-49 3.9.23 Intersection Capacity Analysis Summaries 3.9-50 3.10 Air Quality 3.10-1 3.10.1 Existing Conditions 3.10-1 3.10.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions - No-Build Condition 3.10-5 3.10.3 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions - Build Condition 3.10-5 3.10.4 Operational Air Quality Impacts 3.10-8 3.10.5 Construction Air Quality Impacts 3.10-8 3.10.6 Mitigation Measures 3.10-8 TOC-3 FifthVAveIum :rban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Table of Contents September 14, 2000 3.11 Noise 3.11-1 3.11.1 Existing Conditions 3.11-1 3.11.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions - "No-Build Condition" 3.11-9 3.11.3 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions - "Build Condition" 3.11-12 3.11.4 Construction Noise Impacts 3.11-20 3.11.5 Mitigation Measures 3.11-24 3.12 Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services 3.12-1 3.12.1 Water Supply 3.12-1 3.12.2 Sanitary Sewage 3.12-2 3.12.3 Solid Waste 3.12-4 3.12.4 Energy 3.12-7 3.12.5 Fire Protection 3.12-7 3.12.6 Police 3.12-9 3.12.7 Rodent Control 3.12-10 3.13 Construction Impacts 3.13-1 3.13.1 Construction Activities and Scheduling 3.13-1 3.13.2 Construction Traffic 3.13-3 3.13.3 Air Quality 3.13-7 3.13.4 Construction Noise 3.13-7 3.13.5 Hazardous Materials 3.13-7 3.13.6 Erosion Control Measures 3-13-8 3.13.7 Blasting Procedures 3-13-9 3.14 Hazardous Materials 3.14-1 3.14.1 Phase I Assessment Results and Findings 3.14-2 3.14.2 Targeted Phase II Assessment 3.14-11 3.14.3 Sampling Results and Findings 3.14-15 3.14.4 Mitigation Measures 3.14-19 4.0 ALTERNATIVES 4-1 4.1 No Action Alternative 4-1 4.2 No Site Plan Approval Alternative 4-4 4.3 No Build Alternative 4-5 4.4 Alternate Site Layout 4-8 4.5 Alternative Locations for the Retail Center Project 4-12 4.6 Redevelopment Alternatives for the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area 4-15 4.6.1 Use Alternatives 4-15 4.6.2 Alternative Bulk Requirements for Retail Uses 4-21 4.7 No Impact Alternatives 4-23 TOC-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project LEIS Table of Contents September 14, 2000 5.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 5-1 6.0 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 6-1 7.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 7-1 8.0 REPORT PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONTACTED 8-1 TOC-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Table of Contents September 14, 2000 APPENDICES Included in Volume 2 Appendix A Agreements Between the Potential Qualified Redeveloper (IKEA) and the City of New Rochelle Appendix B SEQRA Documents Appendix C Correspondence Appendix D Draft Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix E Stormwater Management Report (included on CD-ROM) Appendix F Utility Report Appendix G Traffic G.1 Trip Generation G.2 Trip Distribution & Assignment G.3 Travel Time Studies G.4 Existing Trips Eliminated G.5 Parking Accumulation G.6 Traffic Signal Timing G.7 Traffic Flow Diagrams G.8 Highway Capacity Analysis Output (included on CD-ROM) Appendix H Air Quality (included on CD-ROM) Appendix I Historic and Archeological Resources Report Appendix J Environmental Assessment - (Database included on CD-ROM) Appendix K Geotechnical Reports Appendix L Blasting Specifications Appendix M Summary of the New York State Guide to Economic Development Appendix N IKEA's New York Strategy - New Rochelle Appendix 0 Technical Memorandum, Noise Monitoring Program Appendix P Draft City of New Rochelle Relocation Plan for Residential and Commercial Owners and Tenants, Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Appendix Q Demolition and Abatement Plan TOC-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Table of Contents September 14, 2000 List of Tables Page Table 2-1: Summary of Floor Areas 2-21 Table 3.1-1: Residential Uses-Primary Study Area 3.1-7 Table 3.1-2: Vacant, Underutilized, and Open Uses-Primary Study Area 3.1-8 Table 3.1-3: Warehouse, Distribution and Storage Uses-Primary Study Area 3.1-9 Table 3.1-4: Community, Manufacturing and Mixed Uses-Primary Study Area 3.1-10 Table 3.1-5: Bulk and Parking Regulations for Uses in the M-1 District 3.1-15 Table 3.1-6: Bulk and Parking Standards Applicable to Proposed Retail Use in the M-1 District 3.1-33 Table 3.1-7: Bulk and Parking Regulations for Uses in the Proposed URLSR District 3.1-33 Table 3.1-8: "Industrially-Zoned Land in Southern Westchester 3.1-40 Table 3.1-9: Redevelopment Area: Distribution of Nonresidential Space 3.1-42 Table 3.4-1: Existing Flow Rates, Redevelopment Area 3.4-3 Table 3.4-2: Pollutant Loading Analysis Data Summary 3.4-4 Table 3.4-3: Post-Development Flow Rates 3.4-5 Table 3.4-4: Pollutant Loading Analysis Data Summary 3.4-7 Table 3.7-1: Redevelopment Area - Structures Fifty Years and Older 3.7-3 Table 3.8-1: Population for New Rochelle, South & Central County Areas, and Westchester County, 1980-1998 3.8-3 Table 3.8-2: 1990 Percentages of Population by Race and Hispanic Origin in New Rochelle, Surrounding Municipalities, and Westchester County 3.8-3 Table 3.8-3: Median Household Income in New Rochelle, Surrounding Municipalities, and Westchester County, 1980-1990 3.8-4 Table 3.8-4: Total Housing Units-Southern Westchester Municipalities and Westchester County 3.8-4 Table 3.8-5: Redevelopment Area: Historical Population Comparison 3.8-6 Table 3.8-6: Characteristics of Westchester County & Redevelopment Area Population 3.8-6 Table 3.8-7: Wage & Salary Summary: 1997 3.8-7 Table 3.8-8: Westchester County & Redevelopment Area Households and Families: Income Characteristics (1990 US Census) 3.8-8 Table 3.8-9: Westchester County & Redevelopment Area Households and Families: Income Distribution (1990 US Census) 3.8-8 Table 3.8-10: Redevelopment Area: Age of Housing (1990) 3.8-9 Table 3.8-11: Redevelopment Area: Home Ownership Values 3.8-9 Table 3.8-12: Redevelopment Area: Monthly Rental Unit Prices (1990) 3.8-10 Table 3.8-13: Existing Businesses 3.8-11 Table 3.8-14: New Rochelle Business Activity Compared to Westchester County (1992) 3.8-12 Table 3.8-15: Trade Area Retail Establishments 1997 Data Summary 3.8-14 Table 3.8-16: Furniture & Home Furnishings Retailers in 5-Mile Trade Area 3.8-46 Table 3.8-17: Furniture & Home Furnishings Retailers in 5-Mile Trade Area / New Rochelle 3.8-47 TOC-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Table of Contents September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-18: Furniture & Home Furnishings Retailers in 15-Mile Trade Area / Bronx County 3.8-48 Table 3.8-19: Furniture & Home Furnishings Retailers in 15-Mile Trade Area / Connecticut (Outside of 5-Mile Trade Area) 3.8-49 Table 3.8-20: Furniture & Home Furnishings Retailers in 15-Mile Trade Area / Westchester County (Outside of 5-Mile Trade Area) 3.8-50 Table 3.8-21: Average Advertised Rents by Municipality & # of Bedrooms 3.8-25 Table 3.8-22: Distribution of Jobs at Existing Businesses 3.8-37 Table 3.8-23: Hourly Wage & Salary Information: Selected Classes of Personnel (1997) 3.8-38 Table 3.8-24: Projected Aggregate Earned Income / Future Workers 3.8-39 Table 3.8-25: Current and Projected Property Taxes -- Redevelopment Area 3.8-40 Table 3.8-26: Tax Revenue Summary 3.8-41 Table 3.8-27: Projected Fiscal Impact Summary (Westchester County & New Rochelle) 3.8-43 Table 3.9-1: Comparison Summary: Number of Intersections that Would Improve, Remain the Same, or Worsen 3.9-2 Table 3.9-2: Comparison Summary: Intersection Operating Conditions 3.9-3 Table 3.9-3: 1999 Accident Data Summary Trends 3.9-13 Table 3.9-4: Signalized Intersections, Level of Service Criteria 3.9-14 Table 3.9-5: Unsignalized Intersections, Level of Service Criteria 3.9-15 Table 3.9-6: Site-Generated Traffic-Proposed Other Developments, Weekday PM, Saturday Midday, and Saturday PM 3.9-17 Table 3.9-7: Existing Uses and Traffic To Be Removed in Redevelopment Area 3.9-18 Table 3.9-8: Customer and Employee Generated Traffic, Proposed Retail Center Project, Weekday PM, Saturday Midday an Saturday PM 3.9-20 Table 3.9-9: Trip Distribution by Automobile, Based on Estimated Sales Transactions - Year 2003 3.9-21 Table 3.9-10: Summary of Impacted and Non-Impacted Intersections with Proposed Mitigation Actions 3.9-25 Table 3.9-11: 1999 High Accident Locations, Change Due to Proposed Retail Center Project 3.9-36 Table 3.9-12: New England Thruway Traffic Volumes, New Rochelle Toll Plaza 3.9-39 Table 3.9-13: Freeway-Ramp Capacity Analysis, 1-95 Northbound Off-Ramp Interchange 17 3.9-40 Table 3.9-14: Freeway-Ramp Capacity Analysis, 1-95 Southbound On-Ramp Interchange 17 3.9-40 Table 3.9-15: Expected Truck Trips, Proposed Retail Center 3.9-41 Table 3.9-16: Construction Related Worker and Truck Trips, Weekday PM, Saturday Midday and Saturday PM Peak Hour 3.9-43 Table 3.9-17: Maximum Parking Accumulation Based on Gross Floor Area 3.9-45 Table 3.9-18: Project Area Public Transit Service With Transfer Connections to the Proposed Retail Center 3.9-47 Table 3.9-19: 1999 Existing Condition-Intersection Analysis Summary, Signalized Intersections 3.9-51 Table 3.9-20: 1999 Existing Condition-Intersection Analysis Summary, Unsignalized Intersections 3.9-61 TOC-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Table of Contents September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-21: 2002 No-Build Condition Intersection-Analysis Summary, Signalized Intersections 3.9-63 Table 3.9-22: 2002 No-Build Condition-Intersection Analysis Summary, Unsignalized Intersections 3.9-73 Table 3.9-23: 2002 Build Condition-Intersection Analysis Summary, Signalized Intersections 3.9-75 Table 3.9-24: 2002 Build Condition-Intersection Analysis Summary, Unsignalized Intersections 3.9-85 Table 3.9-25: Weekday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary, Mitigated Signalized Intersections 3.9-87 Table 3.9-26: Weekday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary, Mitigated Unsignalized Intersections 3.9-92 Table 3.9-27: Saturday Midday Peak Hour-Analysis Summary, Mitigated Signalized Intersections 3.9-93 Table 3.9-28: Saturday Midday Peak Hour-Analysis Summary, Mitigated Unsignalized Intersections 3.9-98 Table 3.9-29: Saturday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary, Mitigated Signalized Intersections 3.9-99 Table 3.9-30: Saturday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary, Mitigated Unsignalized Intersections 3.9-104 Table 3.10-1: Regional Air Quality Data Summary 3.10-2 Table 3.10-2: Existing Condition Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 3.10-4 Table 3.10-3: 2002 No-Build Condition Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 3.10-5 Table 3.10-4: 2002 Build Condition Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (Without Mitigation) 3.10-7 Table 3.10-5: 2002 Build Condition Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (With Mitigation) 3.10-7 Table 3.11-1: Perception of Changes in Noise Levels 3.11-2 Table 3.11-2: Community Response to Increases in Noise Levels 3.11-2 Table 3.11-3: Applicable New Rochelle Noise Standards 3.11-3 Table 3.11-4: FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria 3.11-4 Table 3.11-5: Noise Monitoring Times 3.11-6 Table 3.11-6: Noise Monitoring Results - "Existing Condition" 3.11-8 Table 3.11-7: Future Ambient Noise Levels Without the Project - "No-Build Condition" (dBA- Leq) 3.11-11 Table 3.11-8: Future Ambient Noise Levels With the Project - "Build Condition" (dBA - Leq) 3.11-13 Table 3.11-9: Summary of Existing and Projected Noise Levels (dBA - Leq) 3.11-14 Table 3.11-10: Results of Sound Measurements at Westchester County Retail Site 3.11-16 Table 3.11-11: Expected Total Truck Trips Per Day 3.11-16 Table 3.11-12: Truck Route Noise Monitoring Results - "Existing Condition" 3.11-17 Table 3.11-13: Truck Route Intersections: Future Ambient Noise Levels Without the Project- "No-Build Condition" (dBA - Leq) 3.11-18 Table 3.11-14: Truck Route Intersections: Future Ambient Noise Levels With the Project - "Build Condition" (dBA - Leq) 3.11-19 TOC-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Table of Contents September 14, 2000 Table 3.11-15: Truck Route Intersections: Summary of Existing and Project Noise Levels (dBA - Leg) 3.11-20 Table 3.11-16: Construction Noise Levels 3.11-21 Table 3.12-1: Estimated Water Usage and Sewage Flows 3.12-2 Table 3.12-2: New Rochelle Wastewater Treatment Plant 3.12-3 Table 3.12-3: Solid Wastes Calculations for Existing Residences 3.12-5 Table 3.12-4: Projected Solid Wastes Generated (tons) 3.12-5 Table 3.12-5: Material Disposal Estimates 3.12-6 Table 3.13-1: Estimated Demolition Debris and Excavated Material Quantities 3.13-4 Table 3.14-1: New Rochelle Fire Department Records: Properties with Heating Oil tanks 3.14-5 Table 3.14-2: Commercial Properties-Areas of Environmental Concern 3.14-6 Table 3.14-3: Commercial Petroleum Storage Tanks 3.14-8 Table 3.14-4: Hazardous Waste Generators 3.14-9 Table 3.14-5: Soil Sampling Analytical Results 3.14-16 Table 4-1: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Zoning Requirements Relating to Retail Uses 4-22 TOC-10 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Table of Contents September 14,2000 List of Figures After Page Figure 2-1: Generalized Location of Proposed Actions 2-2 Figure 2-2: Proposed Actions - Location Map 2-2 Figure 2-3: Proposed Actions Boundary Survey /Aerial Photograph 2-2 Figure 2-4a: Site Plan-Main Level 2-10 Figure 2-4b: Site Plan-Ground Level 2-10 Figure 2-5: Proposed View from William Flower Park 2-10 Figure 2-6: Proposed View Looking Southwest From Fifth Avenue 2-10 Figure 2-7: Proposed View Looking Northwest From New England Thruway 2-10 Figure 2-8: Proposed View Looking East From Portman Road 2-10 Figure 2-9: Land Uses in Primary Study Area 2-18 Figure 2-10a: North and West Elevations 2-20 Figure 2-10b: South and East Elevations 2-20 Figure 2-11a: Floor Plan Main Level 2-22 Figure 2-11b: Floor Plan Second Floor 2-22 Figure 2-12: Landscape Plan 2-22 Figure 2-13: Demapping Plan 2-24 Figure 2-14a: Roadway Modifications 2-24 Figure 2-14b: Roadway Modifications 2-24 Figure 2-15: Snow Management Plan 2-28 Figure 3.1-1: Primary and Secondary Study Areas 3.1-2 Figure 3.1-2: Redevelopment Area Zoning, 1955 3.1-2 Figure 3.1-3: Underutilized and Vacant Properties 3.1-8 Figure 3.1-4: Vehicle Sales, Storage and Repair 3.1-8 Figure 3.1-5: Warehouse Distribution and Storage Uses 3.1-8 Figure 3.1-6: Relative Distribution of Land Uses in Primary Study Area 3.1-12 Figure 3.1-7: Land Uses in Secondary Study Area 3.1-14 Figure 3.1-8: Zoning Map - New Rochelle 3.1-14 Figure 3.1-9: Zoning Map - Mamaroneck, Larchmont 3.1-18 Figure 3.1-10: Employment Share Changes & Projections 1988 - 2004 3.1-40 Figure 3.1-11: Existing Manufacturing, Industrial, Warehouse, Storage & Public Utility Zones in Lower Westchester 3.1-40 Figure 3.2-1: Existing Topography 3.2-2 Figure 3.2-2: Soil Boring and Well Locations 3.2-2 Figure 3.2-3: Watershed Advisory Committee 5 Study Area 3.2-4 Figure 3.2-4: Grading and Drainage Plan 3.2-4 Figure 3.2-5: Blasting Plan 3.2-6 Figure 3.2-6: Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 3.2-6 Figure 3.4-1: Pre-Developed Drainage Area Plan 3.4-2 Figure 3.4-2: Post-Development Drainage Area Plan 3.4-4 Figure 3.5-1: Neighborhood Character Study Area 3.5-2 Figure 3.5-2: Peak Hour Traffic Volume Increase on Local Roads 3.5-10 Figure 3.5-3: Daily Traffic Volume Increase on Local Roads 3.5-10 TOC-11 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Table of Contents September 14, 2000 Figure 3.6-1: Viewshed and View Corridor Analysis Map 3.6-2 Figure 3.6-2: Existing New England Thruway Views 3.6-2 Figure 3.6-3: Existing View from MacLeay Apartments 3.6-2 Figure 3.6-4a: Existing Views from William Flower Park 3.6-2 Figure 3.6-4b: Existing Views of Fifth Avenue Corridor 3.6-2 Figure 3.6-5: Existing View Looking Southeast From William Flower Park 3.6-4 Figure 3.6-6: Existing View Looking Southwest From Fifth Avenue 3.6-4 Figure 3.6-7: Existing View Looking Northwest From New England Thruway 3.6-4 Figure 3.6-8: Existing View Looking East From Portman Road 3.6-4 Figure 3.6-9a: Existing Visual Characteristics - Plain Avenue 3.6-4 Figure 3.6-9b: Existing Visual Characteristics - Plain Avenue 3.6-4 Figure 3.6-9c: Existing Visual Characteristics - Plain Avenue 3.6-4 Figure 3.6-10: Existing Visual Characteristics - Pleasant Street 3.6-4 Figure 3.6-11a: Existing Visual Characteristics - Fifth Avenue 3.6-4 Figure 3.6-11b: Existing Visual Characteristics - Fifth Avenue 3.6-4 Figure 3.6-11c: Existing Visual Characteristics - Fifth Avenue 3.6-4 Figure 3.8-1: Census Tract / Block Groups 3.8-6 Figure 3.8-2: Trade Areas 3.8-14 Figure 3.8-3: Westchester County; Centers and Corridors 3.8-16 Figure 3.8-4: Major Retail Facilities in Westchester County 3.8-16 Figure 3.9-1: Traffic Study Area Intersections 3.9-2 Figure 3.9-2: Proposed Retail Center Generated Traffic 3.9-24 Figure 3.9-3: Traffic Study Area Impacted Intersections 3.9-24 Figure 3.9-4: Off-Site Physical Roadway Changes 3.9-28 Figure 3.9-5: Intersections Requiring Physical Mitigation 3.9-28 Figure 3.10-1: Traffic Intersections Included in Air Quality Analysis 3.10-4 Figure 3.11-1: Noise Monitoring Locations 3.11-6 Figure 3.12-1: Utility Plan 3.12-2 Figure 3.13-1: Demolition and Construction Phasing Schedule 3.13-2 Figure 3.13-2: Construction Traffic Routing Plan 3.13-6 Figure 3.14-1: Monitoring Well Locations and Groundwater Table Surface Map (on 8-17-00) 3.14-14 Figure 3.14-2: Groundwater Analytical Results 3.14-18 Figure 4-1: Alternative Site Layout 4-8 Figure 4-2: East Main / Echo Bay Site Planning Issues 4-14 Figure 4-3: Industrial Park Concept 4-16 Figure 4-4: Assembled Light Industrial Concept 4-18 TOC-12 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Preface September 14, 2000 PREFACE This Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for the proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project has been prepared in conformance with the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder. This DEIS has been prepared to assist participating agencies in complying with established local, state and federal guidelines when they make approval and/or funding determinations concerning the proposed project. The lead agency for review of the Proposed Actions The lead agency for review of the Proposed Actions pursuant to SEQRA is the City of New Rochelle City Council. The DEIS examines the impacts of a series of actions, including the following: • Adoption of Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan • Adoption of Zoning Regulations Governing the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area • Selection of the Qualified and Eligible Sponsor for Redevelopment • Execution of Land Acquisition and Disposition Agreement • Land Acquisition • Changes to City Map/Modifications to Redevelopment Area Roadways • Infrastructure and Road Improvements The scope of this DEIS was subject to a public scoping session held by the City of New Rochelle on October 13, 1999. Comments on the Scope of Work were received until November 22, 1999, and the Scope was formally adopted on December 14, 1999. A copy of the adopted Scope of Work is provided in Appendix B. This DEIS will be subject to a public hearing to be held by the New Rochelle City Council, the date to be duly noticed and publicized. All substantive comments will be responded to in a Final Environmental Impact Statement as required by SEQRA. Prior • to any decision relating to the Proposed Actions, the City Council must adopt Findings pursuant to SEQRA, indicating that any approved action is consistent with all applicable regulations. Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction and Project Description The Proposed Actions involve the adoption of the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan, ("Urban Renewal Plan"), and the applicable zoning text, map changes and other approvals to permit the proposed redevelopment of a 16.4-acre area in the City of New Rochelle (the "Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area" or "Urban Renewal Area"). Related to the above, is the proposed selection and approval of IKEA, North America ("IKEA") as the qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment of a 14.9-acre portion of the 16.4-acre Urban Renewal Area (known as the "Retail Center Project"), and site plan approval for a new retail facility. Based upon its 1965 and 1977 Master Plans, its 1989 Industrial Development Study, and its 1996 Comprehensive Plan, the City of New Rochelle identified an area generally bounded by Fifth Avenue, Valley Place, the New England Thruway, and Portman Road, for potential redevelopment. These studies identified six focus areas for redevelopment within the City. The proposed 16.4-acre Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area, the last of the six focus areas proposed for redevelopment, is located in the east central area of New Rochelle, adjacent to the City's boundary with the Town of Mamaroneck. It is generally bounded by Valley Place, the New England Thruway, Biehn Street, Portman Road, and Fifth Avenue. Article 15 of New York State's General Municipal Law authorizes the City of New Rochelle to undertake urban renewal projects and endows the City with the powers necessary to carry out or effectuate these projects. This law referred to as the Urban Renewal Law calls for municipalities to establish, conduct and plan programs for the redevelopment of areas that are "substandard or insanitary". This term is defined by the Urban Renewal Law to mean an area that is a slum, blighted, deteriorated, deteriorating area, or an area that has a blighting influence on the surrounding area. A Blight Study commissioned by the City concluded that the dilapidation, incompatible mix of nonconforming residential and automotive and storage uses, vacant lots and general functional obsolescence of the Fifth Avenue Area created a negative and blighting effect on the neighborhood. The Blight Study went on to conclude that the 16.4-acre area is appropriate for urban renewal and would qualify as an Urban Renewal Area as defined in Section 502 (9) of the New York General Municipal Law. By Resolution dated July 20, 1999, the City adopted the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Project Blight Study, finding that it formed the basis to consider the Urban Renewal Area and Plan. The Urban Renewal Plan, described in more detail in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, includes a proposed zoning text amendment to establish this area as a large scale retail zone to effectuate the objectives of the Urban Renewal Plan. The development of a large-scale retail zone would conform to New Rochelle's historical Comprehensive Plans by combining disparate lots and establishing a unified and functional plan in place of the mixed, non-conforming, conflicting and underutilized uses, which presently exist and contribute to the blight in the Fifth Avenue area. The proposed zoning controls for the Urban Renewal Area known as the Large Scale Retail Zoning District are set forth in a proposed zoning text amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. These amendments would apply to any redevelopment within the Fifth Avenue 1-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 Urban Renewal Area, irrespective of the approval of the proposed Retail Center Project. The purpose of the Large Scale Retail Zoning District contemplated for the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area would be to encourage the redevelopment and revitalization of the area as a viable retail commercial district. The Retail Center Project proposed by IKEA involves construction of a two-story 308,000 square foot retail furniture and home furnishings store with approximately 1,572 off-street parking spaces on 14.9 acres. Parking would be provided on a one-level parking deck and at-grade, both under the building and the parking deck, and in adjacent at-grade parking areas to the east and west of the proposed building. The first floor of the Retail Center would contain 218,000 square feet and the second floor would contain 90,000 square feet. The main entrance to the Retail Center structure would face south toward the New England Thruway. Vehicular access to the Redevelopment Area is proposed from Fifth Avenue, Valley Place, Portman Road, Plain Avenue, and Biehn Street. A detailed description of the proposed building and ancillary facilities, which may ultimately be built on the site is provided in Section 2.6. Major use areas comprising almost 80 percent of the building would include a Markethall, a full self service warehouse, and a showroom, all for the display of furniture and related goods. The Retail Center is expected to be open 7 days a week, except on Christmas. Hours of operation are expected to be 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM Mondays through Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays. The proposed Retail Center Project is expected to employ approximately 350 workers. These would include approximately 180 part-time and 170 full-time workers. There are currently between 327 - 347 persons employed by existing businesses in the Redevelopment Area, with eight businesses not responding to survey requests at the time of the writing of this document. IKEA projects that it would pay in property taxes, approximately $1.9 million annually -- approximately $245,000 to Westchester County, $64,000 to the New Rochelle Sewer District, $395,000 to the City of New Rochelle, and $1.2 million to the New Rochelle School District. Current occupants of the Redevelopment Area pay a total of $683,000 annually. IKEA projects that it would also collect and pay in its first full year of operation (2003), approximately $7.36 million annually in sales taxes -- approximately $3.68 million to New York State, $1.38 million to Westchester County, and $2.3 million to New Rochelle. The aggregate amount of sales at Redevelopment Area establishments is unknown at this time, as is the amount of sales tax currently generated in the Redevelopment Area; however, it is estimated that IKEA would generate significantly more sales tax than the current uses in the Redevelopment Area generate. IKEA is seeking no tax abatements, nor any other form of financial assistance from the City or other governmental entity. Off-site Roadway Improvements In Chapter 3.9 Transportation and Traffic, the proposed Retail Center Project's traffic-related impacts and associated mitigation measures are described in detail. Measures include traffic signal timing changes, installation of traffic signal controls and other physical roadway changes. All improvements discussed below are proposed to be funded by IKEA. There will be no costs 1-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 incurred by the City of New Rochelle. The numbers indicated in parentheses below refer to intersection designations assigned in Chapter 3.9 Transportation and Traffic. Fifth Avenue As mitigation for the proposed Retail Center Project, Fifth Avenue would be widened from two-lanes at 30-feet in width to three or four lanes at 35 to 45 feet in width beginning at Valley Place and extending to the intersection of Portman Road in the City of New Rochelle. The available right-of-way is variable, ranging from 37 to 45 feet. The widened Fifth Avenue would enable westbound left-turn lanes to be provided at three locations: the main entrance to the parking garage; the entrance to the truck loading docks; and the westbound approach to Portman Road. In addition, the roadway widening would enable right turn lanes to be provided at two locations: the main entrance to the parking garage and the eastbound approach to Valley Place. The objective of these right and left turn-lanes would be to improve access to the proposed Retail Center Project site from the east and west, while facilitating the movement of through traffic on Fifth Avenue. The widened Fifth Avenue would be striped, similar to that shown in Figure 2-4b, to designate the right and left turn lanes between Valley Place and Portman Road. Fifth Avenue at Portman Road (1) Portman Road would be widened to provide two lanes on the northbound approach of Portman Road at Fifth Avenue: a northbound right and through lane and a left-turn only lane. Fifth Avenue at Valley Place (2) Valley Place would be widened to the west, along the eastern boundary of the Retail Center site to accommodate northbound right and left turn lanes at the approach to Fifth Avenue. Parking would continue to be permitted on the east shoulder of Valley Place in the Town of Mamaroneck, but prohibited on the west side within the City of New Rochelle. In addition, a traffic signal is proposed to handle the site-generated traffic. Madison Avenue, Interstate 95 Interchange, 17 and New Jefferson Street (10) A two way stop sign control at this intersection would be replaced with a traffic signal. In addition, the northbound 1-95 exit ramp would be widened from 14-feet to 22-feet to provide two 11-foot lanes, one for right turn and through traffic and the other for left turns. Hutchinson Avenue at Weaver Street (15) A new traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of Weaver Street (NY 125) and Hutchinson Avenue, which serves northbound-entering and -exiting traffic at Interchange 20 on the Hutchinson River Parkway, as well as local traffic in Scarsdale. This proposed traffic signal would be coordinated with the existing, nearby traffic signal at the southbound parkway exit ramp. 1-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 Weaver Street (NY 125) and Murray Avenue (17) The T-intersection at Weaver Street and Murray Avenue located in the Town of Mamaroneck is currently controlled by a stop sign on the Murray Avenue approach. It is proposed to install a traffic signal to facilitate the left-turn movement from Murray Avenue onto northbound Weaver Street. Advance warning signs for the traffic signal are also proposed. Garden Street and Cedar Street at 1-95 Interchange 16 (19) This T-intersection is currently controlled by a stop sign on the Cedar Street approach. It is proposed to install a traffic signal at this intersection which would be coordinated with the nearby traffic signal at Garden Street and 1-95 northbound entry/exit. Beechmont Drive and Southbound Pinebrook Blvd. (23a) The offset intersection at Beechmont Drive, Pinebrook Boulevard (SB) and Pinebrook Road is controlled by a two-way stop sign favoring Beechmont Drive. It is proposed to install a traffic signal at this intersection to correct existing failing conditions and provide a moderate amount of additional capacity. Drainage/Stormwater Management Plans/Utilities The Retail Center Project plans call for the collection of stormwater runoff from all new pavement surfaces into a new stormwater collection system within the Redevelopment Area and directed to existing municipal drains surrounding the Redevelopment Area. Runoff from the building roof would be directed to the same system. As a result of the Retail Center Project, there would be less impervious surface than existing conditions by 0.17 acres. By balancing the pre versus post-drainage areas for each of the points of interest (POI) around the Redevelopment Area, there would be no increase in the rate of stormwater runoff to any of the existing stormwater collection systems. The proposed drainage design would control runoff from the 2-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100 year storms. Conservative pollutant loading analyses of pre- and post- development drainage indicates that water quality of the stormwater runoff would be improved as a result of the Retail Center Project. Existing water and sewer lines within the beds of Fifth Avenue, Valley Place, Biehn Street and Plain Avenue from Portman Road to Biehn Street would continue to be used to provide service to the proposed Retail Center structure and remaining existing uses, as would existing gas, electric and telephone lines. Where necessary, new service lines would be installed. The Redevelopment Area is currently served by the New Rochelle Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is operated by Westchester County. Its capacity is 13.6 MGD. No problems are expected with the plant's ability to treat additional sanitary sewage generated by proposed Retail Center Project. A detailed description of demolition and construction and the operational characteristics of the proposed Retail Center is provided in Chapter 2. 1-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 Required Actions The Project would involve the following actions: • Adoption of the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan • Adoption of Zoning Regulations Governing the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area • Selection of the Qualified and Eligible Sponsor for Redevelopment • Execution of a Land Acquisition and Disposition Agreement • Land Acquisition and Relocation Activities • Site Plan Approval • Changes to City Map/Modifications to Redevelopment Area Roadways In addition to the actions to be undertaken by the City as described above, the proposed Retail Center Project would require approvals from these agencies: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Thruway Authority New York State Department of Transportation Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities and Westchester County Health Department Westchester County Planning Board Summary of Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions Land Use Designation of the Redevelopment Area for Urban Renewal would commit the area to redevelopment as a large scale retail center. Proposed land use changes would result in the loss of approximately 140,000 square feet of nonresidential space proximate to Interstate 95 in southeastern Westchester County, 31 residences and two churches. The Redevelopment Area supports almost 40 business establishments, which would be dislocated. Relocation impacts to these businesses are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.8. The redevelopment of the area, however, would also result in the removal of blight in the Redevelopment Area. Blight manifests itself in the Redevelopment Area in several ways, including: • Incompatible land use relationships • Incompatible mixed uses within the same structure • Improper location of structures • Excessive land coverage • Improper or inadequate building conversions • Excessive dwelling unit density • Obsolete building types • Inadequate or deficient street pattern including lack of sufficient parking or loading space 1-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 A detailed discussion, including photographs of the existing blighted conditions in the Redevelopment Area, is included in Chapters 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, 3.5 Neighborhood Character, and 3.6 Visual Character. To the extent the proposed Retail Center Project is successful and would attract interest in the area as a commercial area, it may induce additional development. Such potential growth inducing effects include the potential for land values to increase causing increased pressure for turnover of existing uses, and/or assemblage of properties for additional commercial development projects. Apart from the Redevelopment Area, however, most surrounding areas of the City of New Rochelle and the adjacent portions of the Town of Mamaroneck are generally developed with residential or nonresidential uses (usually on small lots), or consist of designated parkland, and are currently zoned as such. The presence of the New England Thruway, which bisects this area of New Rochelle and limits the number of connections from the north to the south, also would tend to limit the potential amount of pressure for infill commercial development and/or redevelopment. Secondary land use effects in New Rochelle would be expected to be limited to the neighborhood of mixed residential, commercial and industrial uses to the west of the Redevelopment Area. For retail use, the contiguous area between Fifth Avenue and the ramp to the southbound New England Thruway (from Madison Street), and the area south of the ramps have a somewhat higher probability to experience redevelopment pressure. Zoning Except for loading requirements, the proposed Retail Center Project site plan complies with all of the currently applicable requirements of the M-1 zoning designation. However, to implement the goals of the draft Urban Renewal Plan, the City proposes to rezone the Redevelopment Area to specifically accommodate a large-scale retail use. • Large-Scale Retail Facilities • Stores and shops exclusively for sales at retail or the performance of customary personal services. • Business, professional or government offices • Restaurants According to the proposed URLSR zoning amendment, a Large-Scale Retail Facility is defined as "a very large store or group of stores containing a minimum of 100,000 square feet of gross floor area each, situated on a large tract of land (a minimum of 10 acres) that offer a wide selection of goods in special retail categories. Special retail categories consists of goods carried by such retail establishments with a particular focus or theme, such as home furnishings, office supplies, building materials, books, videos, toys, etc." A retail store of the size proposed is allowed as of right under the current M-1 zoning designation. The New Rochelle City Council would be the approving agency for adoption of the zoning changes consistent with the ultimately adopted Urban Renewal Plan, as well all site plan 1-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 applications. The proposed Retail Center Project would comply with all provisions of the proposed URLSR zoning. Conformity with the City of New Rochelle Comprehensive Plan and the Proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan The Proposed Actions are consistent with the policies and strategies contained in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan for New Rochelle. The proposed Urban Renewal Plan presents the opportunity for a comprehensive redevelopment of the 16.4-acre area targeted in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan through the elimination of incompatible, nonconforming uses, and substandard lots. The development of the proposed Retail Center by the Applicant would conform to New Rochelle's Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Urban Renewal Plan by combining disparate lots and establishing a unified and functional 14.9-acre site plan in place of the mixed and conflicting uses that presently exist and contribute to the blight in that area. In addition, the proposed Retail Center Project would achieve many of the following redevelopment objectives of the proposed Urban Renewal Plan: • elimination of unsightly, unsafe and substandard vacated and boarded-up buildings, as well as substandard occupied buildings that exert a blighting influence in the proposed area • elimination of incompatible land uses and obsolete structures • elimination of environmental deficiencies by providing a 14.9-acre area for a large-scale retail development site • acquisition of a 14.9 acres of the 16.4-acre proposed Urban Renewal Area to develop a site for retail commercial development • redevelopment and revitalization of the area as a viable commercial district through the development of a unified and functional site plan for the retail center • improvement of public utilities, streets, parking and other public facilities in order to properly serve the proposed development • continuation of the City's overall efforts to make New Rochelle a regional retail destination and therein reestablish the identity/image of New Rochelle as a viable business community • provision of a 14.9-acre site to facilitate the expansion of the City's tax base • creation of approximately 400 short-term construction and 350 permanent jobs Conformity With Patterns for Westchester The proposed Retail Center Project generally conforms to long-range development objectives for Westchester County as expressed in Patterns. Patterns recommends that new development in Westchester be located in existing development centers and in already developed transportation corridors having infrastructure to support growth. Patterns recommends a classification for the Redevelopment Area of High Density Urban with an intensity ranging between 4 and 6. The High Density Urban 4-6 designation corresponds to a recommended range of floor area ratios of between 0.2 and 0.8. The proposed floor area for the proposed Retail Center Project is 308,000 square feet of floor area over an approximate 14.9-acre site, or a floor area ratio of 0.475. This FAR is within Patterns' recommended range of floor areas of between 130,000 and 520,00 square feet. Topography Extensive topographic changes at the margins of the Redevelopment Area are not proposed since buildings, sidewalks and portions of reconstructed streets would have to match the 1-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 grades and elevations of existing streets. Excavation would be required in the southeast and southwest portions of the Redevelopment Area due to higher topography and rock in those areas, and the need to provide a level parking area at an elevation similar to Fifth Avenue. Soils and Proposed Grading In order to provide level parking areas, the entire Redevelopment Area, or approximately 14.9 acres would require grading to some degree. Based upon preliminary estimates by the Project Engineer, approximately 53,000 cubic yards of material would be cut to achieve design surface elevations. This amount includes approximately 9,000 cubic yards of rock. Where possible, excavated material would be distributed to other areas of the Redevelopment Area for the grading of parking areas or at the southern ends of Biehn Street and Valley Place. Based upon estimates of required grading, approximately 53,000 cubic yards of material would require removal from the Redevelopment Area to approved disposal areas. Rock blasting would be required in the southwestern and southeastern portions of the Redevelopment Area to allow construction of the parking structure. The closest residences to areas of potential blasting are approximately 175 feet away on Plain Avenue, in the western portion of the Redevelopment Area. There are also residences approximately 75 feet away on Valley Place. The potential effects of blasting would be minimized through the use of proper blasting techniques, as described in Chapter 3.13 Construction Impacts. Groundwater Groundwater is not used for water supply in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area. Following construction, the Redevelopment Area would have slightly less impermeable surfaces (pavement and buildings), than it does today. Thus, there would be no significant change in area recharge following project implementation. Since stormwater run-off from the Redevelopment Area would be collected and directed to the City's stormwater system, run-off from the proposed Retail Center Project is not expected to impact groundwater quality. Ecology Since the Redevelopment Area is located in an urban setting, existing vegetation and wildlife habitat are extremely limited. The NYSDEC has identified no threatened or endangered species, or significant habitat within the Redevelopment Area or adjacent to it. As vegetation within the Redevelopment Area is sparse and there are no natural or significant wildlife habitat areas, the proposed Retail Center Project is not expected to result in any significant ecological impacts. Stormwater The proposed Retail Center Project would result in the redesign and replacement of the stormwater collection system within the Redevelopment Area. Based upon engineering estimates, post-development impervious conditions are expected to be reduced slightly, by 0.17 acres, over existing conditions. Since the stormwater run-off rates from the Drainage Study Area are not projected to increase, no project-related impacts would be expected for downstream stormwater infrastructure and flow capacity conditions. 1-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 The quality of stormwater discharging from the Drainage Study Area to the municipal stormwater system is projected to be improved under the proposed stormwater management plan. Stormwater treatment would occur in Stormceptor Treatment Units, underground extended detention basins, and overland flow in an existing swale at the southern border of the Drainage Study Area. An important factor in the improvement of stormwater quality in the post-development condition would be the removal of existing non-point sources of stormwater pollution from the Redevelopment Area. Stormwater run-off from older urban areas, such as the Redevelopment Area, typically contain relatively high levels of stormwater pollutants, such as phosphorus, nitrogen and biological oxygen demand (BOD). Existing sources of pollutants may include: existing vehicle maintenance activities; the long term storage of vehicles undergoing repairs, construction vehicles, and buses; the commercial use of diesel fuel and gasoline; and the outdoor storage of petroleum and /or chemical containers. Neighborhood Character Adoption of the Urban Renewal Plan and construction of the proposed Retail Center Project would result in the removal of all existing structures within the Primary Study Area. Blighting characteristics currently present in the Redevelopment Area would be eliminated, including: incompatible land use relationships, excessive land coverage, improper or inadequate building conversions, obsolete building types, and inadequate or deficient street pattern including lack of sufficient parking or loading space. The proposed Retail Center Project would replace the mix of buildings and activities with a new, single-use retail facility with accessory parking on three sides. The character of the Redevelopment Area would be dramatically transformed, with a major retail facility replacing the mix of commercial, residential and community uses which characterize the area currently. The mix of existing uses, on smaller lots with a variety of appearances, maintenance levels and site development, would be replaced by a large, single structure with a unified appearance. The amount of pedestrian and vehicular activity in the neighborhood would change. At present most activity is associated with numerous and varied commercial operations. This activity would increase with traffic traveling to and from the new retail facility (see traffic chapter). This activity would be concentrated along the Fifth Avenue entrances. For the existing pizza restaurant and the residence and business on the east side of Portman Road immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Area there would be increased automobile and delivery and service truck traffic accessing the western portion of at-grade parking, overnight truck storage and loading in the service area of the proposed Retail Center. Changes in visual character are described in detail in Chapter 3.6 of this document. Noise levels at the perimeter of the Redevelopment Area are expected to increase with the introduction of customer traffic, delivery vehicles and on-site operations, such as truck loading and HVAC equipment. Interstate 95 is the predominant source of background noise at noise monitoring locations. It is expected that 1-95 would continue to be the primary source of background noise at these locations in the future. Thus, although the adoption of the Urban Renewal Plan and construction of the Retail Center Project would dramatically alter the existing land uses, activity and appearance in the Redevelopment Area, and affect the current residents and businesses, the change in 1-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 pedestrian usage, traffic and noise levels would not result in significant adverse effects on the general neighborhood character. Substantial increases in the volume of traffic, as a percentage of base traffic, can affect the character of a street. This may be so even if traffic operations are still acceptable. On commercial streets and more heavily trafficked roads, the effect of more intense traffic is already part of the character of the area. Less trafficked roadways and streets bordered by residential uses and community institutions such as schools are more sensitive to increases in volume as it relates to the character of the area. Those residential streets in the Study Area, which would be most sensitive to increases in Project-related traffic, as it relates to neighborhood character, would include: Murray Avenue between Myrtle Boulevard and Weaver Street (19 percent change); Myrtle Boulevard between Murray Avenue and Weaver Street (19 percent); Eastchester Road between North Avenue and Pelhamdale Avenue (13 percent); Lincoln Avenue between North Avenue and 1st Avenue (10 percent); Weaver Street between Murray Avenue and Hutchinson Avenue (7 percent); Pinebrook Boulevard between Quaker Ridge Road and Beechmont Drive (2 percent); and Beechmont Drive between Pinebrook Boulevard and North Avenue (1 percent). These percentages apply to "worse case" Saturday midday peak hour traffic. Because of its location as an access way to the site, Fifth Avenue between Pinebrook Road and North Avenue would also experience a higher increase in peak hour traffic volume at 78 percent. Fifth Avenue, however, has characteristics more of a through road than the aforementioned streets above and is a designated truck route. With the exception of Fifth Avenue, none of the other residential streets would have increases in Saturday peak hour traffic in excess of 20 percent. During the weekday PM peak hour, these streets would not have an increase exceeding 5 percent in total traffic. On a daily basis, percentage increases on these residential streets would be lower than peak hour increases. This level of increased traffic density would generally not be expected to significantly affect the character of these streets or adjoining residences. Visual Environment Construction of the Retail Center Project would result in a significant change in the visual environment of this neighborhood. Existing mixed use buildings, outside storage yards, extensive areas of chain link fencing, and large areas allocated to vehicular storage would be replaced by a modern, single use retail building with ancillary parking and circulation, and associated landscaping. The result would be a different visual environment with new building and new streetscapes. This visual change to the neighborhood would be characterized, especially along Fifth Avenue, by new construction of a single building structure at a consistent setback from the street, with new street trees, evergreen trees and deciduous and evergreen shrubs, and elimination of the existing conglomeration of fenced yards, open storage of vehicles and construction materials. The articulated Fifth Avenue facade would introduce a consistent architectural feature to this visual corridor. The proposed plantings would soften the impact of the new structure and parking areas, provide a consistent streetscape along Fifth Avenue, and 1-10 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 would appropriately screen or accent portions of the development as viewed from surrounding locations. The Retail Center Project would command a prominent position in the neighborhood, both as viewed from the Thruway and as experienced from the Fifth Avenue street corridor. The proposed Retail Center Project would replace mixed development with a single highly visible presence. As the proposed Retail Center Project would occupy an area which is now developed with buildings 2 to 21/2 stories in height, no significant change from existing conditions is expected with regard to exposure to sunlight for surrounding properties. The proposed exterior lighting would create illumination unlike the pattern of lighting, which currently exists in the Redevelopment Area. Lighting would be concentrated on the parking, loading, and entrance areas of the development, which occupy the west, south and east sides of the Retail Center Project site. Coordinated lighting would improve nighttime safety in the Redevelopment Area. Disparate sources, intensities and types of lighting that now exist would be replaced with planned and balanced illumination specifically designed to provide aesthetically pleasing, as well as safe levels of lighting for a commercial use. The proposed development would conform with §331-53D.(6) of the City of New Rochelle Zoning Ordinance regarding lighting of off-street parking areas. Lighting fixtures would be selected and oriented so that off-site light spillage would be limited. Changes in nighttime exposure from residential properties in the immediate vicinity would be softened somewhat by evergreen plantings proposed along the perimeter of the parking and circulation areas. The effect of the existing floodlighting at the Thruway toll plaza, as well as the ball fields at William Flower Park, would further reduce the impact of night lighting in the Visual Study Area. Historic/Archaeological There are no cultural resources in within or adjacent to the Redevelopment Area that are on or eligible for listing in the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Given the level of disturbance that occurred during the preparation of the area within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area in the early 20th Century, there would be no potentially significant prehistoric cultural resources impacted. Socioeconomics All existing uses within the Primary Study Area would be removed by the proposed Retail Center Project. Initial surveys indicate that the Primary Study Area contains between 30 and 35 households, two churches and 33 commercial or mixed commercial structures. The existing neighborhood has been undergoing a transition to light industrial and automotive/storage use for the past 50 years. Residential uses have been nonconforming in the Redevelopment Area since the zoning was changed to M-1 in the 1950s. One reflection of this change has been that the majority of housing units that remain in the neighborhood are now rented rather than owned. The displacement of residential tenants, church users and businesses from the Redevelopment Area could potentially have a significant adverse impact on individuals depending upon the 1-11 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 resolution of their relocation needs and personal circumstances. Existing Redevelopment Area businesses would either relocate, close their operations, or pursue alternative business opportunities. Between 327 and 347 persons are currently employed by Redevelopment Area businesses. Of this number, 35 persons are already proposed to be relocated out of state, in accordance with a privately negotiated purchase agreement. Eight businesses did not respond to requests for information. Future employees within the Redevelopment Area are expected to be drawn from the local community, and may include people that presently work in the Redevelopment Area. The Applicant has taken a proactive role in the private, voluntary acquisition of properties, which may be used for the relocation of existing businesses within the Redevelopment Area. The Applicant's goal is to acquire all properties privately and relocate existing households and businesses on a gradual, voluntary basis without the use of eminent domain. Significant progress has already occurred in this regard. Many of these properties are being acquired at the Applicant's risk prior to its receipt of any Project approvals. Because of the greater difficulty in securing appropriate nonresidential space, the Applicant is concentrating attention on identifying potential commercial relocation sites rather than housing units at this time. To date, negotiations with existing businesses have been able to secure a total of approximately 19,300 square feet of off-site space located immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Area for relocation opportunities. It is expected that announcements regarding the acquisition of additional off-site commercial relocation space located with the City of New Rochelle will be made in the near future as negotiations are finalized and contracts are executed. In the event that eminent domain is used, relocation assistance would be provided by the City of New Rochelle's Office of Relocation to the legal residential tenants and businesses, which would be displaced by the Proposed Actions. Residential relocation services would include housing referrals, counseling services and potential relocation payments in accordance with state law. A detailed draft Relocation Plan is provided in the Appendix. Subject to New York State guidelines and legal limits, benefits for displaced businesses would include relocation assistance to find new space and financial assistance for reasonable moving expenses. IKEA would reimburse the City for all relocation costs. The results of an analysis of potential impacts on commercial character indicate that the proposed IKEA would not significantly impact the viability or character of local business districts, or existing retail strips and shopping centers. Only a small proportion of the retail establishments in the study area were identified as stores that carry all or part of the IKEA primary product line. With the exception of a department store, which carries some similar home furnishings goods, none were determined to be traditional anchors of the retail areas in which they are located. Based on existing operations at other IKEA stores, the Applicant expects to hire approximately 350 workers. These would include approximately 180 part-time and 170 full-time workers. These jobs would represent a sizable increase in the City's retail employment base, which in the 1997 Census of Retail Trade totaled 2,581 workers. Based on labor hour estimates for retail projects included in the Development Impact Assessment Handbook published by the Urban Land Institute (1994), the Retail Center Project would be expected to generate approximately 400 person-years of construction employment over the construction period. 1-12 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 Table 1-1 summarizes and compares projected annual property and sales tax revenues with projected annual costs associated with the proposed Retail Center Project. Table 1-1 Projected Fiscal Impact Summary (Westchester County & New Rochelle) Westchester New City School District Sewer District Total County Rochelle of New Rochelle Property Tax Revenues $245,613 $394,983 $1,211,296 $64,414 $1,916,306 Sales Tax Revenues $1,380,000 $2,300,000 $-0- $-0- $3,680,000 Removed Property Tax ($82,282) ($141,224) ($431,114) ($23,149) ($677,769) Revenues Removed Sales Tax Not available Not available $-0- $-0- Not available Revenues Anticipated Costs Not calculated ($113,450) $-0- $-0- ($113,450) Net Fiscal Surplus $1,543,331 $2,440,309 $780,182 $41,265 $4,805,087 SOURCE: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. Traffic The traffic study focused on the three traffic peak hours traffic as being the most critical to understanding project-related change and impacts: weekday PM, Saturday midday and Saturday PM. During the weekday PM peak hour, commuters share the roads with other people who are shopping or running errands. In the Friday PM peak hour during a typical week, the proposed Retail Center would generate 183 inbound trips and 172 outbound trips. During the Saturday midday peak hour, the proposed Project would generate 740 inbound and 567 outbound trips in a "typical week." During "sale weeks," which occur only about 10 percent of the year, the number of Friday PM peak hour trips would increase by 18 percent and the number of Saturday midday peak hour trips would increase 35 percent. These higher "sale week" site-generated volumes were used in the traffic analysis. The type of change that would occur to local intersections as a result of peak hour site-generated traffic traveling to and from the proposed Retail Center can be placed into five categories shown in the first column of Table 1-2. This table compares the Build Condition including Mitigation Measures with the No-Build Condition and shows the number of intersections that would fall into each of the five listed categories by peak hour. Using the same five categories, Table 1-3 shows the change in traffic operating conditions at each of the 48 study area intersections between the No-Build Condition and the Build Condition with Mitigation. In conclusion, the traffic study found that implementation of the proposed Retail Center Project would increase traffic levels in the study area, but due to the mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant, these traffic increases would not adversely impact upon study area intersections. 1-13 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 A discussion of traffic volume increase on local roads in streets and implications for "quality of life" impacts are discussed in the Neighborhood Character Section. Table 1-2 Comparison Summary Number of Intersections that would Improve, Remain the Same or Worsen Build Condition with Mitigation vs. No-Build Condition Change Compared with No-Build Symbol Weekday Saturday Saturday y PM Midday PM 1. Intersections that would operate much better 12 7 9 with noticeably less overall delay because of Applicant sponsored mitigation. 2. Intersections that would operate a little better T 2 5 2 with slightly less overall delay because of Applicant sponsored mitigation. 3. Intersections not significantly affected by the ❑ 30 29 28 proposed Retail Center. 4. Intersections that would operate a little 4, 4 7 9 worse with slightly more overall delay, even with Applicant sponsored mitigation 5. Intersections that would operate much worse 4 0 0 0 with noticeably more overall delay, despite Applicant sponsored mitigation. Total Intersections Analyzed 48 48 48 1-14 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS --1 Executive Summary September 14, 2000 11111 Table 1-3 Comparison Summary Intersection Operating Conditions Build Condition with Mitigation vs. No-Build Condition Study Intersection Traffic Weekday Saturday Saturday Mitigation Control PM Midday PM Action Fifth Avenue and Portman Road (1) NR S 4, 4, 4, 1, 4.5 Fifth Avenue and Valley Place (2) NR/MT US 4, 4, ❑ 2, 3,4, 5 Fifth Avenue and Pinebrook Road (3) NR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Fifth Avenue and North Avenue (4) NR S T 4, 4, 1, 3 Chatsworth Ave. and Palmer Ave. (5) LR S T T T 1 Chatsworth Avenue and Myrtle Blvd. (6) MT S Cl ❑ C] Murray Avenue and Myrtle Boulevard (7) MT S T T T 1 Lincoln Avenue and North Avenue(8) NR S 4, T 4, 1 Fifth Avenue and Potter Avenue (9) NR S ❑ 4, 4, 1 Madison Ave& New Jefferson SUI-95 (10) MT US T 4, 4, 2, 3 411 Main Street and Echo Avenue(11) NR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Huguenot Street and River Street(12) NR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Garden Street and 1-95 Interchange (13) NR US ❑ ❑ ❑ Hutch. SB Exit and Weaver Street(14) NR S ❑ T T 1 Intersection Condition Compared with No-Build Traffic Control T Operates much better S: Signalized Intersection T Operates a little better US: Unsignalized Intersection ❑ Not significantly affected 4- Operates a little worse 40 Operates much worse Municipality EC Eastchester Mitigation Action HR Harrison 1. Signal timing adjusted LR Larchmont 2. Traffic signal added MA Mamaroneck (Village) 3. Pavement re-striped, turn-lane added MT Mamaroneck (Town) 4. Pavement widened, turn-lane added MV Mount Vernon SC Scarsdale 5. Additional right-of-way needed NR New Rochelle WP White Plains 411111 1-15 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 Table 1-3 (Continued) Comparison Summary Intersection Operating Conditions Build Condition with Mitigation vs. No-Build Condition Study Intersection Traffic Weekday Saturday Saturday Mitigation Control PM Midday PM Action Hutchinson Ave. and Weaver Street(15) NR US T T T 2 Quaker Ridge Rd. and Weaver St. (16) NR/SC S T T 4, 1 Murray Avenue and Weaver Street(17) MT US T T T 2 Chatsworth Ave. & New Jefferson St. (18) MT US ❑ ❑ ❑ Garden Street and Cedar Street(19) NR US T T T 2 Ramada Plaza and River Street(20) NR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Pierce Street and Potter Avenue (21) NR S LI ❑ ❑ Petersville Road and Palmer Avenue(22) NR S T T T 1 Beechmont Dr. & Pinebrook Blvd W. (23a) NR US T T T 2 Beechmont Dr. & Pinebrook Blvd E. (23b) NR US ❑ ❑ ❑ Quaker Ridge Rd . & Pinebrook W. (24a) NR US ❑ ❑ ❑ Quaker Ridge Rd. & Pinebrook E. (24b) NR US ❑ ❑ ❑ Stratton Road and Pinebrook Blvd. (25) NR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Stratton Road and Weaver Street (26) NR/SC S ❑ ❑ ❑ Chatsworth Ave. and Boston Post Rd (27) LR S T ❑ T 1 New Rochelle Rd. & California Rd. (28) EC S ❑ ❑ 4, 1 Eastchester Rd & Pelhamdale Rd (29) NR/MV S ❑ ❑ ❑ Eastchester Road and North Avenue (30) NR S 4, 4. ❑ 1 Intersection Condition Compared with No-Build Traffic Control T Operates much better S: Signalized Intersection T Operates a little better US: Unsignalized Intersection ❑ Not significantly affected 4, Operates a little worse 4 Operates much worse Municipality EC Eastchester Mitigation Action HR Harrison 1. Signal timing adjusted LR Larchmont 2.Traffic signal added MA Mamaroneck (Village) 3. Pavement re-striped, turn-lane added MT Mamaroneck (Town) 4. Pavement widened, turn-lane added MV Mount Vernon SC Scarsdale 5. Additional right-of-way needed NR New Rochelle WP White Plains 1-16 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 Table 1-3 (Continued) Summary Comparison Intersection Operating Conditions Build Condition with Mitigation vs. No-Build Condition Study Intersection Traffic Weekday Saturday Saturday Mitigation Control PM Midday PM Action Beechmont Drive and North Avenue (31) NR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Lincoln Avenue and Memorial Hwy (32) NR S Li y y 1 Hutch Pkwy&Mamaroneck Ave (33) WP/HR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Weaver Street and Myrtle Boulevard (34) MT S T ❑ T 1, 3 Quaker Ridge Rd and North Ave (35) NR S T ❑ ❑ 1 Huguenot Street and North Avenue (36) NR S L ❑ ❑ Main Street and North Avenue (37) NR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Mamaroneck Ave & Mt. Pleasant Ave (38) MA S rr + 4i 1 Mt. Pleasant Ave and Palmer Ave (39) MA S ❑ ❑ ❑ Weaver Street and Palmer Avenue (40) MT S Li El ❑ Depot Way East and Palmer Avenue(41) LR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Depot Way West and Palmer Avenue (42) LR S ❑ ri ❑ Larchmont Ave and Palmer Avenue (43) LR S ❑ ❑ Pinebrook Drive and Palmer Avenue (44) LR S Li E ❑ Weaver Street and Boston Post Road (45) MT S ❑ ❑ ❑ Larchmont Ave. and Boston Post Rd. (46) LR S ❑ T T 1 Beach Avenue and Boston Post Road (47) LR S Ci ❑ ❑ Winans Street and Boston Post Road (48) LR US ❑ ❑ ❑ Intersection Conditio Compared with No-Build Traffic Control + Operates much better S: Signalized Intersection T Operates a little better US: Unsignalized Intersection ❑ Not significantly affected 4. Operates a little worse 4 Operates much worse Municipality EC Eastchester Mitigation Action HR Harrison 1. Signal timing adjusted LR Larchmont 2. Traffic signal added MA Mamaroneck (Village) 3. Pavement re-striped, turn-lane added MT Mamaroneck (Town) 4. Pavement widened, turn-lane added MV Mount Vernon SC Scarsdale 5. Additional right-of-way needed NR New Rochelle WP White Plains 1-17 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 Air Quality The Retail Center Project would result in a greater than 0.5 ppm degradation of carbon monoxide; however, it would not violate the attainment standard, nor constitute a significant environmental impact under SEQRA. During demolition and construction, fugitive dust would be generated, but controlled with typical construction techniques. Noise Future noise as a result of project-generated truck and automobile traffic is not projected to increase peak hour noise levels at any location examined by more than five dBA. During construction, areas outside and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area would experience short term elevated noise associated with blasting, pile driving and construction activities. Water and Sewers/Utilities Future demand for utilities is expected to be similar to existing uses within the Redevelopment Area. Thus, no significant change would occur. City Services - Solid Waste, Fire, Police The Applicant would contract with a private carter for solid waste pickup. Thus, no burden to City services will occur. The City Fire Department provided the Applicant with certain design criteria relative to fire safety and protection. With the incorporation of the aforementioned design criteria, the Fire Department does not foresee any problems providing fire protection or emergency medical services to the proposed Retail Center Project. As is the Applicant's usual operating procedure, the proposed Retail Center Project would utilize on-site security staff to provide security for both the interior and exterior parking lot portions of the Redevelopment Area. Exterior security staff would be equipped with a vehicle and communications device. Other security requirements would include the installation of in-progress crime and burglar detection systems, the strategic placements of lighting fixtures and public telephones around the proposed Retail Center's perimeter, installation of closed circuit television (CCTV) with recording devices to be monitored by security personnel, and a system for cart security designed to prevent merchandise-carrying devices from leaving the premises. Plans for security crime prevention hardware and for lighting would be required to be approved by the Police Department prior to construction. Construction Impacts Construction impacts would be of a short term nature and would occur over a 12 to 18 month period. Construction will involve the demolition of all structures within the Redevelopment Area, grading to make the site ready for construction, installation of necessary infrastructure and construction of the proposed building and parking areas. Construction would also involve offsite improvements relating to traffic mitigation, as discussed earlier. The City and the Applicant would coordinate in the development and implementation of a Construction Management Plan for the proposed Retail Center Project. The Applicant would be responsible for the monitoring of construction progress and contractor adherence to the 1-18 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 Construction Management Plan. The contractor's construction manager would be required to maintain progress reports to ensure that the City is informed of construction progress and potential impacts. The Applicant would work with the City to provide information to the public. especially local residents, regarding those construction activities that would directly affect the public, such as blasting or traffic diversions. Issues of concern during construction may include the rerouting of local traffic, the addition of construction traffic to local roads, dust, noise, and the potential for worker exposure to contaminants such as asbestos, lead paint, or petroleum contaminated soil. Hazardous Materials Phase I and targeted Phase II investigations were conducted in the Redevelopment area. A single known source of petroleum contamination was confirmed in the Redevelopment Area, the Citgo Service Station at 479 Fifth Avenue. Petroleum related compounds were found in groundwater samples from the two wells in the vicinity of the Citgo Station in concentrations that exceeded State standards for multiple compounds. Additional investigation activities will consist of placing soil borings and monitoring wells on the Citgo Station property and on adjoining properties, if possible, to define the horizontal and vertical limits of contamination. Existing monitoring wells on the property may also be utilized for sample collection. This study will also investigate the layout of building foundations and utilities, since these may provide pathways for contaminant migration. A detailed soil and groundwater sampling program will provide the information needed to estimate quantities of contaminated media and depending upon the quantities, potential remediation scenarios and cost estimates. It is noted that groundwater in the area is not used as a drinking water source, nor does it discharge into a sensitive receptor. The Applicant will solicit recommendations from NYSDEC and the City regarding these results. Significant environmental effects from either the Citgo Station or other potential releases are not expected, since all such materials encountered will either be remediated during the demolition phase (i.e. soil removal in conjunction with tank removals), or will be addressed during construction, pursuant to a health and safety plan. Remediation of the Citgo property and adjacent affected land may be accomplished using standard remediation technologies. Any required excavation or installation of remediation infrastructure (venting systems, piping, recovery wells) will be made easier given the fact that the Citgo Service Station and surrounding buildings are proposed to be demolished. As indicated previously, privately held property in the Redevelopment Area has not been inspected for environmental conditions. In conjunction with property acquisition, each commercial property, under provisions of the purchase contract, will be inspected by a qualified environmental professional and the owner/manager interviewed regarding the handling, storage and disposal of petroleum and hazardous materials. The inspections will focus on those properties that are current or former Generators of Hazardous Waste and properties which typically use petroleum and hazardous materials, such as vehicle repair facilities. Follow-up testing or sampling will be conducted prior to construction in any area of concern identified through the inspections. 1-19 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Executive Summary September 14, 2000 Underground petroleum storage tanks would be removed from the Redevelopment Area during the demolition phase of construction. This work would be performed by qualified petroleum tank contractors. If any current or former petroleum releases are identified during the tank removal process, they would be removed from the site by qualified environmental consultants working in consultation with the City and the NYSDEC. Alternatives This DEIS considers seven alternatives to the Proposed Actions, including: 1) No Action Alternative, which assumes that the Redevelopment Area remains in its current condition and the proposed Urban Renewal Plan and Retail Center Project are not implemented; 2) No Site Plan Approval Alternative, which assumes that the proposed Urban Renewal Plan is adopted, but the Retail Center Project is not approved; 3) No Build Alternative, which assumes that the proposed Urban Renewal Plan and Retail Center Project are not implemented, but that other public policy initiatives are undertaken with the goal of improving conditions in the Redevelopment Area; 4) Modified Plan Configuration Alternative, which considers modifications to the proposed Retail Center's site layout; 5) Alternative Location, which considers other locations in New Rochelle for the proposed Retail Center; 6) Redevelopment Alternative, which considers alternatives to the proposed Urban Renewal Plan and Large Scale Retail Zone; and 7) No Impact Alternatives, which would eliminate unmitigatible significant impacts. 1-20 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS 2.1 Introduction The Proposed Actions involve the adoption of the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan, ("Urban Renewal Plan"), and the applicable zoning text, map changes and other approvals to permit the proposed redevelopment of a 16.4-acre area in the City of New Rochelle (the "Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area" or "Urban Renewal Area"). Related to the above, is the proposed selection and approval of IKEA, North America ("IKEA") as the qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment of a 14.9-acre portion of the 16.4-acre Urban Renewal Area (known as the "Retail Center Project"), and site plan approval for a new retail facility. Figure 2-1 shows the generalized location of the Proposed Actions. If approved, the Retail Center Project could be completed and opened by 2002. The 16.4-acre Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area is located in the east central area of New Rochelle, adjacent to the City's boundary with the Town of Mamaroneck. It is generally bounded by Valley Place, the New England Thruway, Biehn Street, Portman Road, and Fifth Avenue. The 14.9-acre Retail Center Project site (the "Redevelopment Area") proposed to be utilized by IKEA (also known as the proposed "qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment", or "the Applicant"), is shown in Figure 2-2 Proposed Actions-Location Map. As shown in Figure 2-3, the Redevelopment Area excludes three properties along the east side of Portman Road between Fifth and Plain Avenues, as well as Thruway lands which border the north side of the New England Thruway. From north to south, the three properties along the east side of Portman Road currently support a pizzeria restaurant, a two-family home, and a parking lot. These properties are, however, included in the proposed 16.4-acre Urban Renewal Area. The boundaries of the proposed Urban Renewal Area and Redevelopment Area are illustrated in Figure 2-3 Proposed Actions Boundary Survey/Aerial Photograph. The Retail Center Project proposed by IKEA involves construction of a two-story 308,000 square foot retail furniture and home furnishings store with approximately 1,572 off-street parking spaces on 14.9 acres. Parking would be provided on a one-level parking deck and at-grade, both under the building and the parking deck, and in adjacent at-grade parking areas to the east and west of the proposed building. The first floor of the Retail Center would contain 218,000 square feet and the second floor would contain 90,000 square feet. The main entrance to the Retail Center structure would face south toward the New England Thruway. A detailed description of the proposed building and ancillary facilities that may ultimately be built on the site is provided in Section 2.6. Major use areas comprising almost 80 percent of the building would include a Markethall, a full self service warehouse, and a showroom, all for the display of furniture and related goods. The Retail Center is expected to be open 7 days a week, except on Christmas. Hours of operation are expected to be 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM Mondays through Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays. Vehicular access to the Redevelopment Area is proposed from Fifth Avenue, Valley Place, Portman Road, Plain Avenue, and Biehn Street. 2-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 2.2 Background 2.2.1 Master Plans and Economic Development Studies 1965 and 1966 Master Plans In 1965, the City of New Rochelle issued a report entitled Master Plan: 1 Recommendations Towards the Evolution of a Development Policy/ 1965-2015. Master Plan: 1 discussed the City of New Rochelle's Development Concept for the years 1965 to 2015, a period of 50 years. A principal recommendation of the 1965 Development Concept was that the City should "expeditiously" adopt a sound and logical industrial development policy. Through the conservation of the little land available for industrial development and, if necessary, through the tool of urban renewal, the City was directed to plan "immediately" for its industrial future. Master Plan: 1, among other things, directed the "total elimination of slums and blight and the assurance that none will reoccur" as a goal towards future development. It recommended that data concerning blight and blighting influences be assembled on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, and that this material examine the social and physical manifestations of "blight". The 1966 Master Plan: Neighborhood Analysis was issued as a second stage in the New Rochelle long range Comprehensive Planning program. The information presented in the Neighborhood Analysis was developed as a means to define and measure conditions in the City existing at the time, as a step towards the promulgation of additional programs geared to the removal of blight and deterioration in the City. For the purposes of the neighborhood analysis, the 1966 Master Plan noted the factors causing both residential and nonresidential deficiencies, including: • Incompatible land use relationships • Incompatible mixed uses within the same structure • Improper location of structures • Excessive land coverage • Improper or inadequate building conversions • Excessive dwelling unit density • Obsolete building types • Inadequate or deficient street pattern, including lack of sufficient parking and loading space The Fifth Avenue Industrial Park neighborhood was specifically discussed in the 1965 Master Plan: 1. The conclusions drawn in the neighborhood blight analysis were, as follows: • New industry in the area has been of a relatively small building size and has not encompassed major industrial uses. While new industry is vitally needed by the City to increase its tax base, the magnitude of the industrial development should be such to make a sizable increase in the City's tax return. 2-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS 2. -u- 4 in 1 tt,,,)`--` ....„.w.a.g..,,-1 ) o,y Gym rr+<: I o JV '\<'4'7'v,„/</i . .2qs,� m T na 0 JE \'' o oy�Ro:' i Ftt ti L/ N-atR (. /J a P `/. //�' //. e 1644 i v W I \ \f 'I� \ ./ I EE .��� HILL. y ,` - .t� %��, i ` '1 �Uo�` J£a U°. •/.. 1251 - �.' •aim: PJ \72 e ch n� \. Cv1.f.-0.----) 4+474'\>'•,.. OYt .4D / •I 0 0'0 MO(tu ©/© Oe.: C 00 . c R /A,,,,i,, c N. vn i`\51'� / eche i1. i P¢O Sch l ' \\ JJLTLN1 ' jL k. \t, Ra ' P /,„_,, P/"-..,_ ,,,, O� / * ' i Huq•eno G D \3� PAR' 1 • .^�", `� .! ^9�' `_._ake(69 1` �`-� . .6__°).4011> `� `` PJB �17� . /e�'�P ''"',. \ • /� r Pa ( + o� �� i• I hI� %v j 31 ,-,.., (...\\1,.at o• Zvi/� _, •R. , Iona 1t Proposed Actions ' y 7,70 l ,ill. - '4 S E./ n 1 1 ,6-,L/.. . P, m . t. , I I X I -fY� 7:.' 'ay Ow =\C'�\ P�\ i fights 1/?'/� /� ✓ �PJ£ %\ 1 W 1y�,2 •;t Ro / • ' o �-i� ,'SR' s .° ,Cll ,\`1 . n J �� — �C �`Pa k _`} \ \oo•A`, �q0 a 4• \ o �(i yy -.-/1 µpO°:INE 'L s.r. m `-:IGNt AveV ‘,C ,_,,V/ `t l 4��,,, ♦ ,,,^ / -xi '..- IAI � kel .� �mco tc.Home� t ity .alA •\`�i� �� �jV 1�m \`tO � � 1 �. --- \ ,6h� �� \ \tv - iiirtig 4 !:: ,..7,14/ ,,M17,4lca.vt.yr,- \ , - \\. •c.„,„,,,‘ „,, ?h. (n,...„,_„ „., . /\ _, ) , Am st_th .,; - .. **-LI, .'ar •)]-1"-K. di //\ ( •77.--' 0 ,/ Ile / -- \ , --?,y 1:12/ =J.- --„n\ e ._ -l{'ark\o� �/%4,, lr � / \ :. fr\ E*,l! e _- •"E �LJj /'"• '\\ \F..elii' \i tt,P. „,>\ \) / 0 f/ L 2L1.�)O'12[� ' r -mzikal avE_1----,..,--, v/ ,' rmor,-.r :liffo r °all ! S� l�ln,.0.____0, ,,,,,0){:2, +� 1 y�� '� • t . „i- en It \! (d,o � Ans I o° .: Park , . y x. °. �' fes* �l i`'r� °s° �a}ik l+ta$;.y7, /:/ k yi_„Table \__-. -us YON r ...,0.. ..,,,,...* -'E Rock * br Sc waar{N6 lit! b Sc.• /� ' . i;;- `yu C--+o ��1 di,. 40 �� 'CSedg0`.. cht lub .*. y \C 5f , � , , G��F,y::. Ir . l ‘) :M 4'i�Viht thnO. ,,..,,Harrison l I \ 11 -4;0< \ >/.\ 1 • ,`4i$eaufort 4 i +; 7 � � y t �`.r� .yL ` O ..... So` pX �a��_) A. r , 1 _ `✓e� a F j c��\`• \\ echo ly .P remi u m \ j • ame I '�tY�`. �uCk t Cemetery G ° \/ /\v'` '�s \•\ <:51 Echo Bay Cemetery t j� Alb ..-7,, ar y Trtmty ''.j-N,€..‘. Hicks 1 �, 'oun> Sch :.r::.;::#,4- Bailey 22 6 Led E Q� v Jr .,� 5ch ) ,� Rock' 6 til7 4a ' .,sR:;i.en \a ��\ \,. `•T �Q s�_of -.EZ'o v J1 a r. ,\ p a)-Ar.of i 25 • ili 1 / \\iff,s,/ fii. 7" \ % tip' .OLL: E'�F\,� 65, i •:1LU5 (� / 20 1 P 15 E oc' LL j h/ltp, I; �•.01 2< 27 • 7 jsty } •4 // .� 2 ire al� 'i �' . i/.4,,/ e° Island 25 '1�3 5374 95 't l .:::-' n. \F< ,131-'.sed t o va / ` ffei. ., v Cem \ \ q a. �? ,' `Middle /, z q .10-Y.-,, Park . Ground Figure 2-1 : Generalized Location of Proposed Actions W E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York s Source:N.Y.S.D.O.T.Mount Vernon Quadrangle Map 07/24/00 GSLM TMA 9916 Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, NY 10516(845) 265-4400, Fax(845)265-4418 i JE `x � v ~� a J --A / U 4 ao r ' `! eP �0 p�OO JE ! o 5t0E oE5S mAz s, lik.y4 L A d-` f ,� 1J ai f04 m GCENBRo0-r 'i. r, o �., r, 40 �--vy 4ODt�PY ? �� c ++ z cll./�Z JNSA{d o cF , Oc'e.0 GEIOpL00 . Oyy1N44. a .,4 O yp O !t94CE 7 ST ST t \ CA8IN Z of / Park. jilt,/ o = � RO �q << OyOR y0�x, -,<::::: Y �0� 4'x P 'C�E 4�ti 0 ,/ aa111167,-AN P� OP.° .4' 0 s p� G,� G1 +! 4tJE P�� 9d 4� iIfs 0 \ - . tt� 7 k i p �0 -, " \ N0yT 144 41,- oi ' ' O ''".° __L- ' 14--.14,4 ` �9 �4ke P g'4NP PARK ` ���5 77 ed.". "`£ a`` TT V v S� PLACE PQ , 4 Z Cj a JP v �O4 } �: 24'Q" b IS ' h' •- k 4` co kk, a4 s4 > o u, v \ t \ . AJ vs. ai. Q� ?' k o EAS{ \ �) x St/ 9 ?L ' �' S //41 slESANT S .,000116 c F Sj F N� •R `-G > D z { C% T v t o._ z Tower �pP C .. N 1 Q N� v �. HARO1 a 40 ti 0` tiG S S Sf o oil �4t ¢ 5�A0 0�\,�a •� E4pA •RTLA NOT SS \ 1 1,/ /� �a CT 4CE 4Stv1A Q, 5. igi `�' m Abp v O C 4 1 . '� e1 o QC w PO RO �P'L `L 0.000 0 0 �� COR�tLa1VNOT D a 04 I 0 ti c.1 g i 1t� S S H1�E � ,yb���AVE tie JA / A fiP rGl/ 5 r 0. 0 (/- sc'oj.. oi, • y 1 ° 0 iz PJENoe d`4. s'r 4 '4 t, W ",` �o c 0 v��g05SOC► P Z0, 4 t /- p9cF $ef. v 4' ` GOOe dr Ale 0EANE - 1 4: ° 4° Legend 4 4 aoJ\cESE o Redevelopment Area a ♦ AJ . X011 >� 0 �{{ 40 �1, m� �tiL ---- Urban Renewal (Area Boundary , . \ t(7A /1/ 0.f/ // 1171r77—'�\ N Figure 2-2: Proposed Actions - Location Map W E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: 1 Inch = 800 Feet S Base Map: NYSDOT Planimetric Map, Mount Vernon, 1990 File 9916 Fig 2-2 SLP TMA 07/24/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845)265-4400 Fax(845)264-4418 Ar. I , -.41 , ,,,, ,. , ' ,„ „._...,..„...„.., _, ,,,,- •_. „ . .., . , , ..... , , . ,..___ _ _ .a... . . .. .,::. ,-.. - ....._, , ,, . • .,„ • 111L • • -- r -.._.._ _ - .. 14 yYb'1i wry /M</ f_•C• ' dr., �. ` A/ ' — ' • l f w 00.0.'".-71""'"''''—....,.. y '+nC.st•-.:. �y�.�.. +'fix:_F, „re4.•ice` 7.�t r:,3., •`rte.a;' i' -' ..ars iia -i ':t ! , ..'. -.. ,ylM • - _ ,7 .. i R '^ t .. N^ : :G ... 1 y.i Lor t d. • i.. "■ - i} d! I '_• • s ! ,�1• t.LOT 1 w. ) r ' LOT C �.. _ c _ •:� 4.. ..i It ... c ' , - , _ �.. r i r' r s y T aT a� ...,� y ,J �, ! t— r �{I'v]u° . �.� ��,�iitt i �C T ts'', F _ it r tar,l r rK.e kr • _91� _ i• ^ ` a� /midi 4 q: ''• • fLR \ `tyi � � ..`� � • � Al� fit T��'-�• -�. 10r Q y, i Y; w r�ty 7 92 V y � I j. ..•!t •- 1, T` t J'. d R.1O.9Y•] •- .". !•P tjj, 1 c .m 77 ,Y* p r ii&L... •p• .r - .f ~ter ,o a r LOT toa sr 9s 'nY.,i r [rar1•1r -lOfoc � j' �� �t �} ,'-:a. .P .IAT 90 ! �.°27-41'-- ,x , � „{'ii '' ; A rx s... i �� �.! 'Ir" ,17" 71<„1 'iF F.�".�R lam' :.? ..�.a nc i�u Y1 ;+I! ry T .R r, j41:41:44A1:-,: � . 7 VENUE d .tom' � _� :oTs q ., ., r .,, s _ •�-;a„ wAT t�1: .?'... `°s IX t ROW.; 91�" ONE '�-Y..• 41111* �' r' a ..�= a tarar+o;rs° ���� 17_,.,„... .,..t, - � 9a' �� � _ t z* ..*. ' r a:.- ssemir- • _a.,,,,� .r Y: �r•Y�x, t as i { � , � I.OTS9 � � •rL7� s�«1 � iy� � �• � - �..,.. 15 �� �1 .� � - .,,,• �v`r, At. 0 ��i ;r`'. tl ± T ae ` t5:. 4 �.: 69Yi1. n 11 j: LOTt, ,+ L K-094 s: \ x 7'1 for x . Ta2 ..r�-`. !k�i _� :r °� p� J• T ,r,c a E ...�... r / Pr � rte;+ (� j ,:.,s, • IDT b' < F _O- 1 • t ° ''�• 1.t. e- �. `"yip- 1 _E -i a >:v111 T 1! yy-- r is I' .'yamt pr Z - .. _�__ .. b: �Z 110 !�O ii11� • xOS, t P_ wr+1. tt °ff- K x® '': Z� r "} n.ro.w*v :k 11� oi: +4it:Li " • • LEA �, '• ;. v t• r .ti: , :.a... us r a' �. 2 TRE T - .s ..i.,.-' . r .'• ,� W_►. .5 LOT 29m a: f 3. - _. _ t �e..�., •�� �� „ • -_ ,.. yY- ;. ., .� .. to? a.. 3�7 � 1: ter' 'f�I � - T'�� • ., 1M�a • ' rLai • jt rL. L. 1 T s. ` `.. ~ f0. iTs , !L- ..(•,-. .,* r 1h;,�-114 ;. �.. ' i'i , J Mg! ii ` 'MTI ,,,-.„..,„,,,:4.,:- �{T 49L� • � Ai ,7 L. i - • i,x--4•' {`'� ..:�` r r p. sr 1 '7r..� i 'S = iifi r.i ..y. -, 4,,+ v 4.__ — �u-- .�..ill _ rl�. �` NEW ENGLAND.... LTIIAY .aK.9rwr.a _ :J -(. F �;.' . ,. (A.KA INTERSTATE ROUTE 97) . - Aimi .1 ..._.-..�**. OP. ill • Ek' , LOT 1 N ..a.4.,.-'- _ y ili ea- !} lai 4.415 F""_.a _ % — — — PI • f r�r , FEET ) O h f.► d _ inch ,.�r L _ iittiMe :u'"`'• .... x ,. .-; .,.u7,. - Redevelopment Area Boundary Urban Renewal Area Boundary Figure 2-3: Proposed Actions Boundary Survey / Aerial Photograph Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle,Westchester County, New York Source: Bohler Engineering,2000 Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, NY 10516(845)265-4400, Fax(845)265-4418 File 9916 Fig 2-3 TMA 09/08/00 Project Description September 14,2000 • Because of the existing platting of the land, and the present inadequate street pattern (for industrial use), assembly and utilization of this land becomes quite difficult. • Because of the increase in industrial utilization of the area and the age of the residential structures, indications of physical blight are becoming apparent. • Given a situation where blight and deterioration are evidenced and where the land is zoned for a necessary and desirable use, it behooves the community to make every effort to encourage proper and sound development in accordance with established goals. 1977 Master Plan The City of New Rochelle in its Master Plan, Volume 2, Land Use Element, adopted in 1977, stated as its overall goal to "preserve and strengthen the economic viability of the City of New Rochelle so that the City may continue to support a desired level of municipal services without imposing an undue financial burden on its taxable resources". Among the 1977 Master Plan's stated objectives was: • Encouraging greater governmental participation in developing new business, and commercial and industrial opportunities in the City • Preserving and expanding existing and industrial infrastructure in the City • Stimulating the expansion of job opportunities in New Rochelle • Creating and instituting innovative development tools and implementing a land development process that would encourage commercial and industrial growth in the City Short term policies under these objectives included elimination of vacant and underutilized business facilities by encouraging compatible commercial activities and encouraging the private sector to provide a broad range of commercial activities, goods and services to meet the needs of an expanded market. Long-term policies included expanding the economic base of New Rochelle and attracting new sources of tax ratables. One method to achieve these goals was to attract new commercial activities to areas of the City where a clear need exists, especially to existing vacant and underutilized commercial space. The Fifth Avenue at City Park area was identified specifically as one of nine underutilized and developable sites appropriate for mixed use, commercial or industrial uses in the Plan. Industrial Development Study Fifth Avenue Area (1989) Consistent with its 1965 and 1977 Master Plans and its efforts to identify and analyze potential sites to expand industrial development opportunities in the City, New Rochelle conducted an Industrial Development Study of the Fifth Avenue Area in 1989. The area analyzed in the 1989 Development Study was generally bounded by Fifth Avenue, Potter Avenue, the New England Thruway, and the Mamaroneck Town Line. A field survey was conducted by the Department of Development to determine the character of the area and to inventory any visible physical deficiencies of existing structures. Deficiencies were noted as either slight, intermediate or critical. Each individual parcel in the 1989 study area was reviewed and each parcel was assigned to one of the three categories of deficiency. 2-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 In the 1989 Fifth Avenue Study, certain land uses in the 1989 study area were deemed to be low intensive and visually unattractive such as the open storage of taxis and large passenger buses along Fifth Avenue, as well as motor vehicle repair facilities and filling stations. Residential dwellings along Pleasant Street and Plain Avenue exhibited cracking foundations, severely peeling paint and substandard structural and visual characteristics. These properties were identified as buildings with critical and intermediate deficiencies. Approximately 50 percent of the parcels were noted to have critical deficiencies, while an additional 14 percent of the parcels had intermediate deficiencies. In 1989, only an approximate 36 percent of the structures in the Fifth Avenue Study Area were considered substantial and economically viable. Because the properties with critical and intermediate deficiencies were not all contiguous, it was determined that relocation of the viable businesses and residences would need to be undertaken to assemble a site for a large scale industrial development. The recommended action plan for the Fifth Avenue Area starting in 1989, included: 1) determining the property costs for acquisition, 2) preparing findings to declare the site as an Urban Renewal Area, and 3) preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to amend the zoning ordinance and to adopt an Urban Renewal Plan for redevelopment of this area. 1996 Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan The City adopted New Rochelle's Comprehensive Plan, in July 1996. This plan currently guides land use activities in the City. In the 1996 Plan, New Rochelle retained its long-standing commitment to foster industrial and retail development. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan recommends specifically that "unbuilt streets within the Fifth Avenue Area be combined with other underutilized parcels to create large redevelopment sites." The City has determined to seek to redevelop the Fifth Avenue Area, the last of its major outstanding potential economic development areas identified in the 1996 Plan. The City's 1996 Comprehensive Plan was developed by the City's Department of Development and a specially designated Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, in conjunction with their planning consultant, Saccardi and Schiff, Inc. The product of a 10 month planning process, it provides an overall guide for the City's growth over the next approximate fifteen (15) years. The Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives incorporated concepts from the Future Visions Planning Process, which was a nine-month grass-roots, community wide process conducted by the City in 1993-94. Future Visions aimed to provide the City with new and imaginative concepts that could be evaluated during the subsequent development of a comprehensive plan. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan also built upon the goals and objectives of the 1965 and 1977 Master Plans. One of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan's specific objectives is to "maintain the fiscal integrity of the City Government, expand job opportunities and strengthen the City's economic base by encouraging commercial and industrial development and redevelopment, where appropriate." It also encouraged public-private partnerships to develop new businesses and commercial and light industrial opportunities. To further these initiatives, the City identified certain property along Fifth Avenue, as well as five other focus areas in the City, as having "redevelopment 2-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 potential," based upon their incompatible land uses, obsolete structures and other blighting influences. To date, the City has or is in the process of fully or partially seeking to implement Urban Renewal Plans for each of five areas identified in its 1996 Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan, including: 1) the Lincoln Avenue Urban Renewal Plan (1980), 2) Lawton Street Urban Renewal Plan (1981); 3) Main/Echo Urban Renewal Plan (1983); 4) Davids Island Urban Renewal (1984) and 5) West New Rochelle Urban Renewal Area and Plan (1999). Many of these plans involve or involved property acquisition and relocation. 2.2.2 Proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Based upon its 1965 and 1977 Master Plans, its 1989 Industrial Development Study, and its 1996 Comprehensive Plan, the City of New Rochelle identified an area generally bounded by Fifth Avenue, Valley Place, the New England Thruway, and Portman Road, for potential redevelopment. Article 15 of New York State's General Municipal Law authorizes the City of New Rochelle to undertake urban renewal projects and endows the City with the powers necessary to carry out or effectuate these projects. This law, referred to as the Urban Renewal Law, calls for municipalities to establish, conduct and plan programs for the redevelopment of areas that are "substandard or insanitary". This term is defined by the Urban Renewal Law to mean an area that is a slum, blighted, deteriorated, deteriorating area, or an area that has a blighting influence on the surrounding area. New York's Urban Renewal Law defines urban renewal as: "A program established, conducted, and planned by a municipality for the redevelopment, through clearance, replanning, reconstruction, rehabilitation and concentrated code enforcement, or a combination of these and other methods, of substandard and insanitary areas of such municipalities". It is well established and repeated in New York State courts that to qualify for urban renewal the subject properties need not constitute a "slum". Generally speaking, "blighting" involves improper land use. Many different factors and interrelationships of factors can contribute to making an area blighted. These include such diverse matters as irregularity of the plots, inadequacy of the streets, diversity of land ownership making assemblage of property difficult, incompatibility of the existing mixture of residential and industrial property, overcrowding, the incidence of crime, lack of sanitation, the drain an area makes on municipal services, fire hazards, traffic congestion, and pollution. A substandard and insanitary or blighted area "may also include land, buildings or improvements...not in themselves substandard or insanitary, the inclusion of which is deemed necessary for the effective undertaking of one or more urban renewal programs". The definition of an urban renewal or "blighted area" has been expansively defined by the courts to include, among other areas, possible sound structures and other lands or buildings not necessarily "blighted," so long as their inclusion is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area in which they are a part. In determining whether the subject 16.4-acre Fifth Avenue Redevelopment Area is appropriate for redevelopment under urban renewal, long established standards and criteria, which have been uniformly adopted and confirmed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban 2-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 Development, were utilized. These accepted standards for urban renewal designation include, among others: • Improper and nonconforming land uses • Incompatibility of the existing mixture of residential and industrial property • Properties with more than one principal building that exhibit conflicting land uses • Underdeveloped properties or vacant land which, by virtue of their condition or other factors, disrupt the overall land use pattern and detract from the character of the neighborhood A blight study of the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area was commissioned by the City in February of 1999 ("Blight Study"). This Study was performed by Ferrandino & Associates, an independent planning consultant working for the City, and was funded by an escrow fund established in conjunction with a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the City and IKEA, as the proposed qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment. The escrow fund was established to reimburse the City for any third-party outside consultant or other expenses incurred to process the Proposed Actions. An escrow fund is a typical instrument used by municipalities to help defray the costs of processing complex land use applications, while permitting the municipality to continue to control the selection and work of its own consultants. The Blight Study concluded that the dilapidation and functional obsolescence of the Fifth Avenue Area created a negative and blighting effect on the neighborhood. Overall, 86 percent of the 79 properties (including 16 vacant lots), had physically deteriorating buildings, lots strewn with debris, vehicles and machines, and businesses with cars parked on sidewalks. Approximately 73 percent of the buildings were considered to have a blighting influence on the neighborhood. The study concluded that "the area as a whole exhibits blighting conditions as evidenced by field observations of improper or inappropriate use, obsolete layouts, stagnant and unproductive condition of land, incompatibility of land use mix, visual cacophony and blight, deteriorated building conditions, and economic underdevelopment". The Blight Study went on to conclude that the 16.4-acre area is appropriate for urban renewal and would qualify as an Urban Renewal Area as defined in Section 502 (9) of the New York General Municipal Law. By resolution, dated July 20, 1999, the City adopted the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Project Blight Study, finding that it formed the basis to consider the Urban Renewal Area and Plan. The Urban Renewal Plan, described in more detail in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, includes a proposed zoning text amendment to establish this area as a large scale retail zone to effectuate the objectives of the Urban Renewal Plan. The Urban Renewal Plan is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process, including public hearings on the Plan. For procedural purposes, its approval process has been combined with an application for site plan approval for a Retail Center Redevelopment Project on 14.9 acres of this proposed 16.4-acre Urban Renewal Area. 2.2.3 Proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan The proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan, described in more detail in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, presents the opportunity for redevelopment of an underutilized, and formally designated "blighted" substandard area of the City. The development of a large-scale retail zone would conform to New Rochelle's historical Comprehensive Plans by combining disparate lots and establishing a unified and functional plan in place of the mixed, non-conforming, conflicting and underutilized uses, which presently exist and contribute to the 2-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 blight in that area. The proposed Urban Renewal Plan and its proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments and controls would achieve the following redevelopment objectives: • elimination of unsightly , unsafe and substandard vacated and boarded-up buildings, as well as substandard occupied buildings that exert a blighting influence in the proposed area; • elimination of blighting influences such as incompatible land uses and obsolete structures; • elimination of environmental deficiencies by providing a land area for a large-scale retail development site; • acquisition of certain property, as necessary, to provide a site(s) with appropriate configurations so that proper and meaningful development can take place; • redevelopment and revitalization of the area as a viable commercial district through the development of a unified and functional site plan; • improvement, where necessary, of public utilities, streets, parking and any other public facilities in order to properly serve any proposed development; • continuation of the City's overall efforts to make New Rochelle a regional retail destination and reestablish the identity/image of New Rochelle as a viable business community; • provision of a site(s) to facilitate the expansion of the City's tax base; and • creation of short-term construction and permanent jobs. The proposed zoning controls for the Urban Renewal Area known as the Large Scale Retail Zoning District are set forth in a proposed zoning text amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. These amendments would apply to any redevelopment within the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area. The purpose of the Large Scale Retail Zoning District contemplated for the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area would be to encourage the redevelopment and revitalization of the area as a viable commercial district. As noted, the development of a large retail establishment would conform to the City's 1996 Comprehensive Plan by combining the identified lots and establishing a unified and functional plan in place of the mixed and often nonconforming and conflicting uses that presently exist. The Comprehensive Plan specifically recommends that "unbuilt streets within the Fifth Avenue Area should be combined with other underutilized parcels to create large redevelopment sites". The City may adopt the Urban Renewal Plan and not designate IKEA as the qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment and/or approve the specific Retail Center Project proposed by IKEA. Depending upon its final determinations, the City may adopt the proposed Urban Renewal Plan as essential to the public purpose pursuant to the standards set forth under Article 15 of the General Municipal Law, and determine that another project and/or redeveloper would best conform with the objectives and goals of the Urban Renewal Plan. The Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area boundaries are shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3, as well as set forth in the proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan in Appendix D of this document. 2.2.4 Proposed Fifth Avenue Retail Center Project IKEA seeks to develop a Retail Center within a portion of the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area described above. The Retail Center would be constructed on 14.9 acres of land presently zoned M-1 (the "Redevelopment Area"). The proposed Retail Center Project would involve 2-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 construction of a 308,000 square foot retail furniture and home furnishings store on two stories with a one-level parking deck at the first level of the building (the Main Level), at-grade parking beneath the building and parking deck, and uncovered parking to the east and west of the building. A total of 1,572 off-street parking spaces would be provided. As discussed previously, the City's 1996 Comprehensive Plan identified the subject property as a "redevelopment area" potentially subject to urban renewal and redevelopment under New York State General Municipal Law. Subsequent to the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, the City commissioned the Blight Study to determine whether the Fifth Avenue Redevelopment Area was appropriate for urban renewal. IKEA, a retailer of furniture and home furnishings, approached the City expressing an interest in being designated the qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment of a portion of the Urban Renewal Area. IKEA commissioned certain preliminary feasibility studies so as to determine the Area's suitability for an IKEA facility. The City, having already established its interest in redeveloping the proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area, entered into an Exclusivity Agreement with IKEA in February of 1999. The Exclusivity Agreement allowed the City and IKEA to conduct preliminary feasibility studies to determine whether it would be desirable to further investigate whether an IKEA retail store would be compatible with the City's contemplated redevelopment plans for the Urban Renewal Area. The Exclusivity Agreement also provided for the City and IKEA to negotiate and agree upon a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in connection with IKEA's proposed Retail Center Project. In addition, the Exclusivity Agreement provided for the City to deal exclusively with IKEA in connection with the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area (14.9 acres), unless anytime after the completion and exchange of the Blight Study and IKEA's studies, the Retail Center Project was deemed not feasible for any reason. IKEA commissioned its preliminary environmental site assessment, geotechnical, and traffic studies of the Redevelopment Area (the "IKEA Studies") in March through June of 1999. Based on these preliminary studies and an internal evaluation of market potential, IKEA determined that the Redevelopment Area could represent a good location for the construction of a new retail center. The City independently reviewed the IKEA Studies and indicated its interest in considering an Urban Renewal Area and Plan, which provided for redeveloping the Urban Renewal Area with a retail center, and potentially designating IKEA as the qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment of the Urban Renewal Area. The Memorandum of Understanding was drafted and finalized between the City of New Rochelle and IKEA Property, Inc. in July of 1999, subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and all other applicable laws and regulations. The MOU, among other things, preserved the City's unqualified right to amend or deny, in whole or part, any aspect of the Proposed Actions in accordance with its SEQRA findings or any other findings pursuant to the applicable laws and regulations. In accordance with the principles and conditions outlined above, the Memorandum of Understanding conferred upon IKEA the exclusive right to prepare a preliminary development plan, negotiate a land disposition agreement, and undertake other negotiations with respect to acquisition and redevelopment of property in the Redevelopment Area. The Memorandum of Understanding also preliminarily outlined the responsibilities of the City and IKEA with respect 2-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 to acquisition and relocation costs, and the costs of lawfully developing the acquired property in the event that the City approved the Proposed Action. The Memorandum of Understanding also provided that the coordinated redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area by IKEA, as the proposed qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment, would be advantageous and conducive to achieving the development goals and objectives of the community, subject to the City's full discretionary authority with respect to any final approvals. A copy of the signed Memorandum of Understanding, dated July 26, 1999, is attached as Appendix A. The proposed building and accessory parking areas are shown in Figure 2-4a Site Plan-Main Level and Figure 2-4b Site Plan-Ground Level. Figures 2-5 through 2-8 illustrate the proposed views of the proposed Retail Center structure from the north, south, east and west. 2.3 Required Actions 2.3.1 Adoption of Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan The redevelopment of the proposed Urban Renewal Area must be in accordance with the objectives contained in the Urban Renewal Plan. The City Council has, by Resolution, designated and empowered itself to act as the "Agency" as defined under Article 15 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York and the applicable procedures, rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. The City Council, after a public hearing held on due notice, would be required to determine whether the Urban Renewal Plan complies with provisions of Subdivision seven (7) of Section 502 of the General Municipal Law and conforms to the findings made pursuant to section 504 of the General Municipal Law relating to site designation. In approving the Urban Renewal Plan, the City Council would be required by Resolution to find that: • The area is a substandard or insanitary area, or is in danger of becoming a substandard or insanitary area and tends to impair or arrest the sound growth and development of the municipality. • The financial aid to be provided to the municipality is necessary to enable the project to be undertaken in accordance with the plan. • The plan affords maximum opportunity to private enterprise, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the undertaking of an urban renewal program. • The plan conforms to a comprehensive community plan for the development of municipality as a whole. • There is a feasible method for the relocation of families and individuals displaced from the urban renewal area into decent, safe and sanitary dwellings, which are or will be provided in the urban renewal area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities at rents or prices within the financial means of such families or individuals, and reasonably accessible to their place of employment. 2-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 The Urban Renewal Plan adoption is subject to review under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Plan adoption must occur prior to the selection of a qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment and actions relative to any proposed redevelopment project in the Urban Renewal Area. The Plan would be implemented upon designation of the qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment and execution of any Land Disposition and Development Agreement. For procedural efficiency, the Urban Renewal Plan SEQRA review process is being undertaken parallel to and simultaneously with the SEQRA review process for the proposed Retail Center Project, and is intended to address all actions associated with the Proposed Actions, including site plan approval and project implementation and operation. 2.3.2 Adoption of Zoning Regulations Governing the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area The proposed Urban Renewal Area and proposed Redevelopment Area are currently zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing. The proposed Retail Center is a principle permitted use under the current zoning and largely conforms to the current M-1 zoning standards. In order to effectuate development of the proposed Urban Renewal Area, however, the City of New Rochelle, as part of its Urban Renewal Plan, has proposed to promulgate zoning regulations specific to large scale retail redevelopment in the Urban Renewal Area and amend the Zoning Map. Exhibit F of the draft Urban Renewal Plan contains the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The proposed Urban Renewal Area's designation under the new zoning classifications would be URLSR (Large Scale Retail). Large scale retail outlets are one of the permitted uses in the URLSR District. The proposed zoning regulations would be enacted with the approval of the Urban Renewal Plan. Any proposed redevelopment project would be required to conform to all standards of the new zoning regulations. 2.3.3 Selection of the Qualified and Eligible Sponsor for Redevelopment Under provisions of the proposed Urban Renewal Plan, the City must identify a qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment to achieve the redevelopment objectives of the Plan. In accordance with Article 15 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York and the rules, regulations and procedures promulgated thereunder, for IKEA to be considered the redeveloper of the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan, it must submit to the City the necessary HUD Forms, including, the "Redeveloper's Statement for Public Disclosure," and certain other pertinent information. The City could designate IKEA as the qualified and eligible sponsor of the Urban Renewal Area any time after the approval of the Urban Renewal Plan, establishment by the City of its "rules and procedures" for such designation," public examination of IKEA's Statement of Public Disclosure and Qualifications, and approval of the relevant information by the applicable State agencies. 2-10 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Ir +; __, A: f_, BLOCK 919 i / l ' BLOCK 9191 I 1 "'� BLOCK 910 y /( LW I .., ,;\ A . - , FIFTH AVENUE ----- + —--- == _ _—____ w I E.--- - E 1 .. ._... FIFT1t AVENUE / � - •-- o Aai'lNwmo ---------..__,_.......-------------—.................. _......--........ Nil. .... � � sir lil % 11 1 , ■ �� ■ hrr Milli { if i i f r , , r 1C�9 PANGi 1 i — r i SPAC S I i ----1-- / d 1I ! 1 / ,ii i t t 81 PARY.ING dr, i) I PLA, �..,1�_ iL._____________ I a _1 r NUE c -- ) MIMI ___J\te iin i PARKRIG -4.,1,,:z,7 IdSPACES / 11._g Y — / ._..... ,,...___ „ _ ., /„. . r . , e if /_-,` '._.:.•.:•.:.•..:.:....•.:.'.:.-.::.:.•.:..:.:..:.:..'.:..._.. ...:'::.:. :5: :': ^ - "7b jti-f� _ . -qi % bibb/,b iiliiiil��1� 4bb¢ b4bbb bb ibblbb ' yr''''' . I i pT d #� I 1 i # =l #^ II / • C231 PARKING v 176 PARKIN E ..- SPACES « — SPACES -- - ' IA i i {/[[J�{f 1 rEy- _ �} # / / _ i. L.__________ / 30 CUSTOMER LOADING■r ._._-----,."`..�•.�SPACES _ _______ \ NEW ENGLAND THRUWAY -- GRAPHIC SCALE Figure 2-4a: Site Plan - Main Level 100 o so 10o 200 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project ineinesmilimimmCity of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: 1 Inch = 100 Feet Source: Bohler Engineering, June 2000 ( IN FEET ) File 9916 Fig 2-4a SP TMA 08/23/00 1 inch = 100 ft. Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845)265-4400 Fax(845)264-4418 , . 4 t, • BLOCK 919 a • /It Y 1-k_ . t � � ` BLOCK 919 I # �+ BLOCK 910 LW.16 FIFTH AVENUE / UN 1 I~ "�"==- — --- �.,...,....,,, f_ - - FIFT AVENUE / 1 1 n..j�„,.. 4 II our= ---____,.............z----.:---Lr----f-------------„....--...ork \\ N .< 4- •‘" --,-k-c \\\\\\\\\\, k. XX 1101.N. -.. __am/-, me . 1 -11ITTIF. - ----" 1 ;_ia ir 74ft swilliiii MI li - kV I ' . 1 i ,• • Oka 109 PARKING I IM7 I ........, ,. ~ -- • .��..... ~ .�...�.. �� �- ® „ /l I SPACES I I 148 PARKING - '178 PARKING I — SPACES , - l SPACES J 81 PARKING j ....:... mrL........i ' I tt - - . ----- SPACES 7: I _ _. .... ....._.,..j:LA r_..„'tar 48 j} jt jt j} 4 t It jt it — jt -- 4t = j t 1 1 47 A �•.17 / J VENUE ,.�,.«- , .......... ..�...y ,. ...• ....\. E :..�..... .......... �......�.� ...�..... .......... ._ _� 47 :. • r4•; Erzi=tt - — 120 PARKING? % %/ ACE W „ ' SP S • - a — - _ 4 4t /i f — 41.4" ,, It It I ,Wp IIIIIIIIII Ca 10 i .......... 7 "...I.-. BLOCK 920 41 , i t® 4 t 4 t .. j t Ii4ti: hI.I . ;.`; 4 t •--------,- \j r•.../ ,w, t t I — f / +p....................... rt 330 PARK SPACES It - BMIIM11 41:::1 .liti .......,.::::: :.•..•.,.-,• 299 PARKING `_, /. i F,F :o�c 4 t SPACES - I I — ,,11? k i ( _ , , ffigi -:•:.:•:•:•:•:,...:::.::::::::::moi .0. • -- r r fes • t '" -. 1. y I -► y -� I / 111 � 1 / 40 / 1 lir . ' III I I l i i l l l l l l 1 III A . , 4, l 1M1 —.--�_34 CUSTOMER LOADING r�_�� \ `, 7 , ' ,.IF !l I 14�'BLOCK 910 u SPACES � � 14111111mmil fil mr, Aar,irjV I l / FIFTH AVENUE NEW ENGLAND THRUWAY _'---•--�`� .` 11=0 t I� - - .- �� GRAPHIC SCALE - Ir Figure 2-4b: Site Plan - Ground Level 7:7 A,.�./. _ i �'°I 100 0 so 100 200 400 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project -� _ • . ,• City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York p� z I • Scale: 1 Inch = 100 Feet Q 1 / • 'I,* Source: Bohler Engineering, June 2000 ( IN FEET ) File 9916 Fig 2-4b SPGL TMA 08/23/00 1 inch = 100 ft. Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring,New York 10516(845)265-4400 Fax(845)264-4418 r t . r ,,„ 0. - 1,4 4« r7k,,r1•4111%.vit: r..... .1:4, \L 7 eft — • �47: ��P q 14. 4 b y r —._.._.--- 1.tit , q.s ` _ 'i. , ..S L :sem -` , , 116 ikl, • I K 1. 41 .,. we . ``� , ,.a _ r'a - i1 _ _ _ ti, +tial,r � , i .....,,...t. 4,1 MCG Architecture 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004,Tel: (212)425-0744, Fax: (212)425-0744 Job# 00.300.01 -04/18/00 Figure 2-5: Proposed View Looking Southeast From William Flower Park Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: Building Height 35'-0"Above Grade ......wwwwwinglir41- bow.- a'yx "4y ;------ ;-; k �,r , f .. • . \ .� \ ter • �' {�1 F t ccli. . f'. ‘•*4+2.' *it 0 • 7 ii II • •4%--1.:- "' r# ' yy� . t. ..,.... .,, .. . .., . _ ..... .,._ .... . ,, ,7 . . 4 ;,t(4.. . .....ilt, . ,_ ,. _ • _ :..„,;,yr,44_ vc.. ,7.....,:;,. .. ............ . , . _ . , .,... :_. . .., ...._./ 77 ....A ,. - _ - _T1 z__ i - ._ + , "a, _ma �1"�nw _ _ tet :. ` i .,v. __...-.- �'.. ,. •,�yFbxAr+ { n a }{s1R4 tKi' — 4 -. - .- ' - sem•.—,.� .+,: Is'---",„:', 1:1;;•:'''''',. x. • CZ' fi . ...�.,5c.'W.k>•., x ,:;.:y.,».. .;+Y _ ?.:a.5•' ^'--� :tea' - -` tr,F f.x - - ^. ,.r-?... .t :_"-Y ';E .`,'., ,- :�a ��. ••-;,,. ,'.�.. - x - r a 1 -M„y g. "-'11.•;,-4,641;., :+srai" �.-�, „ s y ....Nt.,,,°`' ,. .,,`"n"'� „ _rr--;,:,,,,,... "'I*-- ,.. .sscs^.'.^'`y".±N�.1L�w'a" "^.`�i*'we..'. .r,' _ _F . , e ekt• ^.' �1:. _.' "'I*- :ata,.P# ,.,� " w,y u'�* :s. .,-'r i'`"""a"YRL ,:.,;x •:l^A"n,.v,'T,. .3`:... • "t6" "'. fv _ f ..',� :;:• .tai Y J} � '� � ` .r� -' { * ..7r1 ..e-'n ,,-'a' -r"'+�-f.. - _ - Figure 2-6: Proposed View Looking Southwest From Fifth Avenue Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York MCG Architecture 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004,Tel: (212)425 0744, Fax: (212)425 0744 Job# 00.300.01 04/18/00 Scale: Building Height 35'-0"Above Grade 0 y is. " r .F _ IKEA ., , , , , 1 v �s j I _ a . S •.., .s''-max k g ' .� �' sass• t of ..,, ilea., 4 a . ,c„.„4,,,y ' got .,...,....�._..,.,...._.r,..�.._..�,.. • -SRF.. ,_ K y . Pte" ... s=ue_ IF 3�,':. , Figure 2-7: Proposed View LookingNorthwest From New England Thruway p 9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: Building Height 35'-0"Above Grade MCG Architecture 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004, Tel: (212) 425-0744, Fax: (212)425-0744 Job#00.300.01 -04/18/00 Project Description September 14,2000 2.3.4 Execution of Land Acquisition and Disposition Agreement In the event that IKEA is selected as the qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment, the Memorandum of Understanding and Urban Renewal Law provide that the City and IKEA would be required to negotiate and execute a land acquisition and disposition agreement ("LDA") for parcels affected by the Urban Renewal Plan and the proposed Retail Center Project. The LDA would provide for: • the acquisition and/or condemnation by the City of the parcels within the Redevelopment Area, which are not owned by the City and are not otherwise acquired by IKEA • the conveyance from the City to IKEA of these parcels and the parcels (roadways) within the Redevelopment Area owned by the City The LDA between the City and IKEA would also include provisions concerning: • commencement and completion of the Retail Center Project • City approval of construction plans • use of the Redevelopment Area • assignment rights of mortgagees, if any • pre-closing activities • liability of parties concerning environmental conditions • default and remedies of default The LDA between the City and IKEA would also set forth the requirements for construction of the Retail Center Project by IKEA. The LDA would require IKEA to observe the Urban Renewal Area controls and development objectives contained in the Urban Renewal Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The LDA would be consistent with all governmental approvals, and allocate urban renewal functions between the City and IKEA. IKEA would further be required to submit a redevelopment schedule satisfactory to the City. To prevent speculation in land holding in the Redevelopment Area of the Urban Renewal Area, the Applicant would be required to initiate and complete all proposed improvements within a reasonable specified time following the acquisition of the land as set forth in the proposed LDA. The LDA would also provide that any identified significant adverse impacts of the proposed Retail Center Project on the environment would be mitigated or avoided to the maximum extent practicable, as required by law and the attendant SEQRA Findings, and that the cost of all such mitigation would be borne solely by IKEA (or by third parties, exclusive of the City, on behalf of IKEA) as a condition of proceeding with the Retail Center Project. The LDA would further provide for the construction of the Retail Center Project in accordance with all plans and impacts analyzed in accordance with the SEQRA, Site Plan and all other relevant governmental reviews and approvals. Approval of the Land Acquisition and Disposition Agreement is subject to public hearing requirements outlined in Article 15 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York and the rules and regulations promulgated thereafter. The approval process requires, among other things, that the City schedule and hold public hearings upon notice for the purposes of considering the designation of IKEA as the qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment of the approved Urban Renewal Plan and for authorizing the disposition of property under the 2-11 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 proposed LDA. Most of the land acquisition hearings would be held subsequent to the SEQRA hearings. Execution of the LDA may not occur until the SEQRA process is completed. 2.3.5 Land Acquisition The Urban Renewal Area consists of privately-owned lands, City streets and rights-of-way, which are owned in whole or part by the City and by the New York State Thruway Authority. The designated qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment may endeavor to acquire the privately-owned parcels through private purchase, but may request that the City acquire one or more of the parcels by eminent domain. Under the General Municipal Law, privately-owned parcels may be acquired by the City either through the exercise of eminent domain or through private negotiation. IKEA Pre-Closing Land Acquisition IKEA has voluntarily at its own risk sought to acquire property within and outside the subject Urban Renewal Area prior to obtaining approvals for its proposed Retail Center Project. In carrying out its acquisition program, IKEA retained a local appraiser to establish baseline market conditions for real estate in this area of the City. IKEA has also retained a full-time real estate professional to evaluate each individual property and meet with property owners to discuss the possibility of a sale. Offers have been (and continue to be) made to property owners at market value. Contracts of offer have been drawn up for review by attorneys for the property owners. Many owners in the proposed Urban Renewal Area have indicated a strong willingness to sell their properties. IKEA intends to continue to pursue the voluntary acquisition of property and if possible will acquire 100 percent of the properties required to implement its plans through private fair market acquisitions. IKEA believes, however, that the early acquisition of these properties reduces uncertainty and anxiety that develops among landowners in connection with proposed urban renewal projects. It also would permit IKEA to accelerate the construction of the proposed Retail Center Project in the event that the Retail Center Project is ultimately approved. IKEA understands the risk of such strategy in the event that the Retail Center Project is not approved in whole or part. In such event, IKEA would develop and/or sell its properties in accordance with the applicable zoning and other requirements existing as of that date in the proposed Urban Renewal Area. IKEA has sought, in good faith, to pay purchase amounts equal to or greater than market rates for the subject properties. It intends to continue such policies in connection with all pre-approval, voluntary acquisitions. The City of New Rochelle has neither discouraged nor encouraged IKEA to pursue the aforementioned acquisitions prior to the City's final determinations concerning the Proposed Actions. The City has, however, sought to ensure that IKEA continues to negotiate in good faith with the subject landowners. Towards this end, the City has, among other things, distributed to the landowners both verbally and in written form information concerning certain timing issues and their respective rights in relation to the proposed Retail Center Project and any potential land acquisition activities. 2-12 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 All properties within the Urban Renewal Area, whether acquired privately or by the City, would be acquired for redevelopment in accordance with the provisions of Section 506 of Article 15 of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, the Land Disposition Agreement, Urban Renewal Plan. All improvements on properties to be acquired would be demolished and removed to permit proper redevelopment unless further investigation indicates that certain properties are not needed to achieve the proposed Retail Center Project objectives. Toward that end, IKEA has sought to identify available properties, which could serve as potential relocation areas within the City of New Rochelle. IKEA has also purchased (or is in the process of purchasing) a number of sites for potential relocation within New Rochelle. IKEA purchased the Gerard Daniel building located south of Plain Avenue in the proximity of the Redevelopment Area, in large part, as a relocation site. Other sites are also being investigated in concert with staff at the City of New Rochelle, including the Tuck Tape site on LeFevre Lane. IKEA will expand its investigations into neighboring communities if acquisition efforts of relocation sites within New Rochelle prove unsuccessful. A discussion of secondary effects associated with relocation of Redevelopment Area businesses is found in Chapter 3.8 of this document. Eminent Domain, Public Purpose Doctrine and the Proposed Retail Center Project The acquisition of land for the proposed Retail Center Project, assuming that the Retail Center Project is approved by the City Council, might require the City to use its powers under New York Eminent Domain Procedure Law and New York Urban Renewal Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder. This would only be necessary as a last resort in the event that IKEA had not already privately acquired the property and the City had not been able to consensually negotiate such purchase as it must seek to achieve by law. All municipalities have the power to acquire real property for public purposes through the exercise of condemnation in accordance with New York Eminent Domain Procedure Law and New York Urban Renewal Law. Public purpose in New York has been broadly defined and includes the use of eminent domain to address economic underdevelopment, stagnant economic areas, insanitary and substandard areas and conditions, poorly developed areas, areas providing prospective future development possibility and other purposes that serve the redevelopment of certain areas and municipalities. It is also well-established in New York that the use of eminent domain by a municipality for redevelopment by a private corporation is both proper and encouraged where the ultimate redevelopment serves a public purpose. The use of eminent domain by a municipality to assemble the site for needed redevelopment by a private corporation has been upheld repeatedly by the Courts of New York as a legitimate and often necessary vehicle for urban redevelopment and renewal. Similarly, the Courts have expressly endorsed redevelopment plans using eminent domain where the private entity either funds the land acquisition and/or "incidentally benefits" from the project. It is the public use and benefit of the project as determined by the municipality, which is dominant. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that in the event that IKEA is selected as the eligible and qualified sponsor for redevelopment and eminent domain is necessary to acquire the necessary parcels, IKEA shall fund the cost of all land acquisition activities. 2-13 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 The Eminent Domain Procedure Law ("EDPL") sets forth notice and hearing requirements, the manner in which negotiations relative to compensation may be held, and procedures for resolving fair compensation disputes: 1. The EDPL requires, in the first instance, that the condemnor review the public purpose of a proposed condemnation at a public hearing held at least ten (10), but no more than thirty (30) days, prior to notice by publication. At the hearing, the condemnor must outline the purpose and proposed location or alternate locations of the public project. The EDPL hearing would most likely be conducted by the City Council subsequent to the completion of its SEQRA process. 2. The hearing may be adjourned without limit from time to time. Within ninety (90) days after the close of the hearing, the City Council would be required to issue its determination and findings, which must minimally specify: (a) the public purpose of the project; (b) the location of the project and the reasons for selection of that location; and (c) the general impact of the project on the environment and residents of the locality. 3. The EDPL determinations and findings are reviewable in an Article 78 proceeding. 4. A property owner is entitled to be compensated for the fair market value of the property and fixtures at their highest and best use. 5. The City, as the potential condemnor, would be required by law to seek to acquire all properties subject to the redevelopment project consensually without the use of eminent domain. Subsequent to the issuance of the SEQRA Findings and prior to the filing of any formal eminent domain proceedings with the Court, the City would prepare fair market appraisals and seek to negotiate voluntary purchase agreements with the respective landowners. 6. If unable to reach consensual agreements, the City would make formal acquisition offers in writing in amounts no less than the City's highest appraisal values to the subject landowners. Within ninety (90) days after receipt, the subject landowners may (a) accept the offers as full payment, (b) reject the offers as full payment and instead elect to accept offers as advance payments only, or (c) reject the offers entirely. If the subject landowners fail to notify the City within ninety (90) days, the offers are deemed rejected. After rejection, further offers may be made, or the issue of value may be reserved by the subject landowners for determination by the New York Supreme Court. 7. If values are contested by the subject landowners, the Court is generally required to make awards that fall within the range of expert appraisal evidence. Below or above the range awards may, however, be made provided there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the court's underlying calculations. 2-14 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 8. The City is responsible for compensating landowners for the fair market value of the subject real estate, fixtures and a reasonable moving and relocation reimbursement pursuant to section 74-b of the General Municipal Law upon turnover of proper documentation to the City in an amount not to exceed $1,000 for residential owners or tenants, and $25,000 for an owner or tenant of commercial property. 9. All effected tenants and owners within the designated Urban Renewal Area should contact their own advisor to apprise them of their respective rights regarding a potential eminent domain proceeding. 10. The City may enter the property "for the purpose of making surveys, test pits, borings, or other investigations" upon reasonable prior notice to a potential subject landowner at any time after a "proposed public project" has commenced. The City would be liable for physical damage to the property as a result of the entry. 11. Upon the completion of the aforementioned negotiations, the City would be required to apply to the New York Supreme Court for an order permitting the filing of an acquisition map in the Westchester County Clerk's Office, and upon filing of that map together with a copy of the order, title to the potential landowner's property vests in the City. Application to the Court for vesting of title can be made any time after the issuance of EDPL findings and determinations. 12. A landowner may challenge procedural regularity at the time an application is made for the order vesting title. If the Court finds that the procedural requirements of the law have been met, it must grant the application vesting title. 13. After title would vest in the City, persons in possession would become tenants at will, and would be liable to the City for the fair value of their use and occupancy. Disputes concerning the value of use and occupancy are resolved by the New York Supreme Court. Tenants may be evicted by either (a) a summary landlord-tenant proceeding or (b) application to the New York Supreme Court. The City would permit the landowners and tenants a reasonable time to vacate the premises, most likely not to exceed six (6) months. Relocation Activities Both the EDPL and Article 15 of the New York General Municipal Law, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, would require that the City provide certain relocation assistance to residential and business displacees. A City relocation policy is proposed in connection with the Retail Center Project, which would require the City to provide financial assistance in accordance with state law, as well as to perform the following activities: • Establish an inventory of the number of residential units and businesses in each building • Survey each household to determine its size, income, current housing costs, its replacement housing needs and preferences (The surveys will provide the basis for estimates of overall housing composition and needed housing resources.) • Interview and counsel displacees with explanation of options available • Inspect and make referrals to vacant housing in the City 2-15 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 Relocation assistance and procedures are described in detail in Chapter 3.8 and Appendix P City of New Rochelle Draft Relocation Plan for Residential and Commercial Owners and Tenants, Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area. All costs of relocation, subject to final negotiation, would be borne by the qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment of the Retail Center Project. Federal relocation regulations are not applicable as no federal moneys are proposed to be used to acquire property, or to implement the proposed Retail Center Project. 2.3.6 Site Plan Approval The Site Plan Application associated with the proposed Retail Center Project would be reviewed by the City Council pursuant to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Exhibit F in Appendix D). Full site plan submissions would occur upon conclusion of the SEQRA process and other approvals relative to the Urban Renewal Plan. It is contemplated that the City Council shall be the approving agency for all site plan applications within the Urban Renewal Area. The proposed Retail Center Project site plan application would be submitted to the City Council for review and approval so that the City can determine compliance with provisions of the Urban Renewal Plan. Prior to its Site Plan determination, the City Council would refer the proposed Retail Center Site Plan Application to the City of New Rochelle Planning Board for its recommendations to the City Council. 2.3.7 Changes to City Map/Modifications to Redevelopment Area Roadways The development plan for the proposed Retail Center Project would include certain changes in several City roadways in the Redevelopment Area and its vicinity. To facilitate some of these changes, certain existing public roadways would have to be demapped by the City and transfers of affected properties would be required between the City and the Applicant. These actions are described in more detail later in Section 2.6.6 of this Chapter. 2.4 Other Implementing Actions/Involved Agencies In addition to the actions to be undertaken by the City as described above, the proposed Retail Center Project would require the following project and mitigation approvals from the following agencies. 2.4.1 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the NYSDEC prior to the start of construction activities. Upon proper notification and adherence to conditions outlined in General Permit #GP-93-06, stormwater discharges associated with construction activities are authorized (see Chapter 3.4 Surface Water, Wetlands and Stormwater Management for additional discussion). 2-16 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 2.4.2 New York State Thruway Authority Approximately 0.10 acres of land along the New England Thruway, bordering the rear of several properties along Pleasant Street, and within the Urban Renewal Area, are proposed for marking as surplus property by the New York State Thruway Authority. This would allow for disposition of the property to the City or to the Applicant. 2.4.3 New York State Department of Transportation Approvals for signal timing changes, new traffic signal controls, pavement widening, turn lane additions, and installation of stop signs along various intersections along Weaver Street (NYS Route 125), 1-95 Interchange 17, and the Boston Post Road (US Route 1), would be required from the New York State Department of Transportation, and/or the Town of Mamaroneck. A listing of affected intersections is found in Chapter 3.9 Transportation and Traffic. 2.4.4 Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities and Westchester County Health Department Permits allowing connection of the proposed Retail Center Project to the existing sanitary sewer and water facilities would be needed from the Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities and the Westchester County Health Department. 2.4.5 Westchester County Planning Board As the proposed activities include zoning amendments and site plan approval, which would affect property within 500 feet of a state highway and the City boundary, referral to the County Planning Board under Section 239-m of the New York General Municipal Law and the Westchester County Administrative Code is required. 2.5 Interested Agencies A listing of interested agencies is included in the adopted Scoping Document for the Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement in Appendix B. 2.6 Description of the Proposed Retail Center Project 2.6.1 Redevelopment Area Characteristics The 14.9 acre-Redevelopment Area consists of non-conforming single and two-family residences, two churches, and a variety of light industrial outside storage and manufacturing uses, automotive repair and contractors' yards. The Redevelopment Area is zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing. The M-1 zone extends west and southwest of the Redevelopment Area to areas west of Potter Avenue and south of Fifth Avenue, along the west side of Potter Avenue north of Pierce Street to Fifth Avenue, and along the east side of Potter Avenue south from Fifth Avenue to the New England Thruway. The land uses in these areas are generally a mixture of commercial and small industries and auto repair establishments. The City of New Rochelle 2-17 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 Zoning Map for the Redevelopment Area and environs is provided in Figure 3.1-8 in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy. The area to the north of Fifth Avenue, opposite the Redevelopment Area, is zoned R-3B Residence Garden Apartments. William Flower Park lies within this R-3B zone. Directly across from the proposed Redevelopment Area, in the same R-3B zone, are the MacLeay Apartments an assisted housing complex consisting of three seven-story structures, which lies to the northeast of the Park, adjacent to the Town of Mamaroneck boundary. Immediately south and southeast of the proposed Redevelopment Area lies the right-of-way for the New England Thruway. The Thruway property lies outside municipal zoning districts. Across Valley Place, east and northeast of the Redevelopment Area located in the Town of Mamaroneck, are commercial, and light industrial uses. This area of the Town of Mamaroneck is zoned SB-Service Business and LI-Light Industry. Further east is a maintenance yard and offices for the New York State Thruway Authority. Zoning districts in the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont are shown in Figure 3.1-9 in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy. Based upon historical records, the Redevelopment Area has evolved from a primarily residential area to a mixed use light industrial area. Most of the remaining non-conforming and former residential structures in the Redevelopment Area were constructed in the early 1900's. The commercial/light industrial uses in the area have increased steadily since the 1950's. Current Redevelopment Area Land Uses are shown in Figure 2-9. Lists of current property uses are provided in Tables 3.1-1 through 3.1-4 in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy. The topography in the proposed Redevelopment Area is mostly level, particularly the area between Fifth Avenue and Plain Avenue. The topography is more variable in the southwest and southeast corners of the Redevelopment Area. In the southwest corner of the proposed Redevelopment Area, topography rises due to the presence of a large rock outcrop and bedrock close to the surface. The topography rises slightly on the eastern edge of the Redevelopment Area where bedrock is also exposed. Elevations in the Redevelopment Area vary between approximately 23 feet along Fifth Avenue and 38 feet in the southwest corner. Depth to bedrock varies from surface grade in southern portions of the Redevelopment Area to 98 feet below the surface on Fifth Avenue. Historic information indicates that topography in the Redevelopment Area has not changed significantly since at least the early 1900's. Soils in the Redevelopment Area have been significantly disturbed over the years. The Redevelopment Area is comprised of two soil types, Udorthents and Urban Land, moderately well drained soils. The depth to groundwater varies between approximately 4.0 and 7.0 feet based upon soil borings and monitoring wells. Based upon water level measurements, groundwater flow direction is towards the east/ northeast. Long Island Sound is located approximately three-quarters of a mile south of the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Area is not located within the City of New Rochelle Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) area, nor in any other designated coastal management areas. Stormwater in this area is currently collected in the municipal stormwater collection system located in City streets. A portion of Pine Brook formerly was piped through the Redevelopment Area, entering near the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Portman Road and exiting near the 2-18 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS • • • 4, ,4 ..• William Flower Park MacLeay Apartments F 47 56 57 59 60-62 in 7-10 11 12 13 14-17 18 5TH AVENUE • 3 5 36 37-39 40 41 42 44 45 rw S ilp 1• Q Block 898 OCA A i i Z � Q � ❑ n0.r , ti • 'i O. 116-114 83 82&81 80&79 78&77 76&75 � 74-69 68&67 66-63 5 113-110 „ •.:• ., LAI bEzVEs's� 109-105 65 69-72 .4 4,-47 4: 50 51:52 53&54 55 57-5 in Block 903 ', i fis i.!: o F 59 , a 1 : 1 . Block 894 0I:• :: 65 4 3-1 35&34 33&32 31&30 29-26 25&24 23-19 18&17 1•:15 14&1PLEASANT STREET El Roo Ilk Block 905 LEGEND Figure 2-9: Land Uses in Primary Study Area - i Residential Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Institutional(Religious,Government,Schools) City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York MI Industrial/Vehicle Repair Base Map: 1996 Sanborn Map and TMA Site Visits NI Retail,Personal Services,Offices Not To Scale Tim Miller Associates, Inc,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 265-4418 File 9916 Fig 2-9 LUPSP TMA 08/14/00 Project Description September 14, 2000 southern end of Valley Place. This culvert has been abandoned and Pine Brook no longer flows towards the Redevelopment Area. The stormwater is now contained in a ten-foot wide brick box culvert which runs along Fifth Avenue. A few properties have on-site catch basins and trench drains. Drainage exits in the Redevelopment Area at four main locations at the edges of the Redevelopment Area. Drainage in the Redevelopment Area is described in more detail in Chapter 3.4 Surface Water, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management. The Redevelopment Area is heavily urbanized and is approximately 90 percent impervious. Currently stormwater exits the Redevelopment Area untreated via the municipal stormwater system and eventually flows to Long Island Sound. The sanitary sewage system in the Redevelopment Area consists of City-owned lines, which discharge to a County sewer trunk. Sewage from the Redevelopment Area is conveyed to the Westchester County Wastewater Treatment Plant located on LeFevre Lane on Echo Bay. The plant is owned and operated by the County. The water lines and treatment plant that serve New Rochelle are owned and operated by United Water of New Rochelle, a private company. The source of the majority of water delivered to New Rochelle is the New York City Catskill Reservoir /Aqueduct system. Electrical service and natural gas are provided to the redevelopment Area by Consolidated Edison. Solid waste generated by residential customers in the Redevelopment Area is collected by New Rochelle's Department of Public Works and transported to the Westchester County - RESCO facility in Peekskill for disposal. The majority of solid waste generated by commercial users is disposed of by private carters. 2.6.2 Retail Center Project Description and Site Layout Pursuant to the July 1999 Memorandum of Understanding, IKEA prepared a preliminary site plan for the redevelopment of the Urban Renewal Area. It would be the chain's third site in the region. IKEA's goal is to create a "triangle matrix" of stores in the New York metropolitan area. The New Rochelle store would complete the matrix, which includes the Hicksville, New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey stores. Customers would be drawn from Westchester, northern New Jersey, the Bronx, Manhattan, Connecticut, and areas to the north. The proposed Retail Center Project site plan is shown in Figures 2-4a Site Plan-Main Level and 2-4b Site Plan-Ground Level. IKEA would purchase the property it needs, including any the City might acquire consensually or through eminent domain. The remainder of the Urban Renewal Area would remain in Thruway Authority and private ownership. The Retail Center Project proposed by IKEA involves construction of a two-story 308,000 square foot retail furniture and home furnishings store with approximately 1,572 off-street parking spaces on 14.9 acres. Parking would be provided on a one-level parking deck and at-grade, both under the building and the parking deck, and in adjacent at-grade parking areas to the east and west of the proposed building. The proposed Retail Center structure would be 300 feet wide and 722 feet long. The first floor of the Retail Center would contain 218,000 square feet and the second would contain 90,000 square feet. The main entrance to the Retail Center structure would face south toward the New 2-19 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 England Thruway. The parking deck would be immediately accessible to the south side of the Main Level of the structure. (See Figures 2-4a and 2-4b.) Figure 2-10a shows North and West Elevations. Figure 2-10b shows South and East Elevations. The proposed Retail Center structure would be 36 feet high and the parking deck approximately 11.5 feet high. Along the front (south side) of the building, the parking deck would be approximately 863 feet long and approximately 207 feet wide. Along the west side of the building, the parking deck would be approximately 96 feet long and 81 feet wide. The site frontage along Fifth Avenue is proposed to be approximately 1,461 feet. The parking deck would be accessible from Valley Place, from a private drive (formerly Biehn Street), and from Fifth Avenue. Access to grade-level parking would be from two locations along Fifth Avenue, Plain Avenue, and Valley Place. Customer loading spaces would be located just south of the lobby entrance and exit elevators on the ground floor and adjacent to the entrance to the Retail Center from the parking deck on the main level. (see Figures 2-4a and 2-4b Site Plan - Main and Ground Levels). Overall coverage of the 14.9-acre Redevelopment Area by the proposed building would be 33.6 percent. IKEA's stores conform to a standardized design concept developed by IKEA International. The exterior design of IKEA's stores would be based upon simple rectilinear lines, typically, with a distinctive store entrance feature. The exterior colors would be blue and yellow similar to the design of the original store. Dryvit exterior walls would be painted blue with yellow identifying signage. Freestanding, store-identifying signage would be placed at the vehicular entrances to the proposed Retail center project site. A distinctive architectural yellow portico would identify the pedestrian entrance to the store, and metal pedestrian awnings would be positioned at the entrance and exits along the storefront, parallel to the New England Thruway. Inside the Retail Center, customers would visit a series of showrooms on the second floor organized around an internal pathway that would allow them to view assembled furniture products in settings that showcase the products' specific uses. The customers would complete order forms as they circulate through the store, and then would pick up the ordered merchandise when they finished shopping. All furniture inventory would be warehoused on the main level, either in self-service warehouse areas where customers can access goods directly, or in full-service warehouses, from which IKEA staff would bring goods to the customers. While customers may request that IKEA assemble and deliver products, most customers typically take delivery of the unassembled products at the Retail Center. In addition to furniture, customers could purchase other home and office furnishings, housewares for the kitchen, dinnerware and home textiles in the Retail Center's "Markethall" on the main level. All inventory in the Markethall would be on display and would be directly accessible to customers. 2-20 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS i' - 'r. r it :;v„' r- � _.. - ._ •,its .�;� 1 1 1- I scyp ta'y a • • - ,.r,. • + } l, 11 iitotiiir74"....2„ .:. - 1 • �` • •} �, ,:lE -.1ce .3 y Via'" s 1 tit' I. + ..r - - 'Y • •\. iii • • 7. . .10. f: p !. 4' ", gip •I t -.\ .. _ L - s.�r'= I -.a .,�- i. "�_ IP"mr.4 =• I �. .., ,t • y �, '_ 1 .4 4,1 • .. l,� ,s . l .✓ •• -. 4 • . ....,..i.:„. ,, . _... . _ ..;.. —.,, , . — ,,-. _,. - .....: - , .., -- -,.. ",..-*-,-..,,.....,.. • il. • '3tldEk�,i"i %k_-.+cS t •�� ,.t, rw.misA .. • 1 .. I, .4 • ac O- ' .tom iN C: , l f • -.7a..,-.',„',.!: 1D^4`" •4`• -' f :-yam £ :: — Figure . - , 7 2-8: Proposed View Looking East From Portman Road Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York MCG Architecture 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004, Tel:(212)425-0744, Fax:(212)425-0744 Job#00.300.01-08/21/00 Scale: Not to Scale 1-------- - " -- - - i . yil i IKEAlUAU — . Hornç:.furnishings _141 �, ".; - ;, �gir �;r._�,�"- �1�1��1�� �� ' ..f�.. .r...� "�r �... North Elevation Scale:Not To Scale Top of Parapet 1 EL:+35'-0" . Da .._fik__\ _ _R_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Top of Parking n In Structure VIII .i'' Level = Ground Level = — r EL:0'-0" West Elevation 1' 5 0 20' Aproximate Figure 2-10a North & West Elevations Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: As Noted MCG Architecture 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004,Tel: (212) 425-0744, Fax: (212)425-0744 Job#00.300,01 04/18/00 -?. -';f.-- , ` ' u,� 4. ,. t" :s '1,t.,,,,,,-.:41,,,,e.e`zn° 'x ,'4axtxs . :vr:om , !I EA �srtfuror-Ishii-Kis � IE � -, ( .111 South Elevation Scale:Not To Scale • Top of Parapet — , — `SEL+35'_0° —1'4a— mint,- Ea r ' Top of Parking Structure J I 1 Ilj�jf ,Main Level ' I III I. I 1111111r- - I I_ EEL:13.0„ I Ground Level East Elevatio '' 5'5®o, EL:0'-0" Aproximate Figure 2-10b: South & East Elevations Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: As Noted MCG Architecture 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004,Tel: (212)425-0744, Fax: (212)425-0744 Job#00.300.01 -04/18/00 Project Description September 14, 2000 The Retail Center would also include a showroom on the second floor where IKEA products would be displayed in room settings and where customers could order furniture at various help desks. A 100-seat bistro/cafe/restaurant, and administrative offices and support areas would also be located on the second floor. Floor plan areas are shown in Table 2-1, below. Floor layouts are shown in Figures 2-11a and 2-11 b. Table 2-1: Summary of Floor Areas First Floor Second Floor Totals Area Area Main Vestibule Lobby 1,600 1,600 Children's Play Area 1,000 1,000 Markethall 66,500 66,500 Forklift Vestibule 1,200 1,200 Carpentry 400 400 Maintenance/Support 300 2,000 2,300 Cart Storage 2,400 2,400 Cash Wrap 12,600 12,600 General Off./Administration 2,300 18,000 20,300 Customer Service 3,200 3,200 Holding/Recovery 3,200 3,200 Full Service Warehouse 33,600 33,600 Self Service Warehouse 83,300 83,300 Home Delivery 2,400 2,400 Receiving 2,400 2,400 Recycling Area 1,600 1,600 Showroom 64,000 64,000 Bistro Cafe Restaurant 6,000 6,000 FLOOR TOTALS 218,000 90,000 GRAND TOTAL 308,000 The proposed Retail Center Project is expected to employ approximately 350 workers. These would include approximately 180 part-time and 170 full-time workers. There are currently between 327 - 347 persons employed by existing businesses in the Redevelopment Area, with eight businesses not responding to survey requests at the time of the writing of this document. IKEA projects that it would pay in property taxes, conservatively, approximately $1.9 million annually -- approximately $245,000 to Westchester County, $64,000 to the New Rochelle Sewer District, $395,000 to the City of New Rochelle, and $1.2 million to the New Rochelle School District. Current occupants of the Redevelopment Area pay a total of $683,000 annually. 2-21 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 IKEA projects that it would also collect and pay in its first full year of operation (2002), approximately $7.36 million annually in sales taxes -- approximately $3.68 million to New York State, $1.38 million to Westchester County, and $2.3 million to New Rochelle. The aggregate amount of sales at Redevelopment Area establishments is unknown at this time, as is the amount of sales tax currently generated in the Redevelopment Area. 2.6.3 Parking Area Layout A total of 1,572 off-street parking spaces are proposed. There would be 407 parking spaces on the parking deck at the Retail Center's main level near the Center's entrance and exit. A total of 1,165 parking spaces would be located at-grade, either under the building (500), under the parking deck (455, including 34 passenger loading spaces), or uncovered to the east of the building and parking deck (101) and west (109) of the building, see Figures 2-4a Site Plan-Main Level and 2-4b Site Plan-Ground Level. The remaining 50 spaces would include 20 handicapped parking spaces and 30 passenger loading spaces adjacent to the entrance. The parking deck on the Main Level would have three points of access and three points of egress. The access points would be at the end of Biehn Street, the end of Valley Place, and from an internal ramp, which connects to the main east-west and north-south drive aisles through the covered, at-grade parking area. This ramp would be accessible from Fifth Avenue, Plain Avenue, and Valley Place. The egress points from the parking deck on the Main Level would be the end of Biehn Street, the end of Valley Place and from the external ramp which would be located to the east end of the building, which would connect directly to Fifth Avenue. The at-grade parking, located beneath the building or parking deck, would have three access points and two egress points. The access points would be at the parking facility's main entrance on Fifth Avenue and via the main east-west drive aisle, which would connect Plain Avenue and Valley Place. The proposed Retail Center would have 10 loading bays on the west end of the Main Level. Two bays would be occupied by two trash compactors and one by a container. The remaining seven loading bays would be available for truck deliveries. To facilitate off-street truck maneuvers, a large apron area would be provided immediately in front of the loading bays. The loading bays would have landscape screening along Fifth Avenue. Trucks would enter and exit via Fifth Avenue. 2.6.4 Landscape Plan The proposed Landscape Plan is shown in Figure 2-12. Plantings along the Fifth Avenue frontage have been selected to provide a consistent and high quality landscape of continuous, evenly spaced and sized street trees, hedges screening the parking areas, and evergreen plantings screening the loading area. The landscape treatment along this edge is intended to present a neat, clean and attractive view of the Fifth Avenue side of the proposed Retail Center Project site, across from William Flower Park and MacLeay Apartments. On the west side of the proposed Retail Center Project site, hedges would buffer the at-grade parking area from Fifth Avenue. Hedges, as well as a privacy fence, would also buffer the rear of properties fronting Portman Road and the frontage on Plain Avenue. The interior of the 2-22 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Under Structure Garage Entrance (Below) A A. Minn I d = - -,.-1 -- r-. r Iilllilllll 1Hf IIII Recycling # main Lill r'= y qg _ I 300 Sq. Ft. p r200iSgV,Ft ibule 1.600 S Ft; I = l I , 11 1 I I Carpentry I . - 400 Sq. Ft. I II Markethall i Retail 66,500 Sq. Ft. Receiving — - . - I 2,400 Sq. Ft. _ 0 M - y_ t i I I I -1 I f ' _ Self-Service I " I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I ' I i Warehouse j ' I L Holding/Recovery I I I 83.300 Sq. Ft. l i 3.200 Sq. Ft. ' _� C , . .;,.�. i _ _ _ _ _ _ - E - -� -�-� Cot----- Vestibule i Main � "'� Lobb Yew Customer 13 ,M d ,� �� 'Storage 1.600 Sq. Ft. Serv. Off. Customer Serv. 1111-11-'111-14-111, j j 2.400 Sq. Ft - 3.600 Sq. Ft. � i 1 f 1 3,200 Sq. Ft. ur, ai ti .I Cash / WrapII- �� " `MI i r---r, MT,-;_i I 12.600 Sq. Ft. " •�, x,N Children i 0\ i Play Area • Home Delivery ° o oo0o occ� 0 ����� ® �„Niw' ""��� 1,000 Sq. Ft. 0 0 2.400 Sq. Ft. , , ---numi 0 ® T 41 't ii om ,,rr_ p ,_,, p ��+ �--�!� � t-'.P s_ a al_� �r-r� IPriL�l . I 4. • General Offices• _-. ___.. / - 2,300 Sq. Ft. ` -. rt _ _ _...._.__._........._......_.._.._. - ....__..._.._._._._......_...__._...__.._......_._..._... 726 8 ___--_-� Main Entrance rp A Figure 2-11a: Floor Plan - Main Level ..: Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York S Scale: Not to Scale MCG Architecture, 11 Broadway, New York, New York 10004(212)425-0744 Fax(212)425-0744 File 9916 Fig 2-12a FPMF TMA 06/12/00 IP A , Support =_— ____, 2,000 — T Square Feet y .a Showroom Retail 64,000 o Square Feet c 0 `f) Open To Below II 1- It '„...., , -oto ryi_f r,t-Lizi-t-' . • .;46 v I t4-Zon _F. 7 s,oao • r- i� 1 Square Feel Bistro Cafe ��� P. Restaurant ���a� 6,000 Square Feet '�� woo #ISI! _ _ Mi- nn i i ; 726' 8" - :_ :__ I, tp- 4, Figure 2-11 b: Floor Plan - Upper Level . Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York s Scale: Not to Scale MCG Architecture, 11 Broadway, New York,New York 10004(212)425-0744 Fax(212)425-0744 File 9916 Fig 2-12b FPUF TMA 06/12/00 _/- _ --_- .., (--,..,,,_ , t� Y ii- - -- ���_____ Fifth Avenue _ \ ------ ---- ___} i — r•- ' He Vii, a owp ogwc�t,•' I rjo a w• �•ri:i 1.,.�._�...�.�---..7"-----W:::---i rA74,. agraIM i I'�EV,M`9, 1:71, 11.MP Nig 1" _'_. _., t -f • i Ir .� ?' Q' Sky' •�.• w` rr z,y 't a'oC •',� C.. 1►Mi111 �' a.-Ih� +�'If���GG1F+�•k9Rw�.'...� �� 11111 1111111111111111 ;::..:11t.,1" •' / .+ 41 PRI al -.."111/..,;14-11i,.. f.‘111 PPM., 5 -1.11 iVIt AL PA AL `� / 111 Y 2 ��I �,1 , /r /f 'r 41,i III tet: ' •� .74 •. +t r, tit I �y V tea. •,.4-4;.,..i.': -- i IIE MA un t. ::.. efirsit IZY , ,,A,-e IR Illili::,-. ....=..... 4 , _ . . - 1 il 1 di 7: Li ' 1, iiiiii . f t 4, a 'Cli 4, 11110 El 1 ..\4, • larb# ----- ill I s \\• j it � ►I i i /1' 0 C.)1 �.lf : °I.." IIIII , to . 1 f I .�01. t 11y I 1� I .- il'larrt List - Ikea i �_- "� 7/. / •^--~ ��� Eli_ 4P11111111111.1 ouumnii..,,,., ,IIIIIIII�� AL ����1 [3ntanrral Name - i(ommon Name -_�- tiiff �jZg , I nerrduous frrere - ' V - - V 9-10'ht„single leader ;';��_ _ IT {t .5p -ii-- Amelachler canadenzls 5hadblow ��� .7,,,„;,, , (AR IAcerrbnm"OctoberQon{" lOctaberCioryPeelMaple 2.5-5"ca1.1416 ht l r, �1.int V i!ewa:Jrro wo.ro.ro.ro.ro.ro.ro.r��►o�+o�o�o�►o�►owe�+e�e'���o O O fl •" 1, _ u eR cc "Co _ �► ' U ,O� i �._ _ _- •. : lli - o * %we►. _ _ : 6••01. 0A.0,k0ak,. 0 0 0 0 o e' -w 11 O .. . . Is Q3_}Gykcp btoba"Princeton 5enlry”-f'rmcetan Sentry Ginkgo Y ____f 2�5 3"c�,14 I6'ht, \ ``,. 4 PK IPnrus sernlata'Kwanzan' !Kwanzar Cherry 12-2.5"cal,9-IO'ht, J Lamm n •�..ec��. !1C ;filacordata"Creenspire" ;GeenspreI-inclen '2,5-5"ea.14-16'ht LCrmrferouz 1rrez , _-- -i -_-_- _i AG_ lAbies concda Atte Pir 18-10'ht 1 PA -j Pkea abies ---' NawalSpnre !10 12'ht _ Pf 1 Finis thunbercuana --- idvenese Black Pine --18-10'ht -- 5hrub Isi Legend ICA !Cann alba"Neganbsarna" `IVa-iegated k'edlavlg Doclwaod 4:6 ht.,,6+ canes 1 -1 i t7eclduous Tree !EA �Duonymn alahn carpa^ta _-- ;Canpa-t Rrnuq Duch 12.5-3'ht, ___ I i!1 IForsytha intermedia iI, nnaoel Geld Forsythia —4-5'ht.,6+ canes —_' _-_._.-__—.___ - I______.-_—.__._— " Coniferous Tree JH ____________ horizontalis"Dar Harbor" I--- Harbor Jmiper_..------..__..---I•.------- .._ __.-----a Shrub 1 W I faun'Densifornls' '1Pensifcn,s Yew 125-5'ht, 1 0 Cr [VK 1Vibram rhltadophyllun ;I,eatherieafVibrrnm _l•4-5ht _ g,,,,.qe Hedge • Figure 2-12: Landscape Plan Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle,Westchester County, New York Source:Bohler Engineering Base Map and Site Design, TMA Landscape Design,Scale= 120'= 1"+- File 9916 Fig. Zip 7/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, NY 10516(914)265-4400, Fax:265-4418 Project Description September 14, 2000 Retail Center Project site would be shaded with street trees planted around the perimeter, as well as in islands at the ends of parking aisles. In addition, a thick screen of evergreen trees and shrubs would prevent direct views of the loading docks from Fifth Avenue. On the east side of the proposed Retail Center Project site, the landscape treatment would be similar to the west side. The parking area would be buffered with hedges and street trees. Frontages on Fifth Avenue and Valley Place would be buffered. Also the edge of the parking deck facing Valley Place would be screened with evergreen plantings and street trees. On the south side of the proposed Retail Center site facing the New England Thruway, the development would be screened with evergreen and deciduous plantings, including trees and shrubs. The edge of the parking deck would have sufficient plantings so that the parking area would not be readily visible from the roadway. Additionally, the end of Biehn Street and the cul-de-sac at Valley Place would be encircled with street trees. 2.6.5 Lighting Plan The proposed Retail Center Project site would be illuminated at night to enhance pedestrian and vehicle safety throughout the site and along the entrance roads and perimeter sidewalks. The proposed site lighting would consist of pole-mounted fixtures with enclosed light sources. The lighting would be designed to provide a maximum average intensity of five (5) foot-candles and a minimum of 1.5 foot-candles of illumination on pavement surfaces in compliance with §331-53D.(6) of the City of New Rochelle Zoning Regulations with regard to lighting. Security illumination of approximately one-third of the total number of light fixtures would be provided in the evening after 9:00 PM (Mondays through Saturdays), and after 6:00 PM on Sundays when the Retail Center is closed. A hierarchy of lighting is proposed. Duplex-mounted 400 watt lamps on 25 foot high poles are proposed within parking areas. Single-mounted 400 watt lamps mounted on poles at 25 feet would be along the perimeter of the parking areas and along the entrance roadways. Building-mounted lights at a height of 15 feet would be provided along the southern, eastern, and western sides of the building, and 25 foot high pole-mounted 250 watt metal halide street lights would be located along Fifth Avenue. The glazed entry area would be illuminated from spillage of the interior lighting. During the hours the store is closed, interior lighting would be on night circuits minimizing the exterior spillage. Truck docks would receive a minimum of 1.5 foot-candles of illumination. Lighting in the docking area would only be on during hours of loading dock usage. Catalog banners would be installed on the building's south facade to the east of the main entry during the months of August and September. IKEA signs would be internally illuminated, but general signs such as traffic, entry and exit signs would be illuminated from other lighting sources. IKEA signs would remain illuminated 24 hours, but general signs would only remain on during store hours. Parking areas under the building or parking deck would be provided with enclosed source lighting providing an average of 2.9 foot-candles of illumination throughout the general parking area. These areas would be well lit for pedestrians, parked car security, and safe vehicular circulation. Lighting would be oriented so that off-site light spillage would be controlled. 2-23 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 The proposed development would conform with §331-53D.(6) of the City of New Rochelle Zoning Ordinance regarding lighting of off-street parking areas 2.6.6 Redevelopment Area and Off-site Transportation Improvements Redevelopment Area Vehicular access to the Redevelopment Area is proposed from Fifth Avenue directly, from Fifth Avenue via Valley Place or from Fifth Avenue via Portman Road, Plain Avenue, and Biehn Street. Anticipated traffic patterns are described in detail in Chapter 3.9 Transportation and Traffic. Figure 2-13, the Demapping Plan, shows the streets proposed to be eliminated (demapped) as a result of the proposed Retail Center Project. Pleasant Street would be demapped in its entirety. Plain Avenue would be demapped between Biehn Street and Valley Place, and would be reconstructed as a main drive aisle in a private parking lot which would be open to Retail Center customers only. Biehn Street would be converted from a public roadway to a private roadway and maintained by the Applicant. It would be open for public use. Valley Place would be widened, resurfaced, and remain publicly owned. In addition, as shown in Figure 2-4b Site Plan-Ground Level, the official City map would be changed to include a new private street. This street would connect Fifth Avenue to Plain Avenue for the purpose of providing ingress and egress to the loading docks of the proposed Retail Center, (see Figure 2-4a Site Plan-Main Level). It also would provide ingress and egress to the proposed 109 space, parking lot, located to the west of the proposed Retail Center structure (see Figure 2-4b Site Plan-Ground Level). Off-site Roadway Improvements In Chapter 3.9 Transportation and Traffic, the proposed Retail Center Project's traffic-related impacts and associated mitigation measures are described in detail. Measures include traffic signal timing changes, installation of traffic signal controls and other physical roadway changes. The intersections with physical changes are shown in Figures 2-14a and 2-14b Roadway Modifications, and are described below. The numbers indicated in parentheses below refer to intersection designations assigned in Chapter 3.9 Transportation and Traffic. All offsite roadway improvements would be funded by the Applicant. Fifth Avenue As mitigation for the proposed Retail Center Project, Fifth Avenue would be widened from two-lanes at 30-feet in width to three or four lanes at 35 to 45 feet in width beginning at Valley Place and extending to the intersection of Portman Road in the City of New Rochelle, as shown in Figure 2-4b. The available right-of-way is variable, ranging from 37 to 45 feet. The widened Fifth Avenue would enable westbound left-turn lanes to be provided at three locations: the main entrance to the parking garage; the entrance to the truck loading docks; and the westbound approach to Portman Road. 2-24 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS PLN AVENUE TO BE ABANDONED BETWEEN BON STREET /1 / AND VALLEY PLACE AND TO BE RECONSTRUCTED AS A ALL EXISTING TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC, AND CABLE ONES WITHIN }--- ` PRIVATE PARKING AREA. MAIN DEWS AISLE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THE HATCHED AREA TO BE ABANDONED ANO REMOVED. I 7.. z ; i— _ ;! FIFTH AVENUE BETWEEN PORTMAN AVENUE AND VALLEY ' ' \ t N..74.. PLACE TO BE WIDENED AND RESTRIPEO. ROADWAY 1110 LF WATER MAIN TO BE � f � j� ! - 1110 U 8' SAN.SEWER TO BE TO REMAIN PUBU(XY OWNED. ABANDONED AND REMOVED 1ABBAANDONED AND REMOVED 1— 1 i . ABANDONED AND REMOVED ALL EXISTING STORM SEWERS WITHIN THE HATCHED 4/IFTH • ENUE \\., ' ' „� FIFTH AVEN AREA TO BE ABAlNDONED. -- - _---^.._ _ ^___—_..� 1 < "•• a,, '. '.------------':=--------------'7------.1..-_,-_------ -- -- 2300 IF 15'RCP TO 8E REMOVED J rz 300 Lf BE REMOVED. D. (--- —'-- _ 27' RCP TO _ dd y � � r( i !( T, ---'"'"-tea _ -_� =°- _- — — --- — -- - -- - -- Z _—_ —....,.-..— ----.. �l _ < /rC! z. -`'...,,,., atter = -s`-f.�. - - --- - --- -- --� - - - -----_---- --- -- -- _ -- --- '- -- --- -- = --------2.•,.----:_. __- _ �' ' _ -; 'moialit __ --.r.._.,r.,..�.�.r.r..��"__,..,.,,.e,.t-..' _ e'+`` _e ''-_:- _ - =N+ri ----, .,., _._. -- �f _�Y"" " ` „� ' 1' 1 .�"1! ,r,.,T _ --F,.mn., 'A`�� �A��i.'ai a�f��� 1.l i r•li ,..,,- T' - ^h 6 _. -- _r s -�•. '�..___ •;,ft ,; .? ---t-.�+.r. .. +`: 1 ( ` 1; �. 1 • < • I�I �r Z., n n. C Z _r I r (cc � J w 612 i`! ,m• • T I;i I `' E u tor u L I 1 G i e 1_, PH ,Lars Tat 11m, 1$ 'Dr1( �4 Ic 1,a» I 1 ' G { I 1 1 e F c I I 1 II I I• I J &tj[±it "H ± _ � n,, I I lW,t. 1 I 7 IA 11 IM Y to M I i ILO N 1 f(;!/< / 1_I 1 Iwr se y4LOT ,ar x1 m !I �� J}" • Ti,„, i -( I I dr J(r , It. 10,1 •`v., Yu< • I 1I l _u � f- 1 { 1 _ 1tIt4� 11�BCK89� ��v1. � � 1 r {1 f I I A i i 7w—�-_�«. L. `- Ti '�'.ir'fs" __? i —f— - "'j':i i II - ,-- ,,4 T d ! 1 �1 t t 1 X1898 ,D, E I ; 1 I I I __, _ — ' ,J • Ia eu q,rsli R / / ! ( I W ,. v� 0 1 ff " —z I q 1 a w J` T "`� ..: �ww„ r T Of ! c . a wr w i' .F). '` c,,,,,.,,.,^„ fora for a ,Or u - r-41 ' /` L' -"-+."' ..0 . wwJ .' n. Aar err I 1,m In I L g • ,1 tor a tm t1 I 1 ( g• g'i G %� . 4I»[,:, s "lir";t � ( - a��a ` IIo, l n y <mIw ' '1� B a I ., .I .I, »^ 7,<m+a It } I� ,,,2 / 'ri r I _ tis Y K ww Nr w,Ia ,arx I EE n c �: 6 3 �, IIIN' { 1 (�nl c I�•• I r ,J_. rn r' _ ..",�..:;,�`- I ta 1.,..,,. G S ,4—,„„r-,4; a tm x- I 1 4 ,m» ,m» - lar fe , , , I / t f 31 w++ wor.sv,tr I s I F^ )i I I 1 I: Lma4 I �tmxt 1 .!� Iwo `t ) r� 1 I I - G l' .'T'--- Lr - 'w �•-�+� _ <..,., ti '�IlbllA 1 t Y 1s,M1 r<, p1 _ ! I i`G L -t i _— w,w ..n E , `/, J/ i ,,.M` ,!`�--::: ,,'",-•,w.>",, `�—,- 11 sse-, -r, ; I .� r1. �ry <„ ri r l r,,,.r 'i -1 ,1 it `(,.,,, I! .; ----- !-^ „1 r/ r J/ eL' _ ��,,�� ! • Y 1 may, '1� 41 , nnn„'mmm( -�...� y{�`--� --- '4T"'�'�,R. e.»ss,o..o�«e i �,.. " ��� i� ` 1 - - r�-�--^---- -- t r' , /y Q, u II i y � e 7 t `� .'::: ,v ..; '{fib' T f'�' - >f J, . ;�Y!:`."i'=.r.I•r......^„_ _ _..rte MEITSESERIMM=MAPMR r 7 .j '-,.. Y �tmm,�l - ' I }i „nn. mndnn;�, F.; ; p,.1-. `,.„A A 1 . .. .. !+/,J r.�„r • �Z�,,i:'. `,I.'"•':''':•:.,,, j ",j ,mom nnnSnTii»' / 9 O" ��`•`. ,�'ww w�, i? ww,,: !Y Y I I wr/ l,( 1 "-t."'" I1: n I I '�w,Mr t_,i. Sit �' J l Calmaf ..-. _ 'G= ' I i I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I » � r, , ,Q. ""'c G ( I + I I ( 1 (,ao vs 1 I 1 1 w,x Lax xJIarw , a w41 ww w,w E J`, e/ ,. w yY 1 us< G 3 I 1 Lax to a wt w Io u l to r LOT a Iu¢r 42 ,Dr 43 as<a ,er a lc-w k Ia!1 Im a ,,., 1 1-.: a I I ! I 1 t Y. ':..-...-.1.- a �� tat nT it .�.Yi w» ;, • f` ,,,,,„r,‘„,,,,,,,s' `orf, ""„� -• III __ I I ,., „,,, ,F ,r !/ , t',• u BLOCK 894 11 j I I ( t �' ti _ I tl ton BLOCK 903 1 we se I ,if I t` ' a n �¢d• '^+, I I ( I J / I I G ( ., • 'fr , Jk. �`•. � w �kyJJ „,, J i - r a {{ �r m�.,,,mTM I__ uE am K LI N I ; ...,,•.��`„TJI,rlm`. �.,...e,� i,t u„ully ,i I 1•I I } I ! ( Is.. 4_.li p,7rIrt_li 'S° / K 1•.e. m•�- +tom I -.. ni rlrm n rrJn..,...1.,,>T ,. _ ( I r, ,, 1 i a�i BLOCK 903 wr n ( 1 ux rs sw,of 3 ;f!(-/ rbc J� BIEHN STREET TO BE MIUED AND RESURFACED.AND TO BE Fl f -••• ..•••••... R-' 1 1I, w,x wr u' •{r-•' ,a x wt • I urt a {,o,,: Iwo,s rm,a rs ? , Y r 1 w,<' Io s I w,s ,o, �`a' / , r w. Yt u,a J41°HI " H1 ?:' r• c. Int a to a9 •%"»'iwr x a tax j,4•44,4/4,..,•/1 �^y I( /,, CONVERTED FROM A PUBLIC ROADWAY TO A PRNATE ROADWAY ,,it^,^^,^• q i 111 I I p.°` OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY IKEA OPEN TO PUBLIC USE _ ~,,, I; ' i 1 f ! � i I I ii 1 I 1 ' { c Ie ; I 1 I 1 I I VALLEY PLACE TO RE MILLED,WIDENED,AND w: ,,,,.,,�yw i _ y,,,,,m^' ''- i I f t . 1 Y� �` 5l 1 I c 1 1u� i I �yuI 1� RESURFACED. ROADWAY TO REMAIN PUBLICLY OWNED. w,..,,ww�w wwWw ! y WI a r Td ...1.,, 1 1 i 7 L1 .uue� e. �r .. wa,,.w,u+w.uw..ow.uowu.s...� r i � 1. l, i i-r- = - i .i - 1:'''''.._I ice: i�J .,. - --- ' J J�'/il ` I P �` ............. ...f' O� ! . .. . I i.G. a _ u..0 4, / pir • / ice'I Las t ,a x yr•, ,+,s14 r^ tax 3.,inr ; 1\ 41 --i i _ 1 1 •' ...'... wr a ��” i i 1.".1116.111127 u l ,:'I`:: 'i fr ! I , - w,s/ to a 9 L fir, 1 K fl )3LOCK 91� �N1 '2,' 1,ar1164,1-.7 ,w,aA I 11 1 a*i 111 '4 Y d s• e— ,»,,. L'i 1 . '1 ' 6L 'yl L.-___.--_____------- _______ ..m/1 7 `� SIr I I. -ya yb " ` • `I� I y .' G,,.,.�"' 1 'I- -- , K _ 4 J I, L ..1 '( ='t'1f y•Iwrµ�L J fes ` ' : ' lt� i 1 � 0 915. E I 7 Ai —"'ALL EXISTING TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC,AND CABLE UNES WITHIN PLEASANT STREET TO BE ABANDONED THE HATCHED AREA TO BE ABANDONED AND REMOVED. 882 LF GAS MAIN TO BE 900 LF WATER MAIN TO BE IN RS ENTIRETY. ..•..•,-..-' c. ABANDONED AND REMOVED ABANDONED AND REMOVED r�..�•• NEW ENGLAND THRUWAY 900 IF 8< SAN. SEWER TO BE ,may,,,.. , _-- ABANDONED AND REMOVED GRAPHIC SCALE Figure 2-13: Demapping Plan Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Too o 50 100 200 400 City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: 1 Inch = 100 Feet Source: Bohler Engineering, August 2000 File 9916 Fig 2-13 DMP TMA 08/23/00 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 100 ft. Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845)265-4400 Fax(845)264-4418 •'.-----• 1> — j "L5 co .. Q 1 ,,,,..—r-c 1 6 r i...,,s,,is. y 7/.j/ GARDEN STREET AND CEDAR STREET FIFTH AVENUE AND PORTMAN ROAD CITY PARK ROAD / J y b f0 C4""'l < r ( �, ! 7. G frj ' I v ft? f w !F. R ; / (pi`s' .g7 11 4 ►41- K n 1 1`-,4Ilk ` Y rrr '.. . / / .2,,Gy/` y 7`'� 4/ y f Scty � �% s' • t/ #4 '1/41(%4 et. ', 2 r ON-RAMP C I • 'P.,' � f, -,,, y /- .1 J i\°---- .,.0 .,� r /'- . / ;f25 i 33' / $ "" ,., -.� a 0, ,- ' ' 1y F.{ ,„� 0 Yt” .- . j 2 Ali4 TO I-9.N/[3 FIFTH AVENUE w t 10. P 1 (i '" r e..e h 1 A \.• t'r \ \. 1 . f t :: , .:?:' 12a2uSe f 1, A' GARDENSTREEi Q1QIP • 5), `�l ,- . ech e m „" p h,•a� . i, r / J 3 v ii N 1If-► , ' Yip: l sa'`:, f Redevelopment Area e! '- N 1 ' `" N 1j 5 1 CEDAR STREET PORTMAN ROAD sI�ai 1, i L l r/ ,. +.iC\.„,--v-,' � r • /F . s J'" j r 19 tit` '�4j/Y /^ Ir...,, `.' ra .,,`r.0 4.114, y 't,---, FIFTH AVENUE AND VALLEY PLACE .Z.9:k, '`g$ 1 C�,r< -,�'t--� '-`�. .'.,-,I, f '�` . .. 'ya �`, °`• '` ';y. 40 BEECHMONT DRIVE AND PINEBROOK BLVD.WEST 9./ona l& \ l `� \')j 'a. '�M'era a, pI/ a. r� • 1: 0, I'1 sch ; �,4r ,\ " 'S / m j �, � ailf.4, PI\EI3ROOKBLVD(SB) 12': :10' -- k' . ...ight.s.,, .. ..--,A. _...---',/,-%W../.. .," ,/ t • 'Y ,/..,.: / / ' ' -. -- .. ' ' .<- HY 12' I1 9el\ � \ !!-1,-.1f o"r f f� / .� �,'-' '-' . / ,f - r ,C.' i. 'i/„ ) 7." ,u \ - 'i‘-'-' ; • CI tY � ` a FIFTH AVENUE 12' c 10' 'i (( Y 0 ' ' . `, . `` , C'' ? �s • mlRi C� C , 21' -'`.1' 1 r{ar .s ... ., 4./ •, l ji� _ I t ,\. ''r ` . �..4 'y+' ' V' 10' r "‘iiAhAt•E`' .',. ?t4e t \ �41/ * fry ``; •>,, O ': Y hyr71 ,./ w0Q•1 , �. * -`--�1 %\I V- 12 715 V ps., �} .,\ r !, ` 0• /; • m; .�_ f r t,� BEECHMONT DR. lI VALLEY PLACE �}1 A. sr s d .i f 65C � 1 .. S' 1 i 3l, ,/`, 1(1 . e' t' • 4 .k"..1-."ell i 1'ro qp 4 r B u. vp /� ,,,---Te,. ,,,. / 1 .}. "'.. i 1 PINEBROOK ROAD Ed MADISON AVENUE AND NEW JEFFERSON ST.I-95 INTERCHANGE 8. 1.,T\ t'r'j CS,/ 1 a .\ pit_ ¢tont XV/ oJtrl P ,:c •'.t-pa`s''. ,ill t ,...� s �' J,r .`e+� 1, ..----,--" "�' NEW JEFFERSON ST'. (14 A/4„?, / r-,,, ,,,y .: v'� �1F �OO 4, {..V.0 } ; fj r� S4 't 1 2J �f_4 r { '71''CD */ I`yL 7.#"'4r i eri Od `�A ' ,r 4 ...4�c. ;pr ei vejt/i,./l. f\rY :70 \�~ r, arta nn r itf s a�'',�ju'' . f' �--s: -, a tyt VIL 'F , Park �t7 e,' � Table 'I •-�;` e ' 'f y`' �^.94%..i. •a+'� 3ti, 1,`\a^... t4ntr • ,:a•....ROC k 25, * .1%w ' 6^.%,:r1�` .tom ' `.\0., .`�L `BedUfOft4 it MADISON AVENUE , - ✓ s',A '\�, :4t c 0 ' / ,3' 1 , `R. * * __ i,� °.N..s,' �, - <- . �,�• / � , ludA;n' Lt Echo . *remium 3Y > , tet ;thea. \ s,, t 1/. 1, '"arks Pt 4 r tiY . :(i3 Pt Gut = X30' / /� if/ ` ` • ,7 r F "„ ir` `" } t-a Pt .• 1.1Y r4,� 0 - *Erha Bu N N"1 '" ' ,, \� �c : >) _ •-,_ =i;. ,. Off-Site Physical Roadway Changes ` 17' o. ~21' ., 1, _ ) , -oj;a { SCh tc� . t Ba�tey6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area 195 INTERCHANGE 17 ? �� ;'X '''' ` r `"r Rack Retail Center Project t.,,� r, o Z ® Study Intersection ENTRANCIII XI I 10 ;a ,%R`:,S I. a 0$. t�iMk`,,,,f s, •:;41I�t:' ��, ,t�. Y S�;C''`o ) .Echo N Figure 2-14a: Roadway Modifications IN E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Base Map: 3-D Topo Quads, 2000 S File 9916 Fig 2-12a RM1 TMA 09/08/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845)265-4400 Fax(845)264-4418 HUTCHINSON AVENUE AND WEAVER STREET „,,.-r;''' > \ _' ! p: I r ^ err r;► t , 1 _. ";� Hanson ' -- a \ r e: the 0 t cs �,% i Brook' Golf \ pp44 3 b4 �' -• High Bch j I . 13' I. !� f Fire .{ r% Course 0 s G .�- , , . * ' in• 'r<< X114 ti Sta' f \ !''' i I ) uAri• s1�sr, ��d 3 F' .ta �� 31�� ; � POO• ming - �� / �� - •`� b �� • , '0' li $ y� s. ti`'� \C} •; s • +t �, b ,\ complexIt ,��/ ! ••••••," JE�' 1. { : -' i t t y- CraSstiVay t o ,f-, j T SyQty' ti 'i ��y �, Fitch! r >t' / 1Z1 (4, •' .r i / . , K • , ; t ;' /, y Water l > ' ._ 11' , ' t/",i,," 1 r8 Q,,t�/t "1 7° S ‘,H0, ---.s- \n►• ;! ,C�\/ t ,r l Q — 1 / �, t yam' �� (� € +----, � i' f[ t, y ` L II' i � • t I iC l I. ` t • / \; S � 1 �! �r/.n{flA� / z�•� �/ II 4-- A 0 11 Inrrc111NSONAVENUE A /� ' `Cem i i �'a A t '''`2 '$tdetftbc,:tr f ,-<,'¢R « •ark nt ,,: i'�`° / f 4/ \ Nature' �'{' ,� r t t I 15ftvlc ` P S Vit' 1 _ ..,± -� � •�eR r1 1 _, \ s �`� �Y� si re ljISCI! T" _ - +! N 1�, I� 13 ► a•R�ga. "" r . r,. o i ;'/ts ". �`i 4 �� Colonial Acres • r4c,, /F '. - ..'•_.�- .�.../ .ni • �l�tt 14 II WEAVER R S7'REh? ® olds i • ,---'1/i- , ,,.01,-‘) 4 • @ 4„, ;1 f f , / .... , F. ; r MURRAY AVENUE AND WEAVER STREET ,/ . • r• '% ' \ i ' ate` --- -- ' } •+ "' a I t C e}e Coir e, L �/ **X` `.r 1115' Uu►ker •ge . . j' X;._ / ' , r""14,exh ,/� / ,.; , • pWGAVERSL'RF.G'I t?/. s 'C ,` ya_ ,� �° �`' - j ` s'= .. ,�y 't�' y,,t0 t 1't .`. •,•",,,,,,e+ a •�• 4:1 125s I ~ Quake�•Rtdge • .. • .��t t E b6 F -r 14" � /' P`: / �� ./ �:_ '. in �,- ; Got tub „ .; �`. SIGNAL. % 1 y ,mit #1":-„•••- s • PIS ft.awnty) id' SIGNAL `.11'S£> f_1. ' / 1 Cf•• •<: \ Z.? AgA° - -- 6 /�1• . •,j ��i "-irk"' � Y -*- 4AHEAD ` ' • 43' a � s 'issn..,•y/ Y $ \ MOG{ Woods • �' D ,.. I � 0k ,t - ' ey/ lis- , ri, 1/ a cyr•41°� t/ � s +��+Q�t #u ! a,. b' I �,1 PAZIXf �` // • r ", •Y_ 1° _ .�' _1 ,.. i y s tit' 9 ' E f.i / t{' WEAVER STREET J/ !` '` '*. `.1 �r 0,10/# ,!'` Y ; � / _ ,, W 1 \ fj%� .j .t` J l,,' t .f �,. ,Y-, ,A,4 , s ---7 ,,, / Jf 4I Ward 1 E f, ( ! ti '/ ;� , 1 . / p.. j� ACreS 1 'J" l25 l g ; ,,.1 I. • i j \ 1\4, 0 �� 1 %• Park s» ..- ,Ft.I ---.1 .4-1-1„„.4,,,,./- i�Winged Foot �. i. `� N MURRAYAVCENUIs i i "t1 • `S (12�9}0f, / f, Gott Club t / � m � r) • 4t y) / • ��. SSwifnming z - �' / .,rte"• 4, \ jf .•C :17; *• t1.<\....\\:„; �¢ � ! 'off .' �'��; ✓t.• C !f '�(} ' 1 _p 4 1; ,moi •.'/ ,. f 'sir (� =1 ,. •. ` �/FS{, ,l • ri `r,\.�, 'i.. 'A fr� i y ',/ fx^ + ! EC;: ,* •4 ,\ raf 'rf F,-!. • ns r= to ,t, , r 19rd ' g"P , , Bonnie Br a� \ ! d . ; v 4 , ► }� a ,+ s �� 8�s fr.' ►n JCtI "p Countrj+�'lub t ! // y[?� Q�%! ��• // �e =in_ { B p , jf @! o Tank' /' ' • « ' t9f, - o °* / 1 • Ged .4 ``, ••.,,I y !A a3 �`,\- 5, \Y'i 1\S ,1 ; i I.. , \� '"i• . r r t y ~¢Q .`... ,� `° ✓ f *. /q,�/ 1 -�• ► �� {/��gp�{ R J V ter If1V 1 4 i �® 7C A ,.�{ �.a % J , y \ ' d LAKES hKE S ' 4`� `` /� u• O', y sE, s 4 00 C \ A vM . t1 j f f / 1� o •'C.;)ttA tYty, 'i , i .� �'`� 1 tip S �,�' v Yf r+ / r 3'.kRt; tj r '� - � �/ ca; /) 1 1 i // yg / 'P,t, ` ,,( , 911 'C:rk-' .' j.' '' ' )�Ii t t. I 1/ `t ..�'. J1 Pa t l r -� �,.`f_ /� ,A' ,' .f ¢-, ,/ 1�- * , /^. }VN om`'" `,_Y'! '�t• ._^ �. ! �n�> "` r.«. • --�_. Q;' ' / 6 //fe Vs fi �'' .�'�r",-»-. ,,,,,ry4„rti fit. r y-,,,, �S� �� 1 T� r !/ / /� �i �,y� , s . N �\ i p'• e - -y" C rmartt e, r /; 0,0 � x �t .'�'i �AN�•.. ,. •�tF!8��4' � ;, 'A ;titNk!! hth�( ��� _�� � �• .. s- ���' � t�s � f -A� ' I '�' zt• 1` ��.��,'� 1:414.0Y/<':.:*;.-'14kfilis."4"\--' f `�� �� 0 3j� 154 1 h -1,..„--3-.1/4. >f _F?.r_i ; / _ FIS 1 • :1�, { 4 i rl s8 g j jc•1 t18L?L Rti,r 1. �"�' "\ p ,! �, Rp ,a'`,. �_ � ,. / ,%' ¢' ,.' ' '` Off-Site Physical Roadway Changes 4 0st �; ;,o ,.._.,---..-1.', i (,-,,,-,..4 ?,,., Y� tzs / 1� / Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area � a� �"- 1..�� Wykagyl ...(----,00,...,-- 1, ,t «, / rA / �� �,�w 1, ,y • .. r' _A ' " : , ,tiv. Country Club �� 1 y, ' >� .:'-0p, t V ,' Ac'c / �y: , / d. �/ ® Study Intersection Plan and Retail Center Project N Figure 2-14b: Roadway Modifications Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project W E City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Base Map: 3-D Topo Quads, 2000 S File 9916 Fig 2-14b RM1 TMA 09/08/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring,New York 10516(845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 264-4418 Project Description September 14, 2000 In addition, the roadway widening would enable right turn lanes to be provided at two locations: the main entrance to the parking garage and the eastbound approach to Valley Place. The objective of these right and left turn-lanes is to improve access to the proposed Retail Center Project site from the east and west, while facilitating the movement of through traffic on Fifth Avenue. The widened Fifth Avenue would be striped, similar to that shown in Figure 2-4b, to designate the right and left turn lanes between Valley Place and Portman Road. Fifth Avenue at Portman Road(1) Portman Road would be widened, as a proposed Retail Center Project mitigation, so as to provide two lanes on the northbound approach of Portman Road at Fifth Avenue: a northbound right and through lane and a left-turn only lane (see Figure 2-4b). Fifth Avenue at Valley Place (2) As a mitigation for the proposed Retail Center Project, Valley Place would be widened to the west, along the eastern boundary of the Retail Center site, to accommodate northbound right and left turn lanes at the approach to Fifth Avenue. Parking would continue to be permitted on the east shoulder of Valley Place in the Town of Mamaroneck, but prohibited on the west side within the City of New Rochelle. In addition, a traffic signal is proposed to handle the site-generated traffic (see Figure 2-4b). Other proposed physical modifications to off-site roadway intersections are described below and shown on Figures 2-14a and 2-14b Roadway Modifications. Madison Avenue, Interstate 95 Interchange, 17 and New Jefferson Street (10) The Retail Center Project proposes to replace two-way stop sign control at this intersection with a traffic signal control. In addition, the northbound 1-95 exit ramp would be widened from 14-feet to 22-feet to provide two 11-foot lanes, one for right turn and through traffic and the other for left turns. Hutchinson Avenue at Weaver Street (15) It is proposed that a new traffic signal be installed at the intersection of Weaver Street (NY 125) and Hutchinson Avenue, which serves northbound-entering and -exiting traffic at Interchange 20 on the Hutchinson River Parkway, as well as local traffic in Scarsdale. This proposed traffic signal would be coordinated with the existing, nearby traffic signal at the southbound parkway exit ramp. Weaver Street (NY 125) and Murray Street (17) The T-intersection at Weaver and Murray Streets in the Town of Mamaroneck is currently controlled by a stop sign on the Murray Street approach. It is proposed to implement a traffic signal control to facilitate the left-turn movement from Murray Street onto northbound Weaver Street. Advance warning signs for the traffic signal are also proposed. 2-25 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 Garden Street and Cedar Street at 1-95 Interchange 16 (19) This T-intersection is currently controlled by a stop sign on the Cedar Street approach. It is proposed to install a traffic signal at this intersection which would be coordinated with the nearby traffic signal at Garden Street and 1-95 northbound entry/exit. Beechmont Drive and Southbound Pinebrook Blvd. (23a) The offset intersection at Beechmont Drive, Pinebrook Boulevard (SB) and Pinebrook Road is controlled by a two-way stop sign favoring Beechmont Drive. It is proposed to install a traffic signal at this intersection to correct existing failing conditions and provide a moderate amount of additional capacity. 2.6.7 Drainage/Stormwater Management Plans The Retail Center Project plans call for the collection of stormwater runoff from all new pavement surfaces into a new stormwater collection system within the Redevelopment Area and directed to existing municipal drains surrounding the Redevelopment Area. Runoff from the building roof would be directed to the same system. As a result of the Retail Center Project, there would be less impervious surface than existing conditions, by 0.17 acres. By balancing the pre-versus post-drainage areas for each of the points of interest (P01) around the Redevelopment Area, there would be no increase in the rate of stormwater runoff to any of the existing stormwater collection systems. The proposed drainage design would control runoff from the 2-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100 year storms. Pollutant loading analyses of pre- and post- development drainage indicates that water quality of the stormwater runoff would be improved as a result of the Retail Center Project. The stormwater management plan is fully described in Chapter 3.4 Surface Water, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management of this document. The Stormwater Management Report is found in Appendix E. 2.6.8 Utilities Existing water and sewer lines within the beds of Fifth Avenue, Valley Place, Biehn Street and Plain Avenue from Portman Road to Biehn Street would continue to be used to provide service to the proposed Retail Center structure and remaining existing uses, as would existing gas, electric and telephone lines. Where necessary, new service lines would be installed. The Redevelopment Area is currently served by the New Rochelle Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is operated by Westchester County. Its capacity is 13.6 MGD. No problems are expected with the plant's ability to treat additional sanitary sewage generated by proposed Retail Center Project. 2.6.9 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Discussion of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the proposed Retail Center Project is found in Chapter 3.2 Topography, Geology, Soils, and Hydrogeology. The primary aim of this plan is to reduce soil erosion from areas exposed during construction and prevent sediment from entering the City stormwater collection system, or from being transported to adjacent property and streets. Due to the generally level topography throughout much of the Redevelopment Area, soil erosion and sediment control would be achieved by the proper 2-26 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 installation and maintenance of sediment control structures (such as silt fences and hay bales) at the perimeter of the Redevelopment Area, and around stormwater drains. 2.6.10 Snow Storage Plan Areas designated for snow storage are noted on Figure 2-15 Snow Management Plan. All access aisles would remain clear of snow except for those shown on the plan. Snow would not be piled higher than six feet on the parking deck. 2.7 Construction and Operation 2.7.1 Demolition and Construction Schedule The Project Engineer has developed a demolition and construction schedule, which is described below and is illustrated in Figure 3.13-1 Demolition and Construction Phasing Schedule, found in Chapter 3.13 Construction Impacts. The Retail Center Project construction schedule has been divided into four phases, including: (1) permitting; (2) acquisition/relocation; (3) demolition; and (4) construction. Phase I - Permitting Following the completion of the SEQRA process and the acceptance of the Statement of Findings, the Retail Center Project would require site plan approval, as well as regulatory approvals from State and local agencies. A discussion of required approvals is provided above. This phase would be expected to involve approximately 20 weeks. Phase II - Acquisition and Relocation Concurrent with the permitting and approvals process, the Applicant and the City would implement the acquisition and, if necessary, condemnation of properties not otherwise acquired by the Applicant privately. The acquisition of property and the relocation of current property owners and tenants would be expected to extend 12 weeks beyond the end of the Permitting Phase, for a total of 32 weeks. Phase Ill - Demolition Demolition activities within the Redevelopment Area would be expected to begin with an asbestos and hazardous material abatement program for existing buildings. This task would begin in specific buildings prior to the completion of the Acquisition and Relocation phase. Demolition would include the removal of underground storage tanks and the abandonment, removal, and relocation of utilities in the Redevelopment Area. Any required remediation or excavation and removal of petroleum impacted soils would occur in conjunction with underground tank removal during the demolition phase. The demolition of existing building structures would involve approximately 16 weeks. Following the removal of buildings, existing pavement and curbing would be removed, and the site rough grading would occur. Rock removal and blasting would be expected to occur for approximately 4 weeks near the end of the demolition phase. The entire demolition phase would be expected to require a total of 31 weeks, extending from week 26 to week 56. 2-27 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Project Description September 14, 2000 Phase IV - Construction The initial task of the Construction Phase involves roadway improvements and widening for: Portman Road, Plain Avenue, Valley Place, Fifth Avenue and Biehn Street. This work would need to be completed before the end of the demolition phase (pavement removal), since traffic would be redirected onto Plain Avenue during the roadway work on Fifth Avenue. During this period, traffic on all roads adjoining the Redevelopment Area would be maintained by either detours or one-way traffic (see discussion in Chapter 3.13 Construction Impacts). This work would require eight weeks, starting in week 39. The establishment of soil erosion control measures in the Redevelopment Area would occur in two phases, one prior to the start of demolition (week 31) and the second prior to construction site work (week 52). Site work involving grading, the preparation of suitable subgrades, as well as construction of roadway and parking area improvements would involve 24 weeks. Construction of the building and parking deck would begin in week 56, with a duration of 24 weeks, and would be done in relative concurrence with site work. Construction is expected to be completed in week 79 of the schedule. 2.7.2 Operation The Retail Center is expected to be open 7 days a week, except on Christmas. Hours of operation of the Retail Center are expected to be 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM Mondays through Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays. Truck traffic to the Redevelopment Area would vary from day to day and week to week depending upon the season and seasonal shopping demand. Generally IKEA expects seven dedicated truck deliveries per weekday from its warehouse in southern New Jersey during a typical week and eight dedicated truck deliveries per weekday during a sale week. These trucks would arrive between 3:00 PM and 9:00 PM on weekdays, drop off a full trailer, and would leave within the hour with an empty trailer. In addition, trucks from furniture manufacturers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania would be expected to arrive at the store in the morning after 6:00 AM. Past experience at the Elizabeth, New Jersey store suggests that six trucks per week from furniture manufacturers during a typical week and eight to 14 trucks per week during a sale week would be expected. This averages about one or two truck round trips per weekday during a typical week and two or three truck round trips per weekday during a sale week. These trucks would arrive with full trailers and leave with the same trailers empty after a two to four hour period. Container shipments from Europe pass through the Ports of Elizabeth or Newark and are expected to arrive at the proposed Retail Center during the daytime hours. The Applicant expects one to two container deliveries per week during a typical week and two or three container deliveries per weekday during a sales week. These trucks would arrive with a full container and leave with the same container empty after two to four hours. 2-28 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS _ �� .;+�* SNOW STORAGE AREA _ -- -_ / 1 /// ` I TYP. t ----?1/ FIFTH AVENUE 1 _ // .:—__------ __ """".�..., I ij �'— FIFTH AVENUES �� --%-7.1-.... ir''A ; --------- — —______!1 --- � \\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\\� ----^ —r t r � \\\\\\\\\\\\y N. \\N.\\ y — • ►aa+ i �� ' R. I '♦1 . . . ♦ �� ♦......000.........aa.a.♦...♦. f >. a..a.s.o.o.e.....a.a.a0.0.0a..♦ /J t aaaa+aaaaa1 +�a..aa. ■ �.� i ■ 11 r�'`�—_/I - •. • ori°oi i 1 j f (�_ i 1 f /:.1) •••••••••••••••••••4 1. :+:+:+:+:ii Project Description September 14, 2000 The Retail Center would also have two large trash containers located at the loading dock, which would be picked up every day, six days per week, and another container located elsewhere on the proposed Retail Center Project site that would be picked up three times per week. The trash and garbage containers would typically be exchanged for empty ones between 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM. The Applicant also provides "In Home Delivery" as an optional service to its customers. Currently, "In-Home Delivery" service in the New York metropolitan area is based at the IKEA Local Service Center, in Elizabeth, New Jersey, a separate facility from its store. Under this operating plan, sold merchandise from the proposed Retail Center in New Rochelle, would be brought by semi trailer truck to the Elizabeth Local Service Center warehouse for consolidation. Deliveries throughout the metropolitan area are dispatched by truck from this Elizabeth, New Jersey, warehouse. It is expected that six truck trips would be made per day on a typical week and eight truck round trips would be made during a sale week. Empty semi trailers trucks would arrive between 12:00 PM and 6 PM and full trucks would leave for Elizabeth, New Jersey, between 6:00 AM and 12:00 PM, both during a typical and sale week. 2-29 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14,2000 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy 3.1.1 Introduction The proposed 16.4-acre Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area is located in the east central area of New Rochelle, adjacent to the City's boundary with the Town of Mamaroneck. It is generally bounded by Valley Place, the New England Thruway, Biehn Street, Portman Road, and Fifth Avenue. The 14.9-acre Retail Center Project site (the "Redevelopment Area") proposed to be utilized by IKEA is shown in Figure 2-2 Proposed Actions - Location Map. The proposed Urban Renewal Area and Redevelopment Area boundaries are illustrated in Figure 2-3 Proposed Actions Boundary Survey/Aerial Photograph. 3.1.2 Study Area Definitions Construction of a large-scale retail center in the Redevelopment Area represents a significant departure from historic land use in the area. The Primary Study Area for land use corresponds to the 14.9-acre Redevelopment Area, the area which would be developed with the proposed Retail Center Project. As shown in Figure 2-3, the Redevelopment Area excludes three properties along the east side of Portman Road between Fifth and Plain Avenues, as well as Thruway lands which border the north side of the New England Thruway. These properties are, however, included in the proposed 16.4-acre Urban Renewal Area. The Primary Study Area is generally bounded by Fifth Avenue to the north, Valley Place to the east, the New England Thruway to the south and Portman Road and Biehn Street to the west. The Secondary Study Area extends one-half mile around the Primary Study Area (i.e., the proposed Retail Center Project site boundaries). Generally, the Secondary Study Area extends west into the Rochelle Heights neighborhood, north to the Larchmont Woods residential area (just north of Mountain Avenue), northwest to the Beechmont residential Area (west of Pinebrook Boulevard) and northeast into residential neighborhoods in the Town of Mamaroneck up to and including the neighborhood surrounding the intersection of Edgewood Avenue at Chatsworth Avenue. East of the Redevelopment Area, the Secondary Study Area extends into residential areas of the Village of Larchmont, incorporating the Larchmont Railroad Station and surrounding residential neighborhoods, extending east to the intersection of Larchmont Avenue and Summit Avenue. To the south, the Secondary Study Area extends to the Boston Post Road commercial corridor. The nearest retail commercial development centers are located in the Village of Larchmont (adjacent to the train station) and along the Boston Post Road. Figure 3.1-1 shows the Primary Study Area in relation to the Secondary Study Area. 3.1-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 3.1.3 Redevelopment Area Development History Introduction For at least 45 years, the Redevelopment Area has been zoned as an M-1 Light Manufacturing District (see Figure 3.1-2 Redevelopment Area Zoning, 1955). The action of rezoning this area from residential to M-1 caused all existing residential uses to become nonconforming and established a City policy to promote commercial use in this area. Since the area was zoned M-1 in 1955, no residences have been built and the proposed Urban Renewal Area and Redevelopment Area have experienced a gradual transition to nonresidential use. A number of the remaining residential structures are being used commercially, often by contractors. Also, many of the remaining residences within the proposed Redevelopment Area are owned by existing commercial users located within the area. In July of 1996, the City adopted New Rochelle's Comprehensive Plan. In the 1996 Plan, New Rochelle retained its long-standing interest to foster industrial development, while recognizing that large-scale industrial development was unlikely given economic changes that had occurred since the 1960s. In response, the City integrated retail commercial development into its master planning in order to further its goals of revitalization and redevelopment. The Plan's goals and objectives incorporate concepts from the Future Visions Planning Process which aimed to provide the City with new and imaginative concepts that could be evaluated during the subsequent development of a comprehensive plan. Building upon the goals and objectives of the 1965, 1966 and 1977 Master Plans, and the 1989 Fifth Avenue Area Industrial Development Study discussed below, the 1996 Comprehensive Plan provides an overall guide for the City's growth over the next approximate fifteen (15) years. Master Plan 1: Recommendations Towards the Evolution of a Development Policy 1965 The 1965 and 1966 master planning efforts included New Rochelle's first response to issues of revitalization, the first signs of which were being evidenced at that time. In 1965, the City of New Rochelle issued a report entitled Master Plan: 1 Recommendations Towards the Evolution of a Development Policy / 1965-2015. The 1965 Plan provides a description of the evolution of industrial zoning in New Rochelle. New Rochelle's industrial districts were first mapped and described in the City's first zoning ordinance adopted in 1921. In May of 1941, the City Council passed an ordinance permitting light manufacturing in a "C" Business District, which at that time included all of the land within the City zoned for commercial use. The passage of this ordinance greatly increased the amount of land available in the City for industrial uses. A second expansion of industrially zoned land occurred as a result of a major rezoning implemented in 1955. The 1965 Master Plan 1 also noted that very little change had occurred in the City's overall extent of industrial use between 1952 and 1964. In 1952, there were approximately 134 acres of land within the City of New Rochelle in industrial use. In 1964, approximately 130 acres were devoted to this use. 3.1-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS "Ni 4„„ .. ., E anti "a p�� O >., OG S°NOOo J£ r O v i► �0 •Y .sit. -$,, 1c. GJ A� a b ' ORESS °' RO o o v% Q\pltL4o A �p �tLLS Al Pfd L? yr O�,p �r0'� ��So Q +2• • p3/! P�� o • f '"" Ci B�8 Oy 9 O �J A 9'y 0 0 E `-0 �'s P2 �, 4 /•.! z `� s s c M°U�Sptq�,t <cF LLti +O 600E 1J 0 0 er 6p •yJIN 9,› .- �h'tA P44, ' ��\s p,y� I. t� m m �'` 13 sy 2p. z Pp0}to s `gyp' ,(3,' 'i �`` �b ie G m a o { o O by O t 9a CE sr . �� 4�ti -f x l� coni z 0F! o Park i lq G r�'! Ap Nc. o i v ! 9 t)R O\a 4 P° PO F ASE CIR Jam< :-✓ y + 4c.Q G•l `' / ,' O\r N.. 4. >� 'ERE 0 Ti P�,t* 4P �° // 34p°• -'�11 \P i CLOY th�P Dn 'Zc- P. FppO-11 P��0 �f90, G� \'GAO /�/ 3\. 00• �/,, 4'o4�' IR G L h r 'girl 00 g `'Gg,,,, `gyp \G÷ y� bR t t' Y T 9L ie f � J� , �9G\ °PES of,,-,40._f• .) i ocY i \ NO - F F4 G �A,v f ..xl: r ' 3. PJB ;a% sr 'cry GoGL1 �� r N J0° Q� �FLF Or•J� `Ve 1 n t Gta A p6Q 1 0 ^I� t� is' , r� Cis9�Oc ES sFFfraVPLACE A R r\ \ „/� Q, p -Ia,90 / u Cy�f � _ OPS �� r��y Q l49Cy 4v ALF `� Nr Q4.Q� ° 5511 \ \ { �i F P\J z �� �, \ 1� { lc u ® ♦ o ?R'z e v� ��Q Oy �O. ry .`i mO or. m itiPP i s� YL poNI. ` 1 \\ \\ P �J� s'>SOU `, vt. \O� 7�` so"tr to L 'r' G -, 't ` * 1�' nOFly 4I ' alPti �tiG QEL oSAS \ �, // P `L sc o F Q O !GLA 0 Q :C:1 YL r o / ajt,F�1 J Satyr l qy ..D 3. z Jti i P AN1 mS ti ��O1`� '+ oy\jb� ? EP z �� N��N �� a `!'+ `L ff� a v- PLrAS ' D 9 yr 3��5�. GHQ y�P QESpNT P p°\ �4. OPO Y0 • , Yv P , L 00G� ; QRN lttLLGP 1( P55 . FN AVE u� w n a st oo� 'yF �4F01111111H6COL.:41:c \�0 O G G� 0 g� 9� q r y z �t1 4 00G 2 ` , G v,�v+ Qv o�''< Z CO TO: <JO G00 LA r< ' ,AN I♦,-• tik41, o Of '� -9Q SNaR°SDSPO O P°°.s1 \,� `900�< �Z. O��L c- Ionr�CoUeo S �ti a, �� <, SS oToll tpE x 5� Q Pop F Lh 1, VI 5 c:::)7, IV 1 5L < _ O Zti , L ANA•RTLANOT 5S / o N i 7b �Y m c. 0 SS m s os �P�Sto�Sj KyJpz' js w ! cT ?Oct ¢ 1,0114° \L p•°5� o (� �9<j LEGEND ?OOP' 411111 11"" , 9` W PQ t1 -4-7 3 0 o r� �x ` • r < Q p ::E �P8 a! ° P aEbS ��,f.a 900 o m� ASE SL°GUM .0.0 Ave ��Va1 0- �tPftE Q PGSP a P rG 5,0„ �'"' 0001( �� to R �z .E Q)"� (� a `" . ssti ° �9 ,s : Secondary Study Area so 0 �4-M La A s�a d� • po O 7..\ TA Z Bq �9 `rr �� � ffi �\ Z N��Z 8°5 L 1 7 u+ 00 00 11/4‘.' 1 w G+ EP ' S �+ Y r• q�70 ALOc. Jv � ` G°°e �EpN£ N. •� WI��O 9R of O ti e0 P � - � � LOCUS OAK MILtON 4° • a \ y<N 2--.7-'il.):70 ,� • `t 111 e �-W �.,c. /4:4 \ $J .. 6� St H - .,7A a `.� irs---- G�e�_.--'t LAhE /1Sr' N Figure 3.1-1 : Primary and Secondary Study Areas W E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: 1 Inch = 800 Feet S Base Map: NYSDOT Planimetric Map, Mount Vernon, 1990 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(914) 265-4400 Fax(914)264-4418 File 9916 Fig 3.1-2 pslusa TMA 07/05/00 Legend VOB C-1 General Commercial R M-1 Light Manufacturing P R-2 Residential/2-Family R-3B Residential/Garden Apartments V013 I r 11/4 1m 0-1 • a 0% $ °, R°313 k ‘41 t' • 00l r F4*011,,\I . oc.) __,____„.. ` 0 1.0 11/40 cD Vo i I I, ---- -i--- ----:00 \\Sia * 10 c A • 4 01.1 lit *7,00: ‘.\- OAS* c)\ \ ' \115 � f \ 2 .,����C .1#* P , • p\ 411.W 0 aOC id ;;;11 ' M Ole Ne \b, hi 40"\ I Alm ,: .„, ,,, ,, .., N Fig 3.1-2: Redevelopment Area Zoning, 1955 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project W E City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: City of New Rochelle DPW S Not To Scale File 9916 Fig 3.1-1 RAZ1955 TMA 07/05/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(914) 265-4400 Fax(914) 265-4418 Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14,2000 Like land use patterns today, in 1965, industrial land in New Rochelle was generally located in a band paralleling the tracks of the Metro North Railroad tracks and the right-of way of the New England Thruway with a concentration of industry in the Fifth Avenue area. One and two story structures were prevalent in this area and off-street parking facilities were generally deficient except where provided in connection with some of the newer structures. At that time, the physical size of the structures which had been constructed in the more immediate past was somewhat smaller than those that had been built earlier. The 1965 Development Concept states that, unless the City were to formulate a policy to assure that the few large parcels of land in the City would not be carved up into small insignificant plots, renewed industrial growth and development within New Rochelle could not be expected to reach the point where it would be of major significance within the economic life of the City In general, the trend in "industrial" construction in New Rochelle had been away from large plants on multi-acre plots to infill construction of relatively small buildings on small plots. According to the analyses outlined in the 1965 Plan, what had resulted was a gross under utilization of the City's industrial lands, and greater difficulty for larger industrial firms to assemble land to make relocation to New Rochelle comparatively worthwhile. Master Plan: 1 discusses the City of New Rochelle's Development Concept for the years 1965 to 2015. A principal recommendation of the 1965 Development Concept was that the City should expeditiously adopt a sound and logical industrial development policy. Through the conservation of the little land available for industrial development and, if necessary, through the tool of urban renewal, the City was directed to plan immediately for its industrial future. Because there was a danger of attracting industries with limited benefits to the City as a whole, the 1965 Development Concept further recommended that the nature and scope of industrial development, existing and future, be studied. In order to execute the detailed planning studies necessary in the formulation of this Master Plan, the City was divided into 12 planning districts. Each district was to be planned in its entirety in accordance with the provisions outlined in the 1965 Development Concept. Planning District (or Neighborhood) 7, in which the Redevelopment Area is situated, is bounded on the north by Barnard Road, on the east by the Town of Mamaroneck, on the south by the New England Thruway, and on the west by Pinebrook Road and Rockland Place. This area is referred to in the 1965 Plan as the City Park district. At the time that the Plan was prepared, the neighborhood still contained a number of single-family homes, as well as a mixture of commercial and light industrial uses in one section. By that time, the MacLeay Apartments had also been constructed. Light industrial uses were in place primarily in the area of Fifth Avenue and Portman Road. Master Plan: 1 delineated the "total elimination of slums and blight and the assurance that none will reoccur"as a goal towards future development. It recommends that data concerning blight and blighting influences be assembled on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, and that this material had to examine the social, as well as physical manifestations of"blight". 3.1-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Master Plan 2: Neighborhood Analysis (1966) The 1966 Master Plan: Neighborhood Analysis was issued as a second stage in the New Rochelle long range Comprehensive Planning program. The information presented in the Master Plan: 2 Neighborhood Analysis was developed as a means to define and measure conditions in the City, as a step towards the promulgation of additional programs geared to the removal of blight and deterioration. For the purposes of the neighborhood analysis, the factors causing both residential nonresidential deficiencies were described as: • Incompatible land use relationships • Incompatible mixed uses within the same structure • Improper location of structures • Excessive land coverage • Improper or inadequate building conversions • Excessive dwelling unit density • Obsolete building types • Inadequate or deficient street pattern, including lack of sufficient parking or loading space Another factor which was cited as a cause of blight related to "the fluctuations within the real-estate market and the investment preferences of the entrepreneurs associated with it," or disinvestment by landowners to maintain certain profit levels. Within Neighborhood 7, as defined in the 1965 Master Plan: 1, except for a parcel of land at the corner of Potter and Fifth Avenues, the area to the west of Potter Avenue is zoned for residential purposes. The land to the east of Potter, south of Fifth Avenue is zoned for industrial use. The Neighborhood Analysis investigated the lands east of Potter. The conclusions drawn in the Fifth Avenue Industrial Park neighborhood blight analysis were, as follows: • New industry in the area has been of a relatively small building size and has not encompassed major industrial uses. While new industry is vitally needed by the City to increase its tax base, the magnitude of the industrial development should be such to make a sizable increase in the City's tax return • Because of the existing platting of the land, and the present inadequate street pattern (for industrial use), assembly and utilization of this land becomes quite difficult. • Because of the increase in industrial utilization of the area and the age of the residential structures, indications of physical blight are becoming apparent. • Given a situation where blight and deterioration are evidenced and where the land is zoned for a necessary and desirable use, it behooves the community to make every effort to encourage proper and sound development in accordance with established goals. 3.1-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Master Plan, Volume 2, Land Use Element (1977) In the 1977 Master Plan, Fifth Avenue at City Park was identified as one of nine underutilized and developable sites appropriate for mixed use, commercial or industrial uses. In 1977, the City of New Rochelle adopted Master Plan, Volume 2, Land Use Element. The overall goal of the Plan was to "preserve and strengthen the economic viability of the City of New Rochelle so that the City may continue to support a desired level of municipal services without imposing an undue financial burden on its taxable resources". Among its stated objectives were: • Creating and instituting innovative development tools and implementing a land development process that would encourage commercial and industrial growth in the City. One of the short term policies under these overall objectives was the elimination of vacant and underutilized business facilities by encouraging compatible commercial activities and encouraging the private sector to provide a broad range of commercial activities and services to meet the needs of an expanded market. Long-term policies included expansion of the economic base of New Rochelle and attracting new commercial activity to areas of the City where a clear need exists, especially to existing vacant and underutilized commercial space. Industrial Development Study of the Fifth Avenue Area (1989) In 1989, the City of New Rochelle, in its effort to identify potential sites to expand industrial development opportunities in the City, conducted an Industrial Development Study of the Fifth Avenue Area. A field survey was conducted by the Department of Development to determine the character of the area and to inventory any visible physical deficiencies of existing structures. Deficiencies were noted as either slight, intermediate or critical. Each individual parcel in the study area was reviewed and each parcel was assigned to one of the three categories of deficiency. In the 1989 study, certain land uses in the study area were deemed less intensive and visually unattractive such as the open storage of taxis and large passenger buses along Fifth Avenue, as well as motor vehicle repair facilities and filling stations. Residential dwellings along Pleasant Street and Plain Avenue exhibited cracking foundations, severely peeling paint and substandard structural and visual characteristics. These properties were identified as buildings with critical and intermediate deficiencies. Approximately 50 percent of the parcels were noted to have critical deficiencies, while an additional 14 percent of the parcels had intermediate deficiencies. Only 35 percent of the area contained structures that were considered substantial and economically viable. Because the properties with critical and intermediate deficiencies were not all contiguous, it was determined that satisfactory relocation of the viable businesses and residences would need to be undertaken to assemble a site for a large scale industrial development. As outlined in the 1989 study, the recommended action plan for the study area included: 1) determining the property costs for acquisition, 2) preparing findings to declare the site as an 3.1-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Urban Renewal Area, and 3) preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to amend the zoning ordinance and to adopt an Urban Renewal Plan for redevelopment of this area. New Rochelle's Comprehensive Plan (1996) In 1996, the City adopted New Rochelle's Comprehensive Plan. This plan currently guides land use activities in the City. In it, New Rochelle retains its long-standing commitment to foster industrial development. One of the Plan's specific objectives is to "maintain the fiscal integrity of the City Government, expand job opportunities and strengthen the City's economic base by encouraging commercial and industrial development and redevelopment, where appropriate." To further that objective, the City identified certain property along Fifth Avenue, as well as five other focus areas in the City, as having "redevelopment potential", based upon their incompatible land uses, obsolete structures and other blighting influences. The Comprehensive Plan recommends specifically that "unbuilt streets within the Fifth Avenue Area be combined with other underutilized parcels to create large redevelopment sites". 3.1.4 Existing Land Use As noted earlier, the Redevelopment Area excludes three properties along the east side of Portman Road between Fifth and Plain Avenues, as well as Thruway lands which border the north side of the New England Thruway, which are included in the proposed 16.4-acre Urban Renewal Area. From north to south, the three properties along the east side of Portman Road currently support a pizzeria restaurant, a two-family home, and a parking lot formerly owned and used by the Gerard Daniel Company (and acquired by the Applicant). Primary Study Area / Redevelopment Area The 14.9-acre Redevelopment Area, or Primary Study Area, is characterized by small- and medium-sized industrial, automotive and open storage uses interspersed with a decreasing complement of residential uses. Two churches are also located within the Redevelopment Area. Additional information on the churches is provided later in this chapter and in Chapter 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions. (see Figure 2-3 Proposed Actions Boundary Survey / Aerial Photograph). Residential Uses The residential properties in the Primary Study Area are nonconforming uses in the M-1 Zone, and most are situated on small lots. Properties along the south side of Pleasant Street are particularly constrained since much of the land area for each of these lots was acquired by New York State for construction of the New England Thruway. Currently, portions of several of the structures along Pleasant Street infringe on Thruway property. Many of the properties contain infringing accessory uses (sheds) or effectively use the Thruway property as a rear yard. Because of bedrock conditions in the area, a number of the homes along Pleasant Street have no basement. Current Redevelopment Area uses are shown in Figure 2-9 Land Uses in Primary Study Area. 3.1-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 The current uses of each of the properties in the Primary Study Area are delineated in Tables 3.1-1 through 3.1-4 on the following pages. As noted in Table 3.1-1, residential structures in the Redevelopment Area / Primary Study Area are generally over 70 years old. Residences are concentrated in two areas -- along the eastern end of Plain Avenue, and along the southern side of Pleasant Street abutting the New England Thruway. As noted earlier, many of the properties along the south side of Pleasant Street infringe on the Thruway property. Taken in total, residential uses in the Primary Study Area comprise less than three acres. Table 3.1-1 Residential Uses -Primary Study Area Tax Id # Address Building Land (ac) Year Tenancy (sf) Built 1 894-60 6 Biehn Street 2,280 0.11 1921 Owner 2 894-59 7 Biehn Street 1,206 0.06 1922 Tenant 3 898-12 491 Fifth Avenue 916 0.06 1929 Tenant 4 898-36 535 Fifth Avenue 890 0.06 1932 Owner 5 898-40 539 Fifth Avenue 934 0.09 1931 Tenant 6 898-41 541 Fifth Avenue 880 0.06 1929 Tenant 7 898-63 to 68 116 Plain Avenue 1,435 0.37 1914 Tenant 8 898-75, 76 98 Plain Avenue 789 0.11 1922 Owner 9 898-77, 78 94 Plain Avenue 1,998 0.11 1926 Tenant 10 898-79, 80 88 Plain Avenue 995 0.11 1922 Owner/Tenant 11 898-81, 82 84 Plain Avenue 1,284 0.11 1923 Owner 12 898-87 74 Plain Avenue 953 0.06 1914 Owner 13 898-90 68 Plain Avenue 1,045 0.06 1900 Owner 14 898-93 60 Plain Avenue 1,584 0.10 1929 Tenant 15 903-24, 25 28 Pleasant Street 653 0.11 1923 Tenant 16 903-30, 31 8 Pleasant Street 1,560 0.11 1922 Owner 17 903-48 71 Plain Avenue 1,580 0.08 1914 Owner 18 903-57 to 59 91 Plain Avenue 3,093 0.17 1927 Tenant 19 905-27 9 Pleasant Street 945 0.07 1952 Tenant 20 905-37, 38 29 Pleasant Street 731 0.03 1911 Tenant 21 905-39, 40 31 Pleasant Street 1,071 0.03 1912 Owner 22 905-41, 42 37 Pleasant Street 925 0.04 1911 Tenant 23 905-43 to 45 41 Pleasant Street 1,234 0.07 1924 Tenant 24 905-48, 49 49 Pleasant Street 988 0.06 1915 Owner 25 905-55, 56 59 Pleasant Street 1,400 0.08 1932 Owner/Tenant 26 905-59 71 Pleasant Street 773 0.02 1922 Owner 27 905-35, 36 25 Pleasant Street 1,518 0.03 1923 Tenant 28 905-46, 47 45 Pleasant Street 1,421 0.05 1914 Tenant 29 905-57, 58 69 Pleasant Street 2,461 0.08 1928 Owner/Tenant 30 903-11, 12 50 Pleasant Street 3,300 0.11 1931 Tenant 31 903-15, 16 44 Pleasant Street 1,652 0.23 1914 Tenant TOTAL 42,494 2.84 3.1-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Vacant, Underutilized and Open Uses Vacant, underutilized, and open storage uses are listed in Table 3.1-2, and are shown in Figure 3.1-3. Most of these properties do not support a structure and therefore do not have street addresses. In total, these uses comprise 2.41 acres of the Redevelopment Area. Many of these properties are currently used for vehicle and heavy equipment storage, as shown in Figure 3.1-4. In addition, one structure which is assessed as a residence at 5351/2 Fifth Avenue appears to be abandoned. Table 3.1-2 Vacant, Underutilized and Open Uses Primary Study Area Tax Id # Address Land (ac) 898-11 Fifth Avenue 0.07 898-21 Fifth Avenue 0.23 898-45 Fifth Avenue 0.12 898-57 to 62 Fifth Avenue 0.45 898-69 to 74 Plain Avenue 0.34 898-88 Plain Avenue 0.06 898-100 Plain Avenue 0.23 903-4 Pleasant Street 0.06 903-55 85 Plain Avenue 0.11 903-7, 8 Pleasant Street 0.11 903-50 Plain Avenue 0.09 903-51, 52 Plain Avenue 0.11 903-53, 54 Plain Avenue 0.11 903-63, 64 Plain Avenue 0.11 898-89 70 Plain Avenue 0.06 903-13, 14 Pleasant Street 0.11 905-23 4 Pleasant Street 0.04 TOTAL 2.41 Warehouse, Distribution and Storage Uses Warehouse, distribution and storage uses comprise 5.00 acres of the Redevelopment Area, or almost one-third of its total acreage. These uses are shown in Figure 3.1-5 Warehouse, Distribution and Open Storage Uses in the Redevelopment Area. 3.1-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS 4 . William Flower Park MacLeay Apartments S 47-56 57-59 60-62 L5TH AVENUE] 36 37-39 40 41 42-44 45 , 7-10 11 12 13 14-17 18 21 27. : I 1-35 • . , Or 1 I r To I lir I . / Q0II III 11 12 ce i Block 898 O o ! 0 A . 0 _ ____Al < . ,:......„... , „,„ D 0 rx TI n Li I .,..., , • ib.s. ,„ 44. Li x w\lit 116-114 :' 8 87 83 82881 75,8,7,7759 78877 76875 74-69 68867 66 63 110 PLAIN 7ii 6:75 y S 113- :9-105, 1 1 1 ;_4 44-4 48 50 51852 53854 55 65 69-72 max. -.>.�, 1-- . t , Lu4maralooloor W III 11 U ,-, Block 903 Ce 11•11111111111.11111 = - Illi Ili 1111 VO i I 111111 ... • .1 t , , 1_, 59 - n _ 'Block 894 .: 5• '0 3PLEASANT STRE T 35834 33832 31830 29-26 25824 23-19 18817 16815 1481 128 A:' 65 4 3-1 • .p L7 ,,,,,. ■ ■�, L■i wil it...0 ■ /.� ■ \� 905 Legend Figure 3.1-3: Underutilized and Vacant Properties Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project W Open Storage, Vehicle Storage OsPWCity of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Tax Lots Which Do Not Support Structures(mostiy open uses) Base Map: 1996 Sanborn Map Vacant or Assumed Vacant Structures Not To Scale File 9916 Fig 3.1-3 TMA 07/25/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 265-4418 • • • /47 �• William Flower Park MacLeay Apartments 4' im: S 47-56 57-59 60-62 L5T H AV E N U E ,: 0 -35 36 37-39 40 41 42-44 45 \ � 7-10 11 12 13 14-17 18 21 27: : , I I " gliI:IjjiiLl _,r &81Np3 110 109-105 69 72 >•"%mem .., 'F.. 41&41 42&43 44-47 48 50 51&52 53&54 55 57-5 us 0- 2 63& 65 ,,� 1M I " L1J ■ semM1111111111111111111111 . I `� ■I■ i _ W HIi ■It II !i 0 ,4sii_li I W: 1j , \►�� o I I , " v■Ir — x 59 1.■11 II Block 894 0 .o is — ,§1„, '� , :: 65 4 3-1 35&34 33&32 31&30 29-26 25&24 23-19 18&17 16&15 ,a&'PLEASANT STREET rl . - .&4 - • 4 :4 4• �: ■iin ■1■■■■■1 iil NU m � ■ 1iii ..■■11 .....r _. •:.�1111 Block 905 ME■■11 - 1111 ri■i Legend Figure 3.1-4: Vehicle Sales, Storage and Repair r 1 Vehicle Parking and Storage Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project !!!! City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Vehicle Service, Repair and Sales Base Map: 1996 Sanborn Map Heavy Vehicle Storage Not To Scale File 9916 Fig 3.1-4 TMA 06/13/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(914) 265-4400 Fax(914) 265-4418 William Flower Park MacLeay Apartments 36 57-59 so s2 ,:•.M.,�6. ,.,. W, .•;x--.. ,. �„,, a, �;F �,•� .,w,N�e a,. ��:e 47-56 [5TH AVENUE] 37-39 40 41 42-44 45 7-10 1112 13 14-17 18 21 27: : 9• 1 1-35 • O.zalimild . il'■ g= I * Fr k 898 Pi< ro 1 # ce ■0 • ;0 MI ! I 4 i--- '': "i,,, -;::: .--111111 Pr !141Il .: 9 2988887 83 82881 80879 7887768746910 PLAN7p; NY7 ilif 13 109 105 11 • 41:41 42.43 44-47 48 50 51852 53854 55 57-59 60- 2 638 65 69-72 — H , Block 903 Z II O 59 Iowilio Block 894 .0 65 ♦ ♦ 35&34 33832 31830 29-26 25824 23-19 18&17 16815 14813LEA.SA.1 :: _ 4 STREET 3-1 •:, 1 • :.4. 4 -4 •.:4 ::,4• 1:. 1 4 Ell'. _ ■ In A Block 905 WI 4, Figure 3.1-5: Warehouse, Distribution, and Storage Uses 4. i Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project •� City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Base Map: 1996 Sanborn Map `r Not To Scale File 9916 Fig 3.1-5 WDS TMA 06/13/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(914) 265-4400 Fax(914) 265-4418 Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Table 3.1-3 Warehouse, Distribution and Storage Uses- Primary Study Area Tax Id # Address Building (sf) Land (ac) Land (sf) 1 Year Built Tenancy 898-14 to 17 499 Fifth Avenue 3,940 0.24 10,454 1930 Tenant 898-18 505 Fifth Avenue 6,742 0.29 12,632 1987 Tenant 898-47 to 56 567 Fifth Avenue 6,479 0.62 27,007 1936 Owner 898-83 76 Plain Avenue 2,450 0.23 10,019 1987 Owner 898-91, 92 64 Plain Avenue 1,131 0.11 4,792 1986 Tenant 898-105,106 32-40 Plain Avenue 17,859 0.52 22,651 1982 Owner 898-110 to 113 22 Plain Avenue 886 0.22 9,583 1974 Owner 898-114 to 116 14-18 Plain Avenue 11,563 0.31 13,504 1964& 1975 Owner 903-1 to 3 8 Valley Place 6,715 0.19 8,276 1982 Tenant 903-9, 10 56 Pleasant Street 3,040 0.11 4,792 1966 Tenant 903-17, 18 40-42 Pleasant Street 4,992 0.23 10,019 1914 Owner/ Tenant 903-19 to 23 30 Pleasant Street 7,458 0.29 12,632 1966 Owner 903-34, 35 6 Pleasant Street 5,000 0.11 4,792 1976 Owner 903-36 49 Plain Avenue 5,000 0.11 4,792 1983 Owner 903-38 51 Plain Avenue 3,500 0.11 4,792 1992 Tenant 903-40, 41 55 Plain Avenue 3,450 0.11 4,792 1987 Tenant 903-42, 43 59 Plain Avenue 3,000 0.11 4,792 1982 Tenant 903-44 to 47 65 Plain Avenue 5,880 0.23 10,019 1962 Owner 903-65 111 Plain Avenue 10,000 0.34 14,810 1967 Owner 905-24 to 26 5 Pleasant Street 4,803 0.11 4,792 1977 Tenant 905-28, 29 11 Pleasant Street 3,116 0.09 3,920 1981 Owner 905-52 to 54 55 Pleasant Street 2,358 0.13 5,663 1966 Owner 898-29, 30 521 Fifth Avenue 3,822 0.11 4,792 1951 Tenant 905-50, 51 53 Pleasant Street 1,209 0.08 3,485 1930 Owner TOTAL 124,393 5.00 A number of formerly residential lots in the Redevelopment Area have been redeveloped over the last 50 years, as nonresidential use has proliferated in the area. As illustrated in Table 3.1-3 above, and as evidenced by historic aerial photographs, typically when a lot has been redeveloped, the commercial structure unlike the residential structure which preceded it, occupies most, if not all, of the entire lot. In these situations, little to no provision has been made for on-site parking and loading. This trend is particularly evident in the western portions of the Redevelopment Area. A comparison of historic mapping, described in Chapter 3.7 Historic and Archeological Resources, and Figure 2-3 Proposed Actions Boundary Survey / Aerial Photograph illustrates the degree to which former single-family residential structures were surrounded by open areas. As indicated on Figure 3.1-3, of the 33 commercial or mixed commercial structures in the Redevelopment Area, four appeared during numerous field surveys to have no ongoing activities. These properties include: • 567 Fifth Avenue • 24 Pleasant Street • 55 Pleasant Street • 499 Fifth Avenue 3.1-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Community, Manufacturing and Mixed Uses Miscellaneous uses, according to city assessment records are listed in Table 3.1-4 as set forth below. As shown in Table 3.1-4, City assessment records indicate that there are three properties currently assessed as manufacturing use in the Redevelopment Area. Two properties are currently in church use. Table 3.1-4 Community, Manufacturing and Mixed Uses- Primary Study Area Tax Id # Address Use Bldg. (sf) Land (ac) Yr. BIt Tenure 898-13 493 Fifth Avenue residence &deli 1,948 0.06 1905 Owner 898-7 to 10 479 Fifth Avenue gas station 3,213 0.20 1930 Tenant 898-42 to 44 549 Fifth Avenue garage 1,645 0.18 1965 Owner 898-37 to 39 535% Fifth Avenue vacant residence 845 0.14 1925 NA 898-95, 96 56 Plain Avenue church 875 0.07 1948 Owner 903-69 to 72 Plain Avenue church 1,952 0.23 1957 Owner 905-33, 34 23 A& B Pleasant residence & auto 1,773 0.03 1952 & Tenant Street body shop 1915 residence 903-60 to 62 95 Plain Avenue converted to 1,155 0.17 1938 Tenant office residence & 898-31 to 35 525 Fifth Avenue masonry 860 0.29 1922 Owner contractor 898-27, 28 517 Fifth Avenue manufacturing& 1,652 0.11 1962 Tenant processing 903-26 to 29 24 Pleasant Street manufacturing& 10,856 0.11 1958 Owner processing 903-32, 33 10 Pleasant Street manufacturing& 2,804 0.11 1966 Owner/ processing Tenant TOTAL 29,578 1.70 As noted in Tables 3.1-3 and 3.1-4, the amount of warehouse, distribution, storage and manufacturing space in the Redevelopment Area currently totals approximately 140,000 square feet. At this time, approximately 24,000 square feet of this space is vacant. Churches As shown in Table 3.1-4 above, two churches are located within the Redevelopment Area. Taken together, the churches comprise a total of 2,827 square feet in area. Emanuel Episcopal Church on Valley Place is the larger of the two churches. It is home to two congregations. This congregation is comprised of approximately 70 individuals, who reside in the Redevelopment Area, as well as White Plains, Scarsdale and Larchmont. A second congregation also currently worshipping at this location is comprised of 120 to 125 individuals, most of whom reside in the vicinity. The congregation of the St. Paul's Reformed Tabernacle Church on Plain Avenue mostly reside in the Redevelopment Area and vicinity. 3.1-10 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14,2000 Summary As illustrated in Figure 3.1-6 Relative Distribution of Land Uses in the Primary Study Area, warehouse, distribution and storage uses occupy five acres of the Primary Study Area, or 30.4 percent of the Study Area. Residential uses comprise 2.84 acres or 17.3 percent of the Study Area. Vacant, underutilized and open areas comprise 2.41 acres or 14.6 percent. In total, these three uses currently comprise 62.3 percent of the proposed Redevelopment Area's privately owned lands. Along with area roadways, these uses comprise almost 90 percent of the proposed Redevelopment Area. The Daniel Company, DERF Corporation, Vernon Devices, and North Star Contracting are several of the larger commercial enterprises operating in the Primary Study Area. Also located in the Primary Study Area are some visually unattractive land uses such as the open storage of cars, buses, construction equipment, building materials, and junk and other debris. In recent years, automobile body shop activities have increased. In addition, many of the area's remaining residential dwellings contain deficiencies such as cracking foundations, severely peeling paint, or are generally substandard structurally. Of the 179 tax lots -- which constitute the 84 properties within the Primary Study Area -- 58 tax lots currently have no structures, although several have extensive areas committed to outside storage of vehicles and building materials. City of New Rochelle Building Department records indicate that many properties in the Redevelopment Area have been cited with violations and subject to summonses or other enforcement actions over the years. These actions are particularly noteworthy because the area supports residential uses amidst an increasing level of more noxious uses. Frequent violations include unauthorized changes of use or alterations, excavations, or barbed wire fencing. Many of the nonresidential uses are housed within zero lot line structures as well as situated on lots with little or no off-street parking. Most of these do not conform to the current coverage and parking requirements. Thus, streets and front yards are used for parking. Because many of the businesses within the area provide contracting, busing or automotive repair services, vehicles are often stored on the street as they await repair service. Narrow streets, haphazard parking, the large amount of deliveries to the area and the large number of transportation-related uses in the neighborhood cause congestion along Redevelopment Area roadways. A review of City Building Department records indicates that numerous requests have been considered by the Board of Appeals on Zoning to operate auto body establishments on certain lots within the Redevelopment Area. Until 1992, these variance requests were denied. In 1992, 1993 and 1996, variances were granted to operate auto body establishments on lots 24, 25 and 26 of block 905, lots 29 and 30 of block 898, and lots 33 and 34 of block 905, respectively. Secondary Study Area As illustrated in Figure 3.1-1, the Secondary Study Area generally extends one-half mile around the primary land use study area boundaries. 3.1-11 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Valley Place forms the Redevelopment Area's eastern boundary, and is the municipal boundary between the City of New Rochelle and the Town of Mamaroneck. Adjoining properties in this area consist of a mix of auto repair, service, light manufacturing, and residential uses. From north to south, uses include: an auto repair garage, a party supply rental business, a millwork company, a bus parking lot, two residential properties, and a bus maintenance facility. The general area east of Valley Place is diagonally bisected by the exit ramp of the New England Thruway exit ramp to Madison Avenue. Immediately abutting the uses along Valley Place is the New York State Thruway Authority maintenance yard. Uses along the south side of Fifth Avenue east to Madison Avenue include a construction contractor, parking lot, and a lawn care business. Across from these uses on the north side of Fifth Avenue are two gas stations, two residences, a moving company, and a pet supply business. Angled to the southeast of the Thruway exit ramp and northwest of Byron Place in the Town of Mamaroneck, is the former site of an incinerator, currently used to house and store garbage trucks. Northeast of that site are three residences, a parking lot for a small shopping plaza, several retail stores in the plaza, a restaurant, a medical office on the corner of Madison and Byron, and a tree cutting business on Byron Place. In the Town of Mamaroneck, backing up to the homes on the southeast side of Lafayette Road, southwest of Chatsworth Avenue to Myrtle, and northeast of Madison Avenue, are several six to eight-story apartment complexes. Along the northeast side of Madison Avenue between Washington and Myrtle Avenue and the northwest side of Myrtle Avenue, is a strip of commercial uses consisting of a restaurant, cleaners, a vacant new office building, and publishing company offices. East of East Place and north of Fifth Avenue in New Rochelle, William Flower Park, a 20-acre park facility with swimming pool, playgrounds, and ball fields, abuts the Redevelopment Area. North of the park is the Henry Barnard Elementary School and its tennis courts, pool, playing fields, and playground. Just east of the park, north of Fifth Avenue, is the MacLeay Apartment Complex consisting of 180 assisted family units in three seven story buildings. Proceeding east into the Town of Mamaroneck, north to Barnard Road, and east to Huguenot Drive, Lafayette Road, Madison Avenue and Lester Place, are primarily low density residential neighborhoods. The Larchmont Woods single-family residential neighborhood lies north of Barnard Road and east of Beechmont Lake in New Rochelle. To the west of Beechmont Lake lies Beechmont, another single-family residential neighborhood and to the south of the intersection of Beechmont Drive and Pine Brook Road (and west of the Redevelopment Area) in New Rochelle, the Study Area extends into the historic single-family residential neighborhood of Rochelle Heights. Adjoining properties along the western Redevelopment Area boundary are comprised of a mix of manufacturing, residential, and commercial uses. Adjoining properties on the western boundary between Fifth Avenue and Plain Avenue include (from north to south): an electrical contractor's office adjoining a pizza restaurant, a residential lot, and a paved parking lot. South of Plain Avenue from Portman Road east to the western side of Biehn Street (from west to east) are: the offices of a wire mesh fencing manufacturer (Gerard Daniel Corporation), two residential properties, and a warehouse building of an electronic radio equipment manufacturer (the DERF Corporation), situated at the corner of Plain Avenue and Biehn Street. West of the 3.1-12 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Gas Station, Garage, Auto Body Mixed Residential/Commercial 3.4% 3.0% Manufacturing & Processing f 2.8% Churc %h 2.6 Occupied Residential 2. 24.4% Warehouse, Distribution and Storage] Vacant, Underutilized and Open 43.0% 20.7% Figure 3.1-6: Relative Distribution of Land Uses in Primary Study Area Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York File 9916 Fig 3.1-6 LUPSALA TMA 07/10/00 Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Redevelopment Area and south of the Daniel Corporation is a metal parts processing plant, Absolute Coatings, Inc. Further west of the Redevelopment Area and south of Fifth Avenue in the City of New Rochelle, land uses in the Secondary Study Area are a mixture of residential and industrial. Residential uses line Rockland Place, Sylvan Street, Pierce Street, Lemke Place and the west side of Potter north to Pierce. West of Potter and south of Fifth is a radio station and a burner manufacturing company. Along the west side of Potter, north of Pierce and along the east side of Potter, south to the Thruway, are small industries and auto repair establishments. Along Fifth Avenue, from Potter east to Portman are retail uses such as a scissor and knife sharpening establishment, a food market and small eating establishment. South along Portman from Fifth are largely industrial uses with one cluster of residences to the west side of the street across from Plain Avenue and two landscaping businesses at the northwest and northeast corners of the intersection with Sharot Street and Portman Road. The Humane Society backs on the southwest portion of the Redevelopment Area. South of the New England Thruway, the Secondary Study Area incorporates Super Stop & Shop on Palmer Avenue west of Petersville Road, the Sun Haven residential area of New Rochelle, and the commercial and townhouse/garden apartment areas along Palmer Avenue in New Rochelle, and in the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont. Palmer Avenue in New Rochelle from Potter Avenue northeast to Chatsworth Avenue in the Village of Larchmont is characterized by a mix of residential and retail uses. Northwest of Palmer Avenue from Potter Avenue in New Rochelle, east to the New Rochelle - Town of Mamaroneck municipal boundary, are garden apartments and townhouses. Beginning at the municipal boundary and running east to Chatsworth Avenue in the Village of Larchmont, is a commercial strip consisting of a mix of retail, office and personal service uses. One car dealership, an animal hospital, a nursery school, and two gas stations are also located along that strip. The area southeast of Palmer Avenue from Potter Avenue northeast to Soundview Drive is in residential use in the City of New Rochelle, the Town of Mamaroneck, and the Village of Larchmont. Garden apartments are located along the southeast side of Palmer on either side of the southwestern entrance to Spencer Drive. The remainder of this area is in single family residential use northeast to Soundview Drive, where commercial establishments line the south side of Palmer northeast to Chatsworth Avenue in the Village of Larchmont. Pine Brook Park is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Palmer Avenue and Pine Brook Drive in the Village of Larchmont. Land uses in the Secondary Study Area are shown in Figure 3.1-7. 3.1.5 Existing Zoning Regulations As outlined in Chapter 331 of the New Rochelle Code, the purposes of the comprehensive zoning plan, in addition to the protection and promotion of the public health, safety and welfare, specifically include: 1. facilitation of the efficient and adequate provision of public facilities and services 2. provision of privacy for families 3. prevention and reduction of traffic congestion 3.1-13 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 4. protection of residential areas by the prevention of excessive monotony of building design and by the preservation of such areas from the visual intrusion of nonresidential uses 5. enhancement of the appearance of the community as a whole 6. protection of the environment Primary Study Area The entire Redevelopment Area is zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing under the current City of New Rochelle Zoning Code. The M-1 zone extends to the west and southwest of the Redevelopment Area. The City of New Rochelle Zoning Map for the Redevelopment Area and environs is provided in Figure 3.1-8. Uses allowed in M-1 Districts include any use allowed by right in C-3 Districts (including stores and shops for conducting any retail business). The following uses are allowed in the M-1 zone, and require site plan approval. Site plan approval is generally granted by the City Planning Board; however the proposed Large-Scale Retail Use district would establish the City Council as the site plan reviewing agency in consultation with the Planning Board. • retail stores • on-premises sale of produce grown on-site • restaurants and other food/drink establishments • storage of passenger and commercial vehicles • amusement centers • wholesale and storage establishments • business, professional, and public utility offices • manufacturing for retail sale on premises • personal/business service establishments • manufacturing, fabrication,or assembly • government offices • dry cleaning establishments • schools or academies for gain • open unenclosed manufacturing area • wholesale sales or storage • automobile sales- new/used • arboretums • bus shelters on City property • automobile repair, except gasoline filling • animal hospitals stations, auto body work or painting. • automobile rental establishments • farms,truck gardens, greenhouses, nurseries 3.1-14 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS \ \ ,o.- (,,,,\ ,k• ' ' SO / ,, a•. y j!' \ ,__ ``• _.�� / `, ''S'� ---,7„.` fir' {l� .� e001t111,1nt ''''. ft 11111' 4110 _ "%, . .'2_,-*,-• , ,, ',..r.1,---,.. ,--". ,r7--,/ --,,....,. -- \ ----"' ', 1 \ .,,,.. - _..e.„„A, ...-,... ..fi- ' l' ', ,1 - --A i ''>`,t.,,,.., .,'"\**-/ ' - - 411%11b,,,A, lAt,'110, 4004,10k 47- 4104, , ,,,,, it I .:, ,......,..... , . , S' lir I , ,.---1 .--- I y-yam t•`')/. I i` ♦ t& .-3* .f' ::::1 cl.:1- lap-• \ - llot ;t 40 -,-- ,4AIL. ..444"7 ....4*: '•/ilk V 4VN .{ __ .._( II III' I V� ,,`J i /- -.. ♦ tel` �CJI ti 1 ' ` \\ X �' _________) #40‘.. , r.3:>A4' y: '-.--.. .'''-1;-.- 4114‘. Ilia 10/ '/ \ 111) ,ft.\ - , illA . sir• w =• O. �,::,f f i s Ni-' ', • ill ""'s- ' •'A404,,, 41Frof ,///,#' \ .. 40 Ad 11,0,,. tiy y .. r4W\)4retitv . - n.., 4t4(:),,, A: •- z Q.' rye t4 '14 ,,, lei . \._ *;<1, ‘, '''', ,1::' \ - // / 4,40,110., _,,,, ..,„ .. I04* 41444\ LEGEND �,Ate,. ' ;� .r . cv -.......-, • A/ ,,j £t% 2P ��`� �'`4q1 aillResidential s \`du # �'� �� Institutional (Religious, \ \ '�� ' '` 'yam" / . 4 , \ �P Government, Schools) ' 4� \ .,_.,, . , \ !• ' °itrti yam'43" 4 Industrial / Vehicle Repair 0 ,-,, , , ,,,,-.--L. ,-;,,, :-.. _ s`� .:7 _..,._%f -,„- ., -: - -' Retail, Personal Services, •� - ` \/� \ ` ��D OE '`E W ices •�.. � � �: Off' ! Ilit �\ QP4�0 �! -�, 9`\ s \ S°ate C7YMOryrq , ,,,..:71,i.--= 1:,....t. i 1 a \ ��� '' nVi Mixed Residential/Retail 1-11 .y�:t �' qe, -- .14 \ ..\ •( . '"Z �a K \\ •,yc• P' °Y4 - . JJ' /l :_ W� MN Transportation Corridor • i � O \ � 4. ` O' �� ''4 0111111011 Recreational / Open Space ai .. 4fr Ar °a ' ' 0 ' __ raj='� j15\--.0--� ! m epY °SS 0 Secondary Study Area • `/ A ' "vi p Primary Study Area ., .,.401-- ,,,,,,,,.. ii. i �.z-. Q (Redevelopment Area) `tea D„ 'r '� os�o"P m I City of New Rochelle/ ,•s4' ;. EL g1M,toS Town of Mamaroneck E >� /� % ' � `� Boundary ,,..1, ,, \,,,,,,,,( •-• % ,,, , .71 Th_111<' \ .., -----. ) \-13, � t �g- • -\.'," ---t” ',/ i I/ .... ' ' :---,<, ''\ u A r 01 \ . ip . STNUT V � -(.,.'� I . � �+►,�r ., ...: " AVE WILLOW AVE i/ '/�; �,j ,., ,'' ..,✓ a� •,, 'a,Jx' ----:\t� :%� I Qoe,K ..w AVE ..„... ...::,, _ „ Q y. `_. _i`.x �4 ;� �,45t -""�•• �~ ry' N.! ! OAK AVE I p 1 h .. �' ' : , 1 • `J ti,* . ie�. W \LIM C\ 111 9)r." i • . �f ado C Ille ./. t, '��' Vi ".f;4;� ..r,.._ 1' \,e*. ..�� ;\ r` i,' ', },'' \ i!. Ia = A i�1\ i' /.,/ �ti:.1 li• �. ! ': i �,,.. oo <. r Cw' '�� \*I . NOEN N Figure 3.1-7: Land Uses in Secondary Study Area W E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale 1 Inch =Approx. 810 Feet S File 9916 Fig 3.1-6 LUSSA TMA 07/07/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(914)265-4400 Fax(914)264-4418 Base Map: Zoning Map Composite of Larchmont, Mamaroneck, New Rochelle LEGEND /., rs� ly / f 1 R-1A 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE �` N..,/1:1! .N.,,'----.7,---7--Th{i` 't'..\� ~9\, -- J , R-1B 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE \ L i R-2 2 FAMILY RESIDENCE r''' : ` , .' R-3A RESIDENCE CONVERSION %L' /i� �.'✓ ¢`.'i::1 - r5" /, ,; ' " R-3B RESIDENCE GARDEN "w '~7/r' '-' 't"1,7,.-",:5:\ : -- /`, . APARTMENTS 5...".._' % ;,J x."•,r` t'� '\ •`..� R-4 RESIDENCE/3 STORY - !r,--- I t.4•,';',.:7 > V::-•':••' - �.� �c'` APARTMENTS 4` r'�+ J I [ `-� \ g \, a\'N, • _'--' ', Lia ..- t F �t• N \ Cl- GENERAL COMMERCIAL ll ; % @�` 'r �, M-1 LIGHT MANUFACTURING .. ., I � ''1 i; ., j ' +i ! r • \: i ( I y . REDEVELOPMENT AREA �_ j I � \ 1\„ � --','-::::%----A.::n} + I SECONDARY LAND USE t{' ;- r ::.:::14./.......f4� $ 1 i' 1 W �i, 1 t1 STUDY AREA , /' :'/ I I . ' \.% '\ .• L' k.:„..1„....0"w a\� ` i \ /4 :- I (1.� - i 1 y xl �S ,� s/1- ,I,`. 1 . ' i _7,41/ ' NI . t I A i i �Yi tri \\ l 4t -1j`- \ '`. '; M ,\ • R-3B z ( c �, ` *:a :;; M-1ti ..... GG ',`M 4 `•,. R-1 B,'� .1_ i� M-1 / .- E 1; • • `Q r-i-` ;, cam t _ ,, '''' U r A , r��-o ,. ' R-3B �, ..'^.`_.�-----.,..E.''''''—';',1-----7-\, c /�.' ! O .,,-)— — SNC 0'/ �llr3 . L, , f\• O R-4 ,L�, 1 t� "a, `• ✓ Y •7 .'', .rte t1 \ �/ "t� -iii;;;; '31\'' - / �{ /• �/ /��, rr � �`. . \t\\ ill ,/,,Y,,,,,ilf/NIV.' ,1,..\\•-'2':-<‘1.(''/YV.,;\";34',-.5..;:il,,c,,,,,,:'--.' ''''----,- \\ •• I / , • ,, '''// .`•• .' '4 IR-1p ,\\k), 1 R-3B\ \ ,:,`4. A i / ...--,.., *004 ,ice \ I/ •,:,..,;,:-......;:ii...,. '''''. *.l's•:\s.\''';‘,..'1‘e‘\?.:.'\• \';:e'?,,;14:•.,.:7•.-5.-', II:- •• P ,: , /�.� .--1 ,------:-<:..---:--- ,/7/ '1'Q Y P {.'J / 'i,,>,•'''i/ ..1.7_1.: ::.-\,yKK k ! �1 `\ �'\1Y>'1\ ,.. „ .4,;:,-/ i i./ ..-`tel. --2 . ,c,..-•••,•,',.:,„„, Kuo—"'. N Figure 3.1-8: Zoning Map-New Rochelle w $ Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Scale: 1 Inch=Approx 810 Feet City of New Rochelle,Westchester County, New York S Source:Zoning Map of the City of New Rochelle Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring,NY 10516(914)265-4400, Fax: 265-4418 Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Uses allowed by special permit include: • ground / wall billboards (not permitted • gasoline filling stations/automobile laundries within 500 feet of each other) • drug rehabilitation offices • exterior storage yards • open/enclosed used car sales • automatic car wash facilities Uses by special permit require an application to the Board of Appeals on Zoning. Area and bulk controls applicable to uses within the M-1 zone are summarized in Table 3.1-5. Table 3.1-5 Bulk and Parking Regulations for Uses in the M-1 District Minimum Required Lot Area None Floor Area Ratio None Lot Width None Lot Depth None Front Yard 10 feet* Side Yard None Rear Yard None Off-Street Parking Spaces 1 space/600 SF Storage uses: 1 space/2,000 SF Off-Street Loading Spaces 1 space/first 10,000 SF floor area + 1 space/each add' 20,000 SF or portion Maximum Permitted Building Height 2 floors 40 feet Building Coverage 60% Source: City of New Rochelle Zoning Code, *No front yard is required when lot depth is 100 feet or less. The M-1 Zone does not allow residential use. The existing residences are allowed to continue as nonconforming uses, subject to provisions of Sections 331-58 through 331-60 of the zoning regulations of City of New Rochelle. 3.1-15 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Secondary Study Area New Rochelle William Flower Park, which lies opposite the Redevelopment Area to the north of Fifth Avenue, is zoned R-3B Residence Garden Apartments. An assisted housing development (MacLeay Apartments) consisting of three seven story buildings lies in the northeast corner of the Park, adjacent to the Town of Mamaroneck municipal boundary, and is also zoned R-3B. To the north of the park and apartment community are single-family neighborhoods zoned R-1A and R-1 B. Immediately south and southeast of the Redevelopment Area lies the right-of-way for the New England Thruway. This property lies outside municipal zoning districts. South of the Thruway garden apartment residence and three-story apartment residential zoning is found along Palmer Avenue, with single-family and two-family zoning comprising the majority of remaining lands. Another garden apartment district (R-3B) is located in the southernmost section of the Secondary Study Area within New Rochelle. A small area of M-1 zoning is located between the Thruway and the Metro-North railroad tracks, with a larger M-1 area located north of Palmer Avenue to the west of Potter Avenue. West of the Redevelopment Area, M-1 zoning extends to Potter Avenue, and is also found west of Potter and south of Fifth Avenue. The westerly side of Potter Avenue is zoned C-1, a general commercial district. Remaining areas of this portion of the secondary study area are zoned for single-family (R-1B), and two-family (R-2) use. Town of Mamaroneck Properties on the east side of Valley Place in the Town of Mamaroneck are zoned SB - Service Business, as is all of the area on either side of Fifth Avenue northeast to Madison Street. This area includes a maintenance yard for the New England Thruway and a mix of semicommercial and automotive uses. A variety of uses, including indoor recreation and amusement establishments, business and professional offices, the sale or hire of new or used motor vehicles (with restriction on used car lots), undertaking and funeral homes, newspaper printing and publishing, plant nurseries, restaurants, luncheonettes and ice cream / confectionery stores, wholesale and storage businesses are allowed by right in the SB district. Such uses require approval of the Town Building Department only. Planning Board approval of a special permit for retail use is required in the Town of Mamaroneck. Supermarkets on parcels of 3.5 acres or more are also allowed by special permit of the Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board. The existing neighborhood of multiple-family apartments along Chatsworth Avenue, Myrtle and Murray Avenues and New Jefferson, Washington and Adams Streets located in the Town of Mamaroneck is zoned R-TA (Tower Apartment). 3.1-16 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 An existing neighborhood retail center just east of the ramps to the New England Thruway from Madison Street is zoned B-MUB (Business - Mixed Use Business), while the frontage along Madison opposite the center and the areas continuing north along both sides of Myrtle are zoned B (Business). All remaining portions of the Secondary Study Area within the Town of Mamaroneck are zoned R-7.5. This includes neighborhoods in the northeastern portions of the Secondary Study Area and in portions of the Town of Mamaroneck which lie between the New Rochelle and Larchmont municipal boundaries south of the New England Thruway. The zoning classifications for the areas to the east and southeast of the Redevelopment Area in the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont are shown in Figure 3.1-9. Village of Larchmont Within the Secondary Study Area, the downtown portions of the Village of Larchmont are zoned RC (Retail Center), and RB (Retail Business). Residential neighborhoods south of the Larchmont Station area are zoned R-5, a single-family zone which requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The southernmost portion of the Secondary Study Area within the Village of Larchmont is also zoned R-5. Interior sections of these neighborhoods are zoned R-7.5, a similar district which requires minimum lot sizes of 7,500 square feet. Retail Business (RB) zoning is also found along the Boston Post Road in southwestern Larchmont. As noted above, the zoning classifications for the areas to the east and southeast of the Redevelopment Area in the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont are shown in Figure 3.1-9 3.1.6 Existing Public Policy City of New Rochelle Comprehensive Plan The City of New Rochelle Comprehensive Plan, adopted in July, 1996, sets the framework for development in the City. It provides an overall guide for the City's growth and sets the context of redevelopment, revitalization and new development opportunities in the City. Development and redevelopment efforts are directed at six "focus" areas, which are targeted for detailed analyses and action plans. The Comprehensive Plan proposals are an outgrowth of analysis of City of New Rochelle's planning objectives and issues in these focus areas. The Plan contains community-based visions, which reflect the values and priorities of the community. Included in these visions are design controls, cleanup efforts, and beautification improvements needed throughout the City. Plan development goals and objectives include the revitalization of selected commercial areas and neighborhoods to strengthen the City's economic base. Specific objectives include: • institute land development policies and procedures, which secure appropriate development and redevelopment in those areas where development should take place 3.1-17 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 • preserve and enhance physical and cultural amenities, which make New Rochelle an attractive community while eliminating conditions which detract from the quality of life • maintain and improve the attractiveness of neighborhood commercial areas • preserve and develop existing commercial and light industrial areas in the City • maintain the fiscal integrity of the City government, expand job opportunities and strengthen the City's economic base by encouraging commercial and industrial development and redevelopment, where appropriate • encourage beautification, quality urban design and attractive environments through site planning guidelines and controls • stimulate the expansion of job opportunities and strengthen the tax base The Plan identifies certain parcels of land and neighborhoods, which have potential to change due to a variety of internal and external conditions affecting their stability. According to the Plan, potential redevelopment sites currently utilized are generally small parcels requiring assembly and / or demolition and include industrial properties. One of these focus areas is Fifth Avenue. The area is described in the Plan as having redevelopment potential and opportunities for assemblage for development of larger uses. The improvement of the Potter and Fifth Avenue intersection is envisioned in order to upgrade access to Fifth Avenue and adjacent areas and improve traffic flow. The Plan's proposal for the Fifth Avenue area focuses on the mixed industrial uses along Fifth Avenue across from William Flower (City) Park. The Fifth Avenue industrial area is considered an economic resource for the City. The Plan notes, however, that several conditions make it difficult to redevelop: • Streets in the area are narrow; there is limited on-site parking, and trucks from the many trucking operations create traffic congestion. • Residences exist in this nonresidential area; the preponderance of small parcels with residential or industrial uses make assemblage for larger development difficult. • The Potter and Fifth Avenue intersection, which serves the area needs improvement to provide access to adjacent residential and recreational areas. The proposal contained in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan for Fifth Avenue recommends that: • Where possible, unbuilt streets within the Fifth Avenue industrial area be combined with other underutilized parcels to create large redevelopment sites. • Along with assembled sites, the area be utilized for planned light industry, commercial uses or public service uses. • The parcels or assembled sites have adequate access and on-site parking to free up narrow roadways. 3.1-18 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS N . ` 4:A4411/4-4%i 'RS i... , 44 ' / �! Rt* LEGEND 444.,l► % 4\ • 4.. s�. • s .7 4,,4, LEGEND L j�l l % %,$ 4% $ . cr� � �,++ 04 4 ,+ �� B Business �� '~ , '• � -. , Light Industrial ��� s suser QsBusi at`���. Use Business Kt/�` alla t 11-7.5 ,� ,'� '''�1160/4t`R. ,, ���i RESIDENTIAL � ►+'',„...,. J . ���c� �I�-,` 0.-�A R-6 6000 square feet ti ,,�'�'t _ � 1��� 'yF 1♦ � 1� ' � i .,��� °�� �,�j R-7.5 7500 square feet 1104,10.4" ♦ , ���O . � , , ,�f` R-10 10,000 square feet • ttI� , �/'���-� f1!' * ` dor R-15 15,000 square feet M �'r rr WV ` r''*� �+" �� �_ >> �4.` \ � r; R-TA Tower ig,♦� 0` ��. .� 1n11 �, °1 �d��+��� �A�>> r;� LEGEND EL . millhi ,�� 's 400111' •p� ���10 1t , B +:# �.t ,!' LARCHMONT CD M +,0Ir�, it fpdi'iii II ,� * .SI.s s w- to /,.4&` RB Retail Business I 1/ '''�., i RC Retail Center N ��f�� N,4 �t s� m� .! .[`r ,,i : ` LC Limited Commercial 11111W01! � RROCRailroad OfficeCommercial,, a� 0.4., *V R-15 RESIDENTIAL ,.+ ,��� # o 'a 'A, il R-5 5,000 square feet II' . :0'. �� R-7.5 7,500 square feet U . *� +. ' �• �� �,,r V i , R-1010,000squarefeetO e ,�s �' R-12.5 12,500 square feet r TA ', • II R-15 15,000 square feet ��A •�, ¢ R-1/'1 ®��1 .fid. R-30 30,000 square feet A� v Pt t4• "V MFg Multi Family Residential rig B c"* r ,ti �, S el > ®� W Waterfront CD ��yam. � •�,!' 0, , ,` � Secondary Land Use �1'1� -/ t.4 �� ,• qyF ) Study Area ,- i , 004-- - . '-\11,7,01.k.triorgy „,,,,,..r//,,,. .,..3„., ,,- yt. RC „.. VR-6-tir- . s _1°.,,,,.L,1/,;,-1.-• fr W:ah chs ,.�� y. �� R-7.5 , i R-5 4Pc.„p) f a,'=” 2 SB f ~If :,,,,, ' ./ • il4 ' # '-- - 44 tx or� �� �R-5 ' ,, STUY� �'QC , ` �'1At: , orrfr r '9404, r ,',1r*444° '''' / �0 pew ' � �r T �' josqt, Ail ',4, ''4.11.110.11;* .' . .„ 3 ,c1), H FX 11111PervsiNc(‘ '.. vocc4s sl 241 N. . ' # 0p Q-. i iI, �, ��� � R-7.5 Rei E: Ct., DR ♦ iii R-5 : l." D �• PpS1RpP � �ou+uMAVEMk co.: R-7 5 �R-5 a°sjp" R-10` (Al -1' �� ELM AVE ' LAVE yG SMUT A, i Mir. ' R :: a ,\ 7 R-7.5 • , �E m "' I R-30 '') 12 ��9�R li .� � _,...r11°1 IsB44f . �•- WI W os-r0 ..I AVE '�f.1 OAK AVE �w ��..�. �� 0E S•! ►. A --.►* .JD107 _ , Alimp...,:te:„.,--...4P.....wA, A illlA''''e LIFrd:\EN N Figure 3.1-9: Zoning Map-Mamaroneck, Larchmont w E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle,Westchester County, New York s Base Map: Zoning Map Composite of Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont File 9916 Fig 3.1-8 TMA 06/14/00 Scale: 1 Inch =Approx. 800 Feet Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, NY 10516(914) 265-4400, Fax: 265-4418 Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Blight Study As noted earlier, in April of 1999, Ferrandino & Associates Inc., completed the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Project Blight Study on behalf of the City of New Rochelle. In preparing the Blight Study, all existing buildings and vacant or underdeveloped land considered for inclusion in the proposed Urban Renewal Area were reviewed based on their relative physical conditions. They were then ranked on a scale of either good, fair, poor or deteriorated. Each parcel was also evaluated in terms of its blighting influence on the neighborhood. These are the established procedures utilized in urban renewal blight studies. In considering whether each lot had "a blighting influence on the neighborhood," the following factors were considered: • properties that contain buildings in "fair" physical condition but which detract from the overall character of the neighborhood due to lack of maintenance or poor physical appearance • properties that contain buildings rated as being in "poor" or "deteriorated" physical condition • properties with more than one principal building that exhibit conflicting land uses • underdeveloped properties or vacant land which, by virtue of their condition or other factors, disrupt the overall land use pattern and detract from the character of the neighborhood • improper land use • title problems and diverse land ownership • obsolete layouts • stagnant and unproductive condition of land • extent of vacant land • economic underdevelopment/obsolescence • blocks and lots of irregular shape and insufficient size for effective development • incompatibility of existing mixture of residential and industrial property • inadequacy of the streets • visual condition • potential environmental conditions Blight Study Findings A substandard and insanitary or blighted area is defined by New York State's Urban Renewal Law (Article 15 of the General Municipal Law) to mean "a slum, blighted, deteriorated or deteriorating area, or an area which has a blighting influence on the surrounding area... and may include land, buildings or improvements...not in themselves substandard or insanitary, the inclusion of which is deemed necessary for the effective undertaking of one or more urban renewal programs". 3.1-19 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 The area as a whole was found to exhibit blighting conditions as evidenced by improper or inappropriate use, obsolete layouts, stagnant and unproductive condition of land, incompatibility of land use mix, visual cacophony and blight, deteriorated building conditions and economic underdevelopment. The Blight Study concluded that: "the dilapidation and functional obsolescence of these properties have a negative and blighting effect on the neighborhood and on the overall redevelopment plan for the City of New Rochelle", and that [t]he "16.4 acre Study Area is appropriate for urban renewal and would qualify for designation as an urban renewal area". The Blight Study was adopted by the City Council by Resolution 178 on July 20, 1999. Based solely upon the physical condition of the buildings themselves, 18 of the 66 buildings in the proposed Urban Renewal Area (27.3 percent) were in good condition, 38 (or 57.6 percent) were in fair condition, eight (or 12.1 percent) were in poor condition and two (or 3 percent) were deteriorated. The Blight Study defined "fair" condition as structurally sound, but containing deficiencies resulting from lack of maintenance and gradual deterioration which would require corrective action beyond the scope of normal maintenance. "Poor" buildings were defined as those showing signs of limited structural damage that could be corrected only with considerable investment. Buildings that the Study rated as "poor" may also have had prior violations on record. The eight buildings rated as "poor" were dispersed throughout the entire proposed Urban Renewal Area. The two buildings rated as "deteriorated" were deemed to be a clear hazard to health and safety without the possibility of rehabilitation. One of the buildings rated as deteriorated is currently closed and boarded. Of the lots, 50 percent (including buildings and vacant lots) were deemed to be in "poor" condition, 35.9 percent were deemed to be in "fair" condition, and 1.3 percent were deemed to be deteriorated. Only 12.8 percent were deemed to be in good condition. Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont Joint Master Plan The most recent Master Plan Update was jointly issued by the Village of Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck in 1989 and covered portions of the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont in the vicinity of Larchmont Station. The planning analyses and policy development principles upon which the plan update was based are, as follows: • Business use and development should be confined within the present boundaries delineated by the existing Zoning Map. • The general scale and character of the business areas should be preserved and adjacent residential neighborhoods should be protected from any adverse impacts from the business areas. • Land use policies and development regulations should contribute to the appropriate use of existing underdeveloped or non conforming properties. 3.1-20 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 • Land use policies, and the development regulations to implement them, should reflect the specific characteristics of the varied sub-areas of the Study Area. • Policies and priorities for land use and parking must be developed jointly. The study area, defined as the area of the Town generally bound by Valley Place to the west, Fifth Avenue, Madison Avenue, Myrtle Boulevard, the New England Thruway, the Village of Larchmont municipal boundary, and Palmer Avenue, was analyzed in terms of existing land uses, current development policies based on the existing master plan and zoning, development issues, proposed land use policies, and site planning issues. As indicted in the Master Plan Update, the study area was divided into six planning areas or units, for the purposes of analysis and detailed planning. Each of the identified units has common characteristics and/or defined physical boundaries. Planning Units 1 and 2 are generally located immediately east of the proposed Retail Center Project site. Planning Unit 3 comprises the area north of Larchmont Station and east of Chatsworth Avenue (Station Park and commuter parking lot). Planning Units 4 through 6 comprise areas south of the Thruway (i.e., in the Village of Larchmont) proceeding east from the municipal boundary with New Rochelle to the Village's eastern boundary (just east of Hall Avenue). Planning Unit 4 is furthest removed from the Redevelopment Area and is located at the edge of the Secondary Study Area. This area supports a large parking area, two garden apartment complexes, several office buildings, and several small residences. Planning Unit 5 comprises the core of the Larchmont commercial district, while Planning Unit 6 contains the mixture of commercial uses on the north side of Palmer Avenue extending east from the New Rochelle boundary, and vacant land between these uses and the Metro-North railroad. The south side of Palmer Avenue, which supports residential uses, is not included in Planning Unit 6. As discussed elsewhere in this chapter, areas east of the Redevelopment Area and north of the New England Thruway are considered at risk for redevelopment. These areas are situated within Planning Units 1 and 2. The remaining Planning Units generally support stable residential, retail, and office uses, or are in use for commuter parking or parkland. A small area comprising approximately 3.5 acres and located adjacent to the Metro-North railroad is the only vacant land noted in the remaining Planning Units. Planning Unit 1 comprises the two blocks along Fifth Avenue (immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Area) from Valley Place east to Madison Avenue. Planning Unit 2 comprises the areas adjacent to Planning Unit 1 from Jefferson Street to the New England Thruway to North Chatsworth Avenue. The following policy recommendations were established for Planning Units 1 and 2 in the 1989 Master Plan Update: Planning Unit 1 • This area should be designated as a business / service area as opposed to a general business area, since it is one of the few locations in Town which is appropriate for various service uses (automotive, storage, and equipment rental businesses, etc.). • It is desirable to encourage retail businesses and offices to locate in the existing business areas to strengthen these centers rather than encourage dispersion. 3.1-21 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Planning Unit 2 • The business designation east of Madison Avenue is appropriate use given the established uses, and the few parcels remaining which are subject to development. • West of Madison, the underutilized block bounded by the Thruway is suitable for high density residential, office or commercial use or a combination of such uses. It has excellent access and visibility and there are no adjacent uses to be directly impacted. It is proposed that land use controls permit a range of uses, either singly or in combination, rather than the current designation. Assemblage of the smaller parcels in the block, to create larger, more efficient development units, is to be encouraged. It is noted that, with the exception of the area designated for Business-Mixed Use Business (B-MUB) development, the current Town of Mamaroneck Zoning regulations in Planning Units 1 and 2 reflect the recommendations made in the 1989 Master Plan Update. As discussed later in this chapter, the Town of Mamaroneck is considering the rezoning of a portion of Planning Unit 2 to accommodate an assisted living facility, housing, ball fields and/or light industrial businesses. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program The City of New Rochelle prepared its Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) in 1997. The LWRP covers areas of the City within the designated coastal zone. These areas generally lie east of the Boston Post Road (US Route 1). Its acceptance by the New York State Department of State allows the City to perform the consistency determinations for projects located within its coastal zone. The Redevelopment Area neither falls within nor abuts the designated coastal zone. New Rochelle Harbor Management Plan The management area for the 1998 New Rochelle Harbor Management Plan encompasses the coastal waters and adjoining upland properties in the City of New Rochelle. The principle water bodies within the Plan's study area include Echo Bay, Premium Mill Pond, New Rochelle Creek, the Lower Harbor and Long Island Sound. For discussions of the effects of the proposed Retail Center Project on the Pine Brook sub-watershed area, refer to Chapter 3.4 Surface Water, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management. Patterns for Westchester In 1995, the Westchester County Planning Board formally adopted a policies and strategies statement to guide land use in the County, entitled Patterns for Westchester: The Land and the People. Patterns offers a broad policy framework for governmental action to guide the county's future physical development. Although the primary purpose is to provide a set of standards for the Westchester County Planning Board, Patterns proposes a range of strategies through which County and municipal governments may implement their common planning goals. 3.1-22 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Development Concepts Patterns discusses Westchester County's development pattern in terms of its centers, which are ranked according to size and function, as hamlets, local, intermediate and major. New Rochelle's downtown area is one of four major centers in the County. The redevelopment and revitalization of older, established urban centers such as New Rochelle is viewed as critical to Westchester's well-being. Larchmont Center and Larchmont Station are both local centers: Larchmont Station is within the Secondary Study Area, Larchmont Center is just outside of it to the southeast. Development patterns are also described in terms of the County's principal corridors. As noted in Patterns, "[o]utside of [Westchester's older, established centers], Westchester has significant capacity for economic development in other intermediate, local and hamlet centers - and in several corridors with a developed character - that have adequate infrastructure and relatively few environmental constraints." The Interstate 95 corridor is one such corridor. Patterns seeks to direct development to existing centers, while acknowledging that land along corridors carries with it significant development potential and may be suitable for development. Development Intensities Rather than recommending explicit uses for lands, Patterns recommends a range of development densities. Recommended density ranges between LDR 0-2 / Low Density Rural in northern portions of the County to HDU High Density Urban 7-9 in and around the downtowns of White Plains, Yonkers, Mount Vernon, and New Rochelle. With regard to nonresidential uses, at the low end of this scale floor area ratios (FARs) between 0.0125 and 0.05 would be common, while at the upper end FARs between 1.6 and 6.4 are common. Corresponding residential densities would range between 0.2 and 1.5 dwelling units to the acre at the lower end, to between 51 and 205 dwelling units to the acre at the upper end. Patterns recommends a classification for the Urban Renewal Area and Redevelopment Area of High Density Urban with an intensity ranging between 4 and 6. The High Density Urban 4-6 designation corresponds to a recommended range of floor area ratios of between 0.2 and 0.8. Corresponding residential land use intensities are recommended of between 6 and 26 dwelling units to the acre. With regard to the proposed 14.9-acre Redevelopment Area, the intensity ranges noted above equate to between approximately 130,000 and 520,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area. Development Strategies Strategies outlined in Patterns direct the County and municipalities to "[i]dentify redevelopment areas, and growth centers." In identifying redevelopment areas, the County and municipalities can [i]nventory the county's oldest established centers to identify undeveloped lands, properties that have become obsolete and properties significantly underutilized." 3.1-23 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 In identifying growth centers, the County and municipalities can "[i]nventory the county's newer, non-city centers and developed corridors to identify areas with potential for significant growth through new mixed use development, infill construction and transportation hub enhancement." Patterns directs the County and municipalities to "[k]eep abreast of retail and commercial trends, business clusters and market areas", but notes that the changing shape of retail business toward shopping malls and huge, single retail stores, while strengthening regional commercial activity, can seriously weaken retail centers comprised of many small businesses, particularly in the county's downtowns." Intermunicipal Impacts Patterns notes that "[t]he most pressing problems that confront Westchester County and its municipalities have regional implications." These include the intermunicipal impact of economic growth, and the scarcity of suitable land for development. With regard to intermunicipal impacts, Patterns notes that "[I]and use decisions that benefit one community's economy and tax base may adversely affect traffic patterns, housing demand, transportation accessibility, infrastructure needs and economic viability in neighboring municipalities." Compounding this is the problem of scarce land for commercial and industrial growth in southern and central Westchester. 3.1.7 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions Land Use Primary Study Area As discussed above, the Redevelopment Area or Primary Study Area, composed of mostly nonresidential uses with a scattering of retail and residential uses, is bordered by a similar although somewhat more residential pattern of land uses to the west; medium density residential uses to the south of the New England Thruway; a mix of industrial, institutional, and commercial uses to the east, including a former incinerator site and the maintenance yard for the Thruway Authority, and the William Flower Park and medium density single and multiple-family residential uses to the north. In light of the M-1 zoning, the area has been experiencing a transition to nonresidential use over the past 50 years. It appears that contracting businesses may also be operating out of several of the residences. Based on property ownership records, many of the remaining residences are now owned by existing commercial users operating within the area. In the future without the Proposed Actions, individual lots in the Redevelopment Area would be expected to continue to undergo piecemeal redevelopment as has been the pattern to date. Based on uses currently and historically occupying the area, an increase in auto repair, vehicle and bus storage, and open storage of materials and equipment would be expected. As discussed earlier, when lots in the Redevelopment Area have been redeveloped, the commercial structures usually occupy most if not all of their lots. Little to no provision has been made for on-site parking and loading. A continuation of this trend, in conjunction with the large amount of equipment and vehicle storage in the Redevelopment Area, would contribute to 3.1-24 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 increased activity and congestion along Redevelopment Area roadways. Likewise, it would be very difficult to improve Redevelopment Area roadways to contemporary standards without impacts to existing uses. As the complement of residences in the Redevelopment Area has declined, the number and intensity of commercial and industrial uses, and hence the potential for incompatibility, has greatly increased. For example, M-1 zoning allows a variety of uses including automobile repair establishments, but specifically excludes any establishments that involve automobile body work or painting. A review of City Building Department records indicates that a number of requests have been considered by the Board of Appeals on Zoning to operate auto body establishments on certain lots within the Redevelopment Area over the past 40 years. Until 1992, these variance requests were denied. In 1992, 1993 and 1996, variances were granted to operate auto body establishments on lots 24, 25 and 26 of block 905, lots 29 and 30 of block 898, and lots 33 and 34 of block 905, respectively. Should these recent decisions signify a continuing trend, various forms of auto body use would continue to multiply. Assessment and Building Department records, as well as field observations, indicate that other activities of a commercial nature continue to proliferate throughout the neighborhood including: 1) the erection of barbed wire to protect inventory; 2) the installation of signage; 3) the erection of billboards (which are not permitted within 500 feet of each other); 4) the presence of guard dogs; 5) unauthorized excavation; and 6) unauthorized and authorized building construction activities. These activities are at best unattractive and at worst constitute a nuisance and are generally incompatible with preserving the quality of life or property values of a residential neighborhood. Residences primarily located along Pleasant Street, which back on to the New England Thruway, experience high noise levels and lowered air quality, and have limited yard space. These conditions affect the overall quality and market value of these residences. There is little evidence to indicate that resale for residential use has occurred in recent years. These homes often lack basements and rear yards, and in some cases improvements actually infringe on Thruway property. As noted earlier, several of the Redevelopment Area's structures are currently vacant. These structures include those that were formerly in both residential and nonresidential use. As the area is zoned for nonresidential use, the City's zoning code prevents the reuse of these structures for residential use. Given the area's established ownership patterns, its relative isolation, its proximity to the New England Thruway and its M-1 zoning designation, it is likely that the area would continue to support an increasing mix of automotive repair, vehicle storage, and open contractor's uses. Because of certain activities such as spray painting, the storage of petroleum and other toxic and hazardous materials, and other factors such as vehicle emissions, and congestion, and activities outside of the normal business day, these uses are often considered objectionable in residential and other areas. For these reasons, such uses are often attracted to areas similar to the Redevelopment Area because of their relative isolation, decreasing complement of residents, and availability of relatively inexpensive real property to accommodate incremental 3.1-25 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 growth. Such uses and their attendant adverse impacts on the Primary Study Area would also likely continue to proliferate. Private Acquisition of Project Area Properties The Applicant has voluntarily, at its own risk, acquired property within and outside the proposed Redevelopment Area. This is being done as part of its outreach to the community and to facilitate relocation. The Applicant understands the risk of such strategy. In the event that the Retail Center Project is not approved, in whole or part, the Applicant would develop and/or sell its properties in accordance with the applicable zoning and other requirements existing as of that date. As part of its agreements with sellers of property, the Applicant has included provisions allowing the continued occupancy of all acquired spaces by the current occupants pending action on the Proposed Actions by the City Council. No relocation activities would take place until approvals are imminent or received, unless requested by the tenant. In the event the Proposed Actions are not implemented, final disposition of the privately acquired properties could occur in several ways. Individual parcels could be sold to parties (including their recent sellers) with or without existing improvements. Alternatively, parcels could be assembled to form larger, more marketable site(s), which could be sold to other party(ies) with or without improvements for use in a manner consistent with the applicable zoning standards at the time. Finally, the Applicant may retain all or a portion of the parcels for its own use in a manner which complies with the City of New Rochelle zoning code. Under City zoning regulations, nonconforming residential uses vacated for longer than one year are considered to be abandoned and thus may not be reinstated. The same requirement applies if the residential structure were demolished. Thus, the private acquisition of existing residences carries with it the risk that many or all of the remaining properties in residential use in the Redevelopment Area would be converted to nonresidential use, or become vacant. A second potential effect relates to the increased likelihood that the sale of properties to the Applicant would lead to the potential turnover of commercial properties in the Redevelopment Area. Changes in tenancy and/or ownership of specific parcels, or redevelopment of assembled parcels with more intense uses may also occur. Zoning and Public Policy The City of New Rochelle is currently considering a comprehensive revision to its Zoning Code. This revision includes substantial changes in the commercial and industrial zoning designations in the City. The proposed regulations endeavor to implement the goals and objectives of the City's adopted 1996 Comprehensive Plan, and have been subject to public hearings. All M-1 sites throughout the City would be zoned LI Light Industrial under the new regulations. In addition to some changes in bulk standards, the proposed regulations omit retail stores from the permitted uses within the LI district. However, it is contemplated that the subject site would be remapped as Large Scale Retail (LSR), a separate pending zoning district outlined in the proposed revisions to the Zoning Code, and consistent with the City's policy for this neighborhood. In the event that the proposed Urban Renewal Plan is not adopted, the proposed Urban Renewal zoning amendments would not be implemented and would have no effect. The site is 3.1-26 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 likely to be rezoned to LI which does not permit retail. However, subsequent to the recodification, it is contemplated that this area would be remapped to LSR. In the event the zoning amendments proposed herein are not adopted, the Applicant would have the option of proceeding with a site plan application under the standards and procedures outlined for the M-1 zone which permits retail uses or alternatively apply under the future LSR zoning regulations. Secondary Study Area The existing pattern of land uses and overall neighborhood character in the Secondary Study Area would be expected to remain in the future without the proposed Retail Center Project. The Primary Study Area has been targeted for redevelopment for 45 years. Any developer desiring to privately assemble properties within the block between Fifth Avenue and Plain Avenue, or the block between Plain Avenue and Pleasant Street (or the entire area) could develop large scale retail uses without the area's designation as an urban renewal area and without the use of eminent domain. Such development would be consistent with the area's existing M-1 zoning designation and current City land use plans and policies. New Rochelle Portions of Secondary Study Area Areas surrounding the Redevelopment Area within the City of New Rochelle are generally fully developed, or consist of designated parkland. No other development projects are planned within the New Rochelle portions of the Secondary Study Area. As in the Primary Study Area, future conditions without the Proposed Actions would be expected to continue as in the existing condition (i.e., piecemeal redevelopment). Outside of the Secondary Study Area in New Rochelle, retail projects have already been approved and/or constructed at the Weyman Avenue site (which already houses two major retailers), and at the former Price Club property along Palmer Avenue (Expo Design Center). New Roc City has replaced the former New Rochelle Mall. Construction of the Avalon on the Sound apartment redevelopment is under way downtown. Portions of West New Rochelle are proposed to support a mix of affordable housing and senior assisted living. Town of Mamaroneck Portions of Secondary Study Area As noted earlier, south of the Interchange 17 ramps to the Thruway, the Town of Mamaroneck is considering the rezoning of a two-acre area portion of this four to five-acre area to potentially accommodate an assisted living facility, housing, ball fields or light industrial businesses (Westchester Journal News, June, 2000). This "Washington Square" proposal is conceptual at this time, and is envisioned as 225 housing units and a 548 space parking garage. The Town has requested that the developer scale down the number of housing units to a maximum of 175. This area is currently zoned for nonresidential use, including retail stores, and currently supports three residences, a construction yard and a tree service. Three homes on Maxwell Avenue, and the construction yard and tree service on Byron Place would be eliminated to allow for any of the proposed land use options. 3.1-27 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 In the past 15 years, the Town has received several proposals for the land, including those for a warehouse and an assisted living facility that have either been scaled down or abandoned by the developers. 3.1.8 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions Land Use Primary Study Area Designation of the Redevelopment Area for Urban Renewal would commit the area to redevelopment. Proposed land use changes would result in the loss of approximately 140,000 square feet of nonresidential space proximate to Interstate 95 in southeastern Westchester County, 31 residences and two churches. The Redevelopment Area supports almost 40 business establishments, which would be dislocated. Relocation impacts to these businesses are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.8. The redevelopment of the area, however, would also result in the removal of blight in the Redevelopment Area. Blight manifests itself in the Redevelopment Area in several ways, including: • Incompatible land use relationships • Incompatible mixed uses within the same structure • Improper location of structures • Excessive land coverage • Improper or inadequate building conversions • Excessive dwelling unit density • Obsolete building types • Inadequate or deficient street pattern including lack of sufficient parking or loading space Adoption and implementation of the proposed Urban Renewal Plan would commit this area to a large-scale retail use. Impacts associated with retail uses would include the introduction of relatively large levels of visitors to the area with associated effects on transportation systems and neighborhood character. These effects are discussed in Chapters 3.9 and 3.5, respectively, of this document. Of the 66 structures in the Redevelopment Area, 33 house commercial or mixed commercial uses, two are churches, and the remainder are residential structures. In addition, Pleasant Street and Biehn Street would be eliminated and demapped. Plain Avenue would be demapped between Biehn Street and Valley Place. A ten-foot widening of the west side of Portman Road is proposed as part of the Redevelopment Area proposal. With regard to three existing residential properties on the west side of Portman Road, this widening would require minor front yard encroachment, retaining 3.1-28 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 walls, reconstruction of stairways, and regrading of approximately 40 feet of an existing driveway. Relocation Land Use Refer to Chapter 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions for a discussion of potential land use effects of the relocation of Redevelopment Area businesses to sites within and outside of the Secondary Study Area. Specific sites considered include properties owned by the Gerard Daniel Company (situated within the Primary and Secondary Study Areas), the Humane Society property (within the Secondary Study Area), and the former Tuck Tape property (near US Route 1 outside of the Secondary Study Area). Secondary Study Area To the extent the proposed Retail Center Project is successful and attracts interest in the area as a commercial area, it may induce additional development. Such potential growth inducing effects include the potential for land values to increase causing increased pressure for turnover of existing uses, and/or assemblage of properties for additional commercial development projects. See Growth Inducing Impacts Chapter for more detailed analysis of this issue. Apart from the Redevelopment Area, however, most surrounding areas of the City of New Rochelle and the adjacent portions of the Town of Mamaroneck are generally developed with residential or nonresidential uses (usually on small lots), or consist of designated parkland, and are currently zoned as such. The presence of the New England Thruway, which bisects this area of New Rochelle and limits the number of connections from the north to the south, also would tend to limit the potential amount of pressure for infill commercial development and/or redevelopment. New Rochelle Portions of Secondary Study Area Secondary land use effects in New Rochelle would be expected to be limited to the neighborhood of mixed residential, commercial and industrial uses to the west of the Redevelopment Area. Because of its proximity to the Redevelopment Area and its increased visibility to those visiting the proposed Retail Center, this area could potentially be affected by the proposed Retail Center Project. Land use effects could include pressure for assembly of parcels and subsequent redevelopment, or could involve changes in real estate values causing turnover of the existing uses. Areas to the west of the Redevelopment Area are currently zoned M-1 and C-1; an R-2 Two Family Residence district lies to the northwest. Potter Avenue, the area's only north-south connection over the New England Thruway, divides this area. Because of the limited number of opportunities left in the City, the likelihood that the Proposed Actions would trigger similar actions elsewhere is considered low. Large-scale retail projects have already been approved and/or constructed at the Weyman Avenue site (which now houses two major retailers), and at the former Price Club property along Palmer Avenue (Expo Design Center). New Roc City has also replaced the former New Rochelle Mall. 3.1-29 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14,2000 Town of Mamaroneck Portions of Secondary Study Area For retail use, the contiguous area between Fifth Avenue and the ramp to the southbound New England Thruway (from Madison Street), and the area south of the ramps have a somewhat greater probability to experience redevelopment pressures. The existing SB-Service Business District mapped adjacent to the Redevelopment Area's eastern border in the Town of Mamaroneck currently allows retail use. With an overall FAR limitation of 0.5, a maximum allowable building coverage of 25 percent, and the requirement that five off-street parking spaces be provided for each 1,000 square feet of floor area for retail uses, the overall intensity of retail use allowed in the SB district is somewhat lower than that currently allowed in the M-1 district covering the Redevelopment Area, and proposed to be allowed under the proposed URLSR regulations described above. According to the Town of Mamaroneck's SB regulations, this area, which comprises between 8.5 and 9.0 acres, could support up to approximately 100,000 square feet of retail space. North of Fifth Avenue, a smaller SB-zoned area comprises approximately 2.5 acres of land area in a generally linear configuration. This area, if redeveloped, could support a maximum of 20,000 to 25,000 square feet of space. Parking requirements, and buffering for adjacent residential land area, would be likely to reduce this amount significantly. South of the Interchange 17 ramps to the Thruway, another area is also currently zoned for nonresidential use, including retail stores. This area, which comprises between four and five acres, currently supports three residences, a construction yard and a tree service. In the past, portions of this area supported a water pumping facility and refuse incineration facility. In order to consider development of a retail facility, one or more of the existing uses would need to be displaced. This area is primarily zoned LI Light Industrial, and B-MUB (Business -- Mixed Use Business). Portions of the area within the beds of the streets are zoned B (Business). The maximum permissible floor area ratio (FAR) in the LI district is 1.0, while the maximum in the B and B-MUB districts is 0.5. With a maximum FAR of 0.5, the maximum amount of retail floor area which could be constructed on an assembled site in this area would range between 65,000 and 75,000 square feet. For mixed use development (i.e., including a mix of multifamily dwellings, business and professional offices, and retail stores and personal service establishments), the maximum FAR in B-MUB district is 1.0. The Town of Mamaroneck is considering the rezoning of a two acre portion of this area to accommodate an assisted living facility, housing, ball fields or light industrial businesses (Journal News, June, 2000). The proposed Retail Center Project is not expected to significantly affect land use in other portions of the Secondary Study Area. Effects on Area Home Values and Affordable Housing For a discussion of effect on area home values and affordable housing, refer to Chapter 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions. 3.1-30 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Effects of Project Failure Should the selection of IKEA as the qualified and eligible redeveloper prove not feasible prior to construction and operation, the City of New Rochelle would need to identify another redeveloper or redevelopers if the Urban Renewal Plan was adopted and put into effect. It can be expected that an assembled parcel of 16 acres in southern Westchester would generate much interest in the development community. After construction is completed and operations begin, should the Retail Center Project fail financially, any number of events could occur. IKEA is a large, international corporation with substantial assets. It would be likely that any potential for financial failure would be known well in advance of such event actually taking place. In order to protect its assets, IKEA would likely sell the building and grounds to another retailer, who would convert the use to its own specific needs. Such an action may have a relatively minor short-term impact on the area with little long term effect. In the event that the failure is so significant that taxes were not paid on the property for a period of time, Westchester County or the City of New Rochelle could take title to the property. The improved property would need to be managed until sold or otherwise disposed of by the applicable governmental agency. It is expected that with the population density that exists in Southern Westchester County environs, there would be continued interest in the site for a nonresidential user. Zoning Primary Study Area Proposed Zoning Regulations/Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan Except for loading requirements, the proposed Retail Center Project site plan complies with all of the currently applicable requirements of the M-1 zoning designation. However, to implement the goals of the draft Urban Renewal Plan, the City proposes to rezone the Redevelopment Area to update the requirements for a large-scale retail use. As part of the proposed Urban Renewal Plan, the Redevelopment Area would be rezoned to better address a large-scale retail use such as the proposed Retail Center. Uses permitted in the proposed URLSR zone would include the following: • Large-Scale Retail Facilities • Stores and shops exclusively for sales at retail or the performance of customary personal services. • Business, professional or government offices • Restaurants 3.1-31 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 According to the proposed URLSR zoning amendment, a Large-Scale Retail Facility is defined as "a very large store or group of stores containing a minimum of 100,000 square feet of gross floor area each, situated on a large tract of land (a minimum of 10 acres) that offer a wide selection of goods in special retail categories. Special retail categories consists of goods carried by such retail establishments with a particular focus or theme, such as home furnishings, office supplies, building materials, books, videos, toys, etc." Table 3.1-6 compares the proposed Retail Center Project site plan to the standards applicable in the M-1 district. A retail store of the size proposed is allowed as of right under the current M-1 zoning designation. Likewise, the proposed bulk and parking regulations for the URLSR Large Scale Retail district are provided and compared to the proposed Retail Center Project site plan in Table 3.1-7. For convenience, both tables are provided together on the following page. 3.1-32 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Table 3.1-6 Bulk and Parking Standards Applicable to Proposed Retail Use in the M-1 District Minimum Required Proposed Site Plan Lot Area None Approx. 14.9 acres Floor Area Ratio None 0.47 Lot Width None 1,457 feet Lot Depth None 425 feet Front Yard 10 feet` 31.51 feet Side Yard None 123.56 feet Rear Yard None 184.76 feet Off-Street Parking Spaces 1 space/600 SF (514 spaces) 1,572 spaces Off-Street Loading Spaces 1 space/first 10,000 SF floor area + 1 10 spaces space/each add'I 20,000 SF or portion = (16 spaces) Maximum Permitted Building Height 2 floors 2 floors 40 feet 36 feet Building Coverage 60% 33.6% Source: City of New Rochelle Zoning Code, Bohler Engineering No front yard is required when lot depth is 100 feet or less. Table 3.1-7 Bulk and Parking Regulations for Uses in the Proposed URLSR District Minimum Required Proposed Site Plan Lot Area 10 acres Approx. 14.9 acres Lot Width None 1,457 feet Lot Depth None 425 feet Floor Area Ratio 1.0 0.470 Front Yard None 31.51 feet Side Yard None 123.56 feet Rear Yard None 184.76 feet Off-Street Parking Spaces 1 space/250 SF (1,232 spaces) 1,572 spaces Off-Street Loading Spaces 2 spaces/first 75,000 SF floor area + 1 10 loading spaces space /each add'I 50,000 SF or portion (7 spaces) Maximum Permitted Building Height 50 feet 36 feet Building Coverage 70% 33.6% Impervious Surface Coverage 100% 88.5 Source: City of New Rochelle Zoning Code, Bohler Engineering 3.1-33 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 The New Rochelle City Council would be the approving agency for adoption of the zoning changes consistent with the ultimately adopted Urban Renewal Plan, as well all site plan applications. Secondary Study Area The potential for the proposed actions to trigger further zoning changes in the Secondary Study Area is discussed below. New Rochelle Based on the current zoning plan for the City of New Rochelle, no changes in zoning are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Actions. Town of Mamaroneck Based on the current zoning plan for the Town of Mamaroneck, no changes in zoning are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Actions. 3.1.9 Public Policy Conformity with the City of New Rochelle Comprehensive Plan In its 1989 Industrial Development Study and 1996 Comprehensive Plan, the New Rochelle City Council slated the 16.4 acres along Fifth Avenue, for redevelopment based upon their incompatible land uses, obsolete structures and other blighting influences. The proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan is the culmination of those efforts. The Proposed Actions are consistent with the policies and strategies contained in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan for New Rochelle, as follows: • Approximately 79 parcels would be assembled into one large 16.4 acre site. • The assembled site has adequate access and on-site parking to free up narrow roadways. • Vacant parcels within the Fifth Avenue industrial area would be combined with other underutilized parcels to create a large redevelopment site. • Urban renewal and zoning amendment policies and procedures which provide appropriate land use controls would be applied in an area where redevelopment potential has been identified. • Blighting conditions, which detract from the quality of life of New Rochelle residents, would be eliminated. • The attractiveness of this neighborhood commercial area would be improved. • The fiscal integrity of the City would being improved, job opportunities would be expanded, and the City's economic base would be improved by encouraging commercial development and redevelopment. • Development would be accomplished through the implementation of quality urban design through site planning guidelines and controls, and 3.1-34 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14,2000 • The City's tax base would be strengthened. Conformity with the Proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan The proposed Urban Renewal Plan presents the opportunity for a comprehensive redevelopment of the 16.4-acre area targeted in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan through the elimination of incompatible, nonconforming uses, and substandard lots. It is designed to achieve the following general redevelopment objectives: • expand the City's sales tax and real property tax base • create jobs • continue the City's efforts to reestablish New Rochelle as a regional shopping destination The proposed Urban Renewal Plan recommends that the objectives would best be attained through attracting either one or more retail establishments, which would develop all or most of the 16.4 acre area. One or more large scale retail establishments would meet the goals stated above. The City would pursue finding a redeveloper(s) to achieve these objectives. The draft Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan is provided in Appendix D. The development of the proposed Retail Center by the Applicant would conform to New Rochelle's Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Urban Renewal Plan by combining disparate lots and establishing a unified and functional 14.9-acre site plan in place of the mixed and conflicting uses that presently exist and contribute to the blight in that area. In addition, the proposed Retail Center Project would achieve the following redevelopment objectives of the proposed Urban Renewal Plan: • elimination of 66 unsightly, unsafe and substandard vacated and boarded-up buildings, as well as substandard occupied buildings that exert a blighting influence in the proposed area • elimination of incompatible land uses and obsolete structures • elimination of environmental deficiencies by providing a 14.9-acre area for a large-scale retail development site • acquisition of a 14.9 acres of the 16.4-acre proposed Urban Renewal Area to develop a site for commercial development • redevelopment and revitalization of the area as a viable commercial district through the development of a unified and functional site plan for the retail center • improvement of public utilities, streets, parking and other public facilities in order to properly serve the proposed development • continuation of the City's overall efforts to make New Rochelle a regional retail destination and therein reestablish the identity/image of New Rochelle as a viable business community • provision of a 14.9-acre site to facilitate the expansion of the City's tax base • creation of approximately 400 short-term construction and 350 permanent jobs As discussed previously, to implement the goals of the Urban Renewal Plan, the City proposes to rezone the Redevelopment Area to better address the requirement for a large-scale retail 3.1-35 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 use. According to the proposed URLSR zoning amendment, a Large-Scale Retail Facility is defined as containing a minimum of 100,000 square feet of gross floor area each, situated on a large tract of land (a minimum of 10 acres) that offer a wide selection of goods in special retail categories. The proposed Retail Center would contain 308,000 square feet of retail space situated on 14.9 acres of assembled land. The proposed Retail Center would comply with all of the proposed bulk and parking regulations for the URLSR Large Scale Retail District. Compatibility With Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont Joint Master Plan Planning Units 1 and 2 studied as part of the Joint Master Plan Update support uses which may be affected by the Proposed Actions. Planning Units 3 through 6 are in stable residential, retail, and office uses, or are in use as commuter parking or parkland. An area comprising approximately 3.5 acres and located adjacent to the Metro-North railroad is the only vacant land noted in the remaining Planning Units. These units are not expected to be adversely affected by the Proposed Actions. The Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont Joint Master Plan states that within Planning Unit 2, the area west of Madison which includes the underutilized block bounded by the Thruway, is suitable for high density residential, office or commercial use or a combination of such uses. It is considered suitable because it has excellent access and visibility and there are no adjacent uses to be directly impacted. The Plan proposes that land use controls permit a range of uses, either singly or in combination in this area, and the assemblage of the smaller parcels in the block, to create a larger, more efficient development unit. The same planning principles are proposed by the City of New Rochelle for its proposed 16.4-acre Urban Renewal Area and proposed Urban Renewal Plan, and by the Applicant for the proposed Retail Center Project within the 14.9-acre Redevelopment Area. As discussed above, the Applicant proposes to utilize 14.9 acres of the proposed assembled 16.4-acre Urban Renewal Area for redevelopment and revitalization of the City, as a whole, and as a viable commercial district. The proposed Urban Renewal Area has excellent access and visibility. The Applicant has prepared a unified and functional site plan for the proposed Retail Center Project. Nonresidential land uses adjacent to the proposed Urban Renewal Area in the City of New Rochelle in the Town of Mamaroneck are compatible with the proposed Retail Center Project proposal. The Town of Mamaroneck has discussed conceptually rezoning of a two acre portion of Planning Unit 2, described above, to accommodate an assisted living facility, housing, ball fields or light industrial businesses (Westchester Journal News, June, 2000). This would be compatible with the proposed Retail Center Project. New Rochelle Harbor Management Plan For discussions of the compatibility of the proposed Retail Center Project with the Pine Brook sub-watershed area discussed in the New Rochelle Harbor Management Plan, refer to Chapter 3.4 Surface Water, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management. 3.1-36 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Conformity With Patterns for Westchester The proposed Retail Center Project generally conforms to long-range development objectives for Westchester County as expressed in Patterns. Patterns recommends that new development in Westchester be located in existing development centers and in already developed transportation corridors having infrastructure to support growth. Patterns recommends a classification for the Redevelopment Area of High Density Urban with an intensity ranging between 4 and 6. The High Density Urban 4-6 designation corresponds to a recommended range of floor area ratios of between 0.2 and 0.8. The proposed floor area for the proposed Retail Center Project is 308,000 square feet of floor area over an approximate 14.9-acre site, or a floor area ratio of 0.475. This FAR is within Patterns' recommended range of floor areas of between 130,000 and 520,00 square feet. Specifically, the proposed Retail Center Project is consistent with the following policies articulated in Patterns: Policy One Channel development whenever possible to centers where infrastructure can support growth, where public transportation can be provided efficiently and where economic redevelopment can enhance economic activity. This policy recommends that new development in Westchester be located in existing development centers and in already developed transportation corridors. The proposed Redevelopment Project is consistent with this policy. It would be located in an existing developed area adjacent to the existing Metro North commuter railroad and New England Thruway transportation corridor. The area is served by public water and sewer services, as well as other utilities and municipal services. As discussed in Chapter 3.9 Transportation and Traffic, proposed roadway improvements would facilitate site access and minimize traffic impacts. The Applicant estimates that it would employ approximately 350 to 400 workers and pay over $1.9 million in property taxes. The Applicant would collect and pay a projected $2.3 million in sales taxes to New Rochelle in its first full year of operation (2003). A discussion of economic activity resulting from the proposed Retail Center is found in Chapter 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions. Geographically, New Rochelle is slightly more than two miles wide and seven miles long. Its newer, suburban residential neighborhoods lie generally north of lona College. Most remaining residential sections of the City, although older, are also generally stable. The oldest and most urbanized portions of the City lie along lower North Avenue, Route 1 (and Huguenot Street), the Metro-North Railroad and Interstate 95 in its southern end. These are some of the oldest and most urbanized locations in Westchester County. It is within this "swath" (which comprises approximately four square miles in area) that almost all of New Rochelle's redevelopment and revitalization opportunities lie. Perhaps more than the other major centers in Westchester, by the early 1990s, New Rochelle's downtown areas had witnessed extraordinary decline with the departure of all of its major 3.1-37 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 shopping and entertainment attractions. Left behind was a downtown area which had formerly been a regional shopping destination, and possessed many opportunities for revitalization and redevelopment. The City embarked on a program of identifying redevelopment sites, and initiating interest in the development community, ultimately approving development concepts for each of them. The most recent examples include the Avalon on the Sound residential development, and the New Roc City entertainment center which replaced the former New Rochelle Mall. New Rochelle has also directed resources to its downtown area to improve appearance, stabilize existing remaining business, and enhance transportation resources. With recent investment in City revitalization projects by Home Depot and Costco, New Rochelle responded to the changing nature of retail business. The City also knows that, as with the proposed Retail Center) land in its immediate downtown area is unavailable to support such character of retail development. Available land for revitalization and redevelopment is limited to a number of the City's older mixed use neighborhoods to the north, west and east of the downtown business district. Such areas have included the Fifth Avenue Redevelopment Area (and Urban Renewal Area) that are the subject of this report. Downtown New Rochelle (the intersection of North Avenue and Main Street) lies approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the Redevelopment Area. New Rochelle's Center City area (where its municipal functions are concentrated) lies one mile west of the Redevelopment Area. The redevelopment project is not a downtown location, and will not directly support redevelopment of the downtown. However, the proposed Redevelopment Area is convenient to both the Downtown and Center City areas, and is expected to serve a supportive role to the downtown by introducing a greater number of visitors into this area of New Rochelle. Many visitors to the Redevelopment Area will arrive and depart through downtown New Rochelle. To the extent other shopping, food and drink or entertainment options are available, these visitors may opt to stay, thus enhancing downtown development. In addition, a shuttle between the New Rochelle Metro-North train station, and the proposed Project is proposed to run every 30 minutes during the business day, bringing some visitors and workers directly from the downtown area to the Retail Center site, and returning them later in the day. Policy Two Enhance the appropriate function of the county's corridors by adapting already developed sections into efficient and attractive multi-use places, by protecting the quality of scenic routes and by making road and transit improvements that will reduce congestion and ease movements on travel routes. The proposed Retail Center Project would revitalize an existing mixed residential, light manufacturing and commercial use area within the City that has been targeted for urban renewal by the City of New Rochelle. The Retail Center Project would combine many vacant, underutilized, nonconforming and obsolete lots and uses into one assembled site for retail use with on-site parking. Neighborhood blight and clutter will be eliminated. Narrow roadways in the area would be freed up and eliminated and area roadway improvements implemented to better improve traffic circulation. Policy Four Nurture the economic climate of the county with use of municipal, county, state and federal resources to improve infrastructure, housing and programs that attract and support business enterprise, with particular attention on inter-municipal affairs. 3.1-38 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14,2000 The proposed Retail Center Project would provide significant benefits to the economic climate of the City and County by developing a major new retail center that would attract economic activity to the Fifth Avenue area. In order to assure the continued viability of existing businesses, to the extent practicable, the Applicant would make every effort to relocate existing businesses to sites adjacent to the Redevelopment Area and/or to existing sites with access to the New England Thruway (See Chapter 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions). The proposed Retail Center Project would utilize private resources to improve existing aging infrastructure in the Fifth Avenue area, including road access improvements. 3.1.10 Market for Industrial Space The proposed activities include the rezoning of 16.4 acres of land currently designated for light industrial uses and the removal of 33 structures currently housing commercial or mixed commercial, or industrial uses. The following section discusses and evaluates the potential that this change may have to adversely affect the current real estate market for industrial users. New York City and Environs According to 2000 Comparative Statistics, published by the Society of Industrial and Office Realtors, the New York State portion of the current metropolitan New York metropolitan area market supply for industrial-type space is composed of 421,248,111 square feet (36 percent), while northern and central New Jersey account for 670,814,505 square feet (57 percent), and the southwestern Connecticut markets for 81,167,444 square feet (7 percent). Westchester County includes a small portion of these types of space -- 39 million square feet or 3.3 percent of the region's entire inventory. The vacancy rate in the County was among the lowest in the region at 4.1 percent. Westchester County Historical Background In 1939, Westchester County was home to 469 manufacturing establishments with 21,167 employees. By 1947, the number of establishments had increased to 927, with 46,568 employees, and by 1958, to 1,354 establishments with 55,833 employees. According to New Rochelle's 1965 Master Plan "Recommendations Towards the Evolution of a Development Policy / 1965 - 2015", which provides information on manufacturing employment and establishments in the County,. "industry moved to Westchester in the 1950's and 60's for the following three reasons: 1. lack of space for the expansion of existing plants, or for the establishment of new ones in the older, intensively developed areas of the region; 2. the recently improved roadway network surrounding New York City, permitting better access both to sources of supplies and markets. The type of industries locating in the County have been mostly of a light manufacturing nature, with significant emphasis on electronics manufacturing and various kinds of research laboratories; 3. the growth in the County of a substantial consumer and labor market." 3.1-39 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 The lack of space for new plants in developed areas of the New York metropolitan area was exacerbated by changes in the nature of manufacturing which required horizontally integrated plants, increased automation, space for employee parking and loading areas for quick delivery of supplies, and ease of shipping, and additional space for future expansion. The larger tracts of land needed to construct these types of buildings tended to be cheapest in the outlying, yet to be intensively developed, suburban locations along newly constructed highways. In fact, in Westchester, many of the newly constructed establishments were located along the recently-completed Interstate 287 between Port Chester and Tarrytown. Additional growth was expected to be in the areas north of 1-287, particularly along the not yet built Interstate 684. The expected growth in manufacturing did not materialize as expected. Over the last 40 years manufacturing jobs in Westchester County have been reduced to a fraction of their levels during the 1940s and 1950s. The trend away from goods producing industries to an economy in which the provision of services predominates has quickened in recent years. As shown in Figure 3.1-10 Employment Share Changes & Projections, according to a recent Economic Diagnosis of Westchester County prepared by Standard & Poors, "manufacturing has seen the largest decline (in Westchester) in employment share, falling from 16 percent in 1988 to 9.8 percent in 1998". With the exception of construction activities, service sector employment is projected to be responsible for nearly all of the growth in employment over the 1998 to 2003 period. By 2004, manufacturing is expected to have declined to almost half its 1988 level. Figure 3.1-11 illustrates the extent of land area in southern Westchester currently zoned for manufacturing, industrial, warehouse, storage and public utilities uses (referred to below as "industrially-zoned" land) as presented on the Westchester County Planning Department's Generalized Zoning map. Specific information on the amount and relative proportion of industrially zoned land in each of the southern Westchester municipalities including New Rochelle is presented in Table 3.1-8. Table 3.1-8 "Industrially-Zoned" Land in Southern Westchester Municipality Acreage Relative Proportion New Rochelle 126.6 11.2% Mamaroneck (Town &Village) 92.6 8.2% Rye Town/ Port Chester 79.3 7.0% Greenburgh (Hastings, Ardsley, Dobbs Ferry) 86.8 7.7% Eastchester(Tuckahoe) 34.9 3.0% Harrison 4.4 0.3% Pelham Town 45.4 4.0% Mount Vernon 269.9 23.8% Yonkers 393.2 34.8% TOTAL 1,133.1 100.0% Source: Westchester County Geographic Information System 3.1-40 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS ."°rte rd___T, ,r,, ! B i f Y AN .. j \'''',4-j111 opt-N 1111". R / f' -ti - (` P4 SCDtt r iifikr ,,,4 %^h'a:. t, ,o`i -"' T c ��, AYE4UE s s i om x' ` - � /4 , < *4150A1E� 18 /Q t1 '�v //� ��.( / ,, * �.,�.\ •, .'y — ffI` moo. AYE / © /� fes• ...� x I[ ,:"2.-'YA` /. ("1: �/ �: +- ��• 4 UV Resit l` I /p i4lEE :::41::.Z. Y <. C6EJ7 > ., S f IJ ��\�\F \a '► ' �0�0. ` AVE % 6E0.TVy SARK R��D.. YNkr �'tt.�t�!�'"�{;, ..,"S� j II ` I 1 L7 \ i "�. i6,` Y F00.r- ! 11 1]6,- 1�4>i �krp, • /11 �' 4 �o P `Jv � �'\\1\tri �� } `f `� ;�\t •., o 0 j� ,i ,.;, �� ; •. 4 ~"�s<ft ,r <` A y4 �r \:/iS / �t! JsgFF 4A'��4�v JL A 1? f. S • / l/ l SD 1 ,e• ' t}t :t''' ✓it /j��jF .4, ` .� �DA� .-i ~`-f-.--.4AEAtN66lC� RDAD �v. +� A`- , \� :#4:///:14!Z' i::: 1r �yq¢ ': `-r' / / :' 87';r �[ .� .rNiN \ f' e 0.01'x'' f �i.1"a �'`,.i .er ,.qiiggiii$ 1GRfAYCI150A /,�C - 1 �q�' f� ON•1•�,Fern�'�•.ete r•�4. s �, A1o `� "oy- Ntp ! "��<: '?0 �� }o ate' /t is � :-: N ..r► f' r' ✓ lr�n � !oq! DCUSi yE - .'. ,, .'� 4 o a /!»` a os' �� ark-.. '/4 ?�> p� C�44G4 ft U. t''' - ` l ya a\.,, s �.► '^ (A , '. /'„ • �p rF UNI A y£NU rq �S:'�' c c -11:7'::-..s. 1 I ; yrAr rar, '1' `: /R. P. ( !�' RIS- / ' WI� awe"r� t r S .. c �r I V M /` Art.4,1 '� t N I ~Cf-44:1/re NN 0 �` ` S f • 1.1::'-..' ,j , 9. f \. ♦ E r I -\f,,, J £NDtANO / 'Al...?:::::::' tYY9 ' !r',, r�.. * z^: ooh . £1l�c ! • i c ° / E/*�� �< �� i( } Air <' i� , f /111 1 ` * °. j a� j ✓J"«�� �,,,Q r r uur i�1 DAY 1 4e� �l ( 5 •:...:: p0 '� vi, .,\ 1 Y' 1, I ' f4,r 4 .'i7/ r if1/,-�, °• - + o/^ \ � „4.9-:?r,, :: i ' Hq`a �p�rY 1/4 c. f(141 il? .1.• / i-7:,-.41 �� i �. 0,� �`_� .� 6?E ^, i' g .•:r'•,R1� Dg£ACl1 ,,,,,i.- , f qrq a "s r ' ��.`F f ei f'Alg. I ��` r f qq4q'� toZY` ; �` ;f ,,."a; .� .:Y_ - -.q jA�/Aj �//(`■�{4//qrj` .IT Aimit ”' '�,,`.�s ".��'" - a f / ;/ 4/< p , ` Kiv•I ... i • ��. t� Y+ l KI 6.&0.o f I ( l IAF -. �A <� I {� [N r tt Q ;,; f /. 1-4% 1 A.60.' P ��/ E� yE t ‹i` _(c /4 I j qct `.. 11 •....337:1. ..•..11M z r .1 w ,.,,..1 ' ••••'-•;,_ �/ i7, / I 0 I • ' . ... , 44, ( i \„ wi . , „. , , . , , . . hec _ villa itt i c.",`' ''' Hat .... ,-, ., ate} Ji �.. ‘ "4\f / '' f '-' •.� �� , i 'Rede elopment, .1 F` "� `}% 4 *r •p" a ti r.. ;11:e,. a �,. I !i a "` •.Y f+,l y OP A:EO��� fDa i$ .;.St GNES.Eco-., pAYCE , ,V• Cot 0 )\64\ii 11.C1 of / ' •N< <9 '/ S-� •G i<�� ,�+0. -} ... f, f e .. 61.j'- _ L . hmont \,....\:0 _ : l i / 1 5 `*-',',..''..,, , ,.. \r,, ' fie„' -t. ,> �� t, y� -�elli (. , `�+,f t..����,�n 0 i p s � fr ,rT ^� r S1\0° :" Ti '- a r'��ac ww , ,T 4' ��� .�� ay >• r4y r rO el p • pARKMAY •M: Cr _ KII S ,6%.• . 4-4: ' i I. • y-. f -a. 1110 ilr ,• , -;),,,.3,,,,,,..—' g - Existing Zones mel �• . ,. . • , , r T , ti . O o.. „4(.I° i it I 1 4 �� ��• S ' N Figure 3.1-11 : Existing Manufacturing, Industrial, Warehouse, Storage & Public Utilities Zones in Lower Westchester County W E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: 1 Inch = 1 Mile S Base Map: Westchester County Planning Dept. Generalized Zoning, 1998 File 9916 Fig 3.1-11 TMA 07/28/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845)265-4400 Fax(845)264-4418 Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 The 16.4-acre Urban Renewal Area represents 13.0 percent of "industrially-zoned" land in New Rochelle, and 1.45 percent of such land in Westchester County. Current Market for Nonresidential Space in Westchester County Today, in Westchester County, warehousing and distribution functions have often supplanted manufacturing uses as has occurred throughout the New York region. Warehousing and distribution now account for 65 percent of the market absorption of nonresidential space, while manufacturing has declined to 15 percent. Manufacturing now accounts for 25 percent of all industrial space. The current 4.1 percent vacancy rate for industrial space reflects a total vacancy of 1.6 million square feet throughout the County. Only 100,000 square feet of industrial space was constructed in Westchester during the past year. Lease rates have crept upward but primarily for spaces larger than 100,000 square feet. Lease rates for smaller spaces, including high tech and research and development space, have remained fairly stable. On average, space leases for between $7 and $8 per square foot, with the lower end prevalent at the smaller space sizes. As noted above, a total of 1.6 million square feet of industrial space is currently vacant in Westchester County. Based on current development patterns, most of this space is located in southern Westchester south of White Plains. An additional 1.4 million square feet is located in nearby Bronx County (New York City). New Rochelle As noted in Table 3.1-8 above, a total of 126.6 acres of industrially zoned land area is situated in the City of New Rochelle. According to the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, these areas include lands zoned M-1, including the proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area, the Weyman Avenue area, the Palmer Avenue corridor, the southern frontage of East Main Street, and a parcel located in the downtown area which is accessed via Renewal Place. M-2 districts are located just north of West Main Street, and in the Jones Street area of the City. A large M-3 district is mapped from Kings Highway to Grove Street just north of Main Street and north of the Thruway along Beechwood Avenue. Several other areas of the City also support substantial complements of industrial uses similar to those operating in the proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area. Such areas include West New Rochelle, an area of predominately residential and commercial zoning. Proposed Urban Renewal Area The space that is tabulated by the Society of Industrial and Office Realtors as part of its review of office and industrial markets tends to include only office space classified as Class A or Class B, and the larger industrial spaces that would usually be part of brokered transactions. Many of the nonresidential properties in the Redevelopment Area, particularly those below 5,000 square feet, were built or converted from residential use to serve a small user (often the owner-occupant), usually for administrative, dispatching, garage / repair or enclosed storage 3.1-41 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use,Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 functions. As such, much of the nonresidential space in the Redevelopment Area is not part of the amount of inventory of industrial space in Westchester County covered in Table 3.1-5. At 16.4 acres, the proposed Urban Renewal Area represents 12.9 percent of the total area of industrially-zoned land in the City of New Rochelle. Redevelopment Area The Redevelopment Area, at 14.9 acres (90.8 percent of the proposed Urban Renewal Area), is slightly smaller than the Urban Renewal Area. Table 3.1-9 summarizes the size distribution of nonresidential spaces within the Redevelopment Area. Table 3.1-9 Redevelopment Area: Distribution of Nonresidential Space Size Range Number of Structures* Vacant Structures* <2,500 square feet 11 1 2,500 to 4,999 square feet 11 2 5,000 to 9,999 square feet 7 1 > 10,000 square feet 4 1 TOTAL 33 5 Total Nonresidential Space = ±150,000 square feet ±24,000 sf *Tabulated structures do not include two churches. Vacant structures include 24 Pleasant Street, 55 Pleasant Street, 64 Plain Avenue, portion of 567 Fifth Avenue, and 505 Fifth Avenue. Source: New Rochelle Finance & Building Departments; Cushman and Wakefield The structure with the greatest amount of nonresidential floor area is located at 32-40 Plain Avenue, and comprises 17,859 square feet. Apart from the gasoline service station, existing nonresidential structures within the Redevelopment Area do not possess special attributes, amenities, or utilities service which would enhance their value in the market for nonresidential space. Most do not possess the basic off-street parking and loading areas which are important components of contemporary site design for any nonresidential use. A number of the structures currently in use were formerly in residential use. The primary amenities of nonresidential space in the Redevelopment Area is its relative proximity to Interstate 95, and the Metro-North railroad, and its location within a relatively isolated neighborhood with a small residential population which assures activity at night, but which is not located adjacent to sensitive land uses such as schools or nursing homes. Such areas are increasingly hard to find as southern Westchester, especially at lower rents. Adverse effects will be felt on three categories of businesses in the Redevelopment Area: 1) the "light industrial" segment which needs relatively good access to the Interstate 95 and nearby urban centers, 2) automobile-related businesses including auto repair and auto body repair, towing services, vehicle storage and 3) contractors / heavy equipment storage. Comparable space at comparable rents is likely to be found for the "light industrial" segment. To the extent the other categories of users will want or need to relocate in the immediate vicinity, the relative lack of open areas of land at cheap rents, and areas zoned for automobile repair and body work may make this difficult. To the extent a location proximate to the southern 3.1-42 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy September 14, 2000 Westchester market is necessary, the likelihood of obtaining space at comparable rents increases greatly. 3.1.11 Job Retention and Economic Development Policies For a discussion of job retention and economic development policies, refer to Chapter 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions. 3.1-43 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Topography, Geology, Soils and Hydrogeology September 14, 2000 3.2 Topography, Geology, Soils, and Hydrogeology 3.2.1 Existing Conditions Topography Much of the Redevelopment Area is relatively flat and lies at an elevation of approximately 23 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929). Elevations are slightly higher in the southwest corner of the property near the corner of Biehn and Pleasant Streets, at approximately 30 feet. In the far southwest corner of the Redevelopment Area, a bedrock outcrop forms a steep rock face resulting in the highest elevation on the proposed Retail Center site at 60 feet. A small knoll is located in the rear yards of Lots 30 and 31 (Block 903), with an elevation of approximately 39 feet. In the southeast corner of the Redevelopment Area, in the vicinity of Valley Place and Pleasant Street, elevations are also higher than surrounding grades, at approximately 34 feet. Bedrock is also present in this area. Grades between Fifth Avenue and Plain Avenue are nearly level. Existing topography in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area is shown in Figure 3.2-1. With the exception of the area of rock outcrop in the southwest corner of the Redevelopment Area, slopes generally range from 0 to 10 percent throughout the Redevelopment Area. Soils Soil maps from the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District classify the soil types for the Redevelopment area as UL, Urban Land, and Ub, Udorthents, smoothed. The Urban Land designation applies to soils which have been significantly altered by filling, regrading, and/or construction. Udorthent soils are generally deep, well drained soils that have been altered by cutting and filling. The Redevelopment Area has a long history of development and soils over the entire Redevelopment Area have been disturbed. A geotechnical soil boring program was conducted in the Redevelopment Area in April, 1999 and in April, 2000, by Whitestone Associates, Inc. The soil boring program is further described in the discussion of geology, below. Below the surface material, consisting of gravel, concrete or asphalt, fill material ranged from 0.5 to 5.0 feet in depth. In general, three to five feet of fill material is present in much of the Redevelopment Area. The fill material was generally described as either grey sandy silt (ML) or as greenish-brown, brown, or grey coarse to fine sand (SM, SP) with varying amounts of silt. Within both silty and sandy fill soils varying amounts of fine gravel, clay, mica, and roots were observed. In general, the fill soils could be described as well drained, consistent with the Soil and Water Conservation District soil classification. Due to the lack of steep slopes in the Redevelopment Area, no erosion prone soils are present. No hydric soils or poorly drained soils were encountered in the Redevelopment Area. As described below, portions of the Redevelopment Area have shallow depth to bedrock (0 to 5 feet) and relatively shallow depth to groundwater (3.0 to 8.0 feet). Groundwater is not expected to be found within 2.0 feet of the ground surface at any location in the Redevelopment Area. As described in Chapter 3.2.3 Future Conditions with the Project, project plans have been developed to address the variable bedrock surface and relatively shallow depth to groundwater. 3.2-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Topography, Geology, Soils and Hydrogeology September 14, 2000 Geology A geotechnical investigation in the Redevelopment Area was completed by Whitestone Engineering Associates in two phases, in April of 1999 and in April, 2000. The geotechnical boring locations are shown in Figure 3.2-2. In general, soil borings indicated the following stratigraphy in the Redevelopment Area: fill of variable thickness, overlying unstratified glacial out wash sands, and bedrock. Based on the Geologic Map of New York, Lower Hudson Sheet (dated 1970, reprinted 1995), the bedrock in the Redevelopment Area is part of the Hartlandt Formation, and is characterized by basal amphibolite overlain by pelitic schists. Bedrock outcrops are found at three general locations within the Redevelopment Area: in the southwest corner, the south central portion, and at the eastern edge. Bedrock outcrops are shown in Figure 3.2-2. While bedrock is either at the surface or close to the surface in portions of the Redevelopment Area, the depth to bedrock on the northern boundary of the Redevelopment Area ranges from 80 to 95 feet below ground surface. This highly variable bedrock surface is the result of the erosion of less resistant rock during the retreat of glaciers during the Pleistocene age or during earlier periods. The Whitestone Associates, Inc. study provides a description of the on-site geology, as follows: • Fill Below the surface cover, either concrete, gravel or asphalt, fill was encountered ranging from 0.5 to 5 feet in depth. The fill material was generally described as either grey sandy silt (ML) or as greenish-brown, brown, or grey coarse to fine sand (SM, SP) with varying amounts of silt. Within both silty and sandy fill soils varying amounts of fine gravel, clay, mica, and roots were observed. • Organic Silt Dark grey organic silt with decayed wood fragments was encountered in Boring B-6 at approximately 5 to 6.5 feet in depth. This organic silt is a remnant of the original surface soil within the Redevelopment Area. It is suspected that this hydric soil layer was either excavated and removed or buried below several feet of suitable sand and silt, in the early twentieth century to enable building construction in the Redevelopment Area. This organic layer was only encountered in a single boring in the Redevelopment Area, although Whitestone Associates, Inc., has encountered this material in other locations in New Rochelle. • Sand Below the fill material, the borings generally encountered grey to brown micaceous fine to course sand (SM, SM/SP, SP) with trace clay and varying amounts of silt and gravel. The relative density of this sand ranged from very loose to very dense. As described above, the thickness of this sand layer varied substantially across the Redevelopment Area. It is not present in southern portions of the Redevelopment Area, and up to 91 feet in thickness at boring location B - 12, on Fifth Avenue. • Silt Grey silt (ML) with fine to medium gravel was encountered in several borings at varying depths and thickness. Silt layers were found either interbedded with sand layers or directly above the bedrock surface. 3.2-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Kk---N.k , -. :a9N _,,.\ \ 1 ,.t fr-\,,,,n\-v- eAk-4' . t--. ."'''.7 ' ''-'- , '"( '. ITY -.,V1 '1' 6 i , (/w//'llo° f lJ P � _ r mil `u /-1:1 Park ,' — '--�— , v � �o� i 11 8cm 0),- -'0.°14'''� Leonard : ,. 281 ( (-k,___,, V�� �/ T.� I n Middle School I .- ),-(\ 1 P• /.; s q'T ... _ \_. . fp, ‘g,.. • . • -, \ .,- "N , 'K104/ ' IL , z' 1111:; -, ,..- " , - f- 0 ----,\,4e • :,_.,,,,,_5 /_.,- ,_„----,,,, .„,, ,, . ,s. Viv..3-7_,.,,.-:\y „,, 1_.,..,1„1= Country Cfub �: I { to*: Avco 411IK } .11:;,I,,/• _.� X11 c•� ) •” ,. , \ t,;!, 1 `S_ I TER °i9�% iP '$ / t�, 1�lit. S� • '-'"--4"1"'\ ' \ ) ° ' -- -- '11''' - ---- \ j 0.,,-,%ik4" S: 00't F'. -3,4/ dty, /-;?.4 D nck-- " _ DY ,i_ .\----\s'x'.91`),‘4!-:-.(A17 ):-P-- :1, .N,Y...',..,,---,,,?2,,k. ' ' '-' g us � i t Qo% { I Trkb I % Jjr I X1.,1,, r W _ant � L ,-�l' ..�� , i._.. p/. clz , I 5ch 1 / //,,,..,_. �� t t , ut..'- , t nt Redevelopment '9r '0'',.% - et\ , , R Area ' ��0_,, y irk, Pul eno - >,' l'()\-. '/ T, '. s, �t - -t,,,,,--,:,.. r ,C �dw . Pa 10, `� %1 \‘,: ,, -- ^' S[., E ha A '^ �._ 01-P-F • ;.R. on _,.� a.), ,warn..$ /j or .,t 5ch \-,,,,,,, �1` ,~\14 -,‘.. \ `at ,�Pr\'-• �`4. , �� \' ��{. 1/\� \ / is ill., I �ir -1 \ < A �� �YY�Y-tp —=� ° 1 ' '` jf 'I g h t s o -;4°,2Qp/ ��/�/`f. '�, /: _I ='�` .1' ` 1 ,AVE .; O �Y.' t;..s U / -/ • f\ !� \‘ / � �\ C pg- I s, _vee a _ s�/ �` ".,//,4 ,-s' %'''',.. y, o /9' L y-. �, °o._•. .y COQ, �C•.. : n .. �' it el -J � ... E�� �"-a. , `�, .,\ - —l) ,�` �'F'y ` \ '�- ;` Home ivE •�, y %/ \y /` t , 1 i n / // �L , r_ v. J sa _rN aro 68 C \.'''/' /L/ ) ^ i / i 4 C ,......"-°4. "71� - SIC _ `\ i� - ,� J ` - q,)0% -._,. i -II►tY!!'':i t,y�� n. o r$'' 'Nd ,,n PYen a.una { a" 4 - '� 1 N,,' 1 c5)..\ �� .1 az' �, Millpond 4' .i� 2 M;'-, al AvE -t t11\ ,',.._____Sire., , Armor „ p' Ipa 1/ r � ,-°C- "`-s z rH -< �1, oa - fine' •c' , 1 F --:osp - '%\i,,,„'2..,";-;:',`,. , ,�,c ate • . o -artgs ,,,A ,'., - �. ..CI life • ,r , ,y t :4‘ft. .�l� ,- wAs`O_`it _..t- -_ 111--"1-,..-1',27./.;\VyR��/ -ifill~•�<. 1.,.2\72)1" \ I/ Sedgl• 'r-(acht Club t V 1 ,a �Harr,so ' ' �: ` •'�+o[i` i. �� .44: � �f gteaufort 4 '^ \ _- 101P k.A s�• -' v \cam r ! 'l t k _ _ 1 ., 9 t� Qr.,' Echo 4•.-.. -�.e .... e � •�rs•)c- emwm' N Figure 3.2-1 : Existing Topography W E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York S Source:N.Y.S.D.O.T. Mount Vernon Quadrangle Map Scale: 1 Inch=2,000 Feet 06/14/00 AT TMA 9916 Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, NY 10516(914) 265-4400, Fax: 265-4418 - I B-13 B-2 0 ® ° r. � 5 57-59 iii B-11 A E-19 60-62 mow: 36B 41 42-44 Citgo Station 0E-14 E_12 HAV UE B-1 9 40 45 Site 710 13 1417 18 &28 29&30 3117 .. .., E-1 rr Block .98 0 �.; ".. . ,, . , \ Al_ b . _ _ . F ..a _ ity Park Z '� x ,.. ����_ .e Site �, �� � , : 1 � e a. q i 111111101111•111101 ..,, F - 11111 . - H 2 Q" N c O:i. i. � & l' ax'4a 111 q' ". -XSa hey dii 74-69� 100 96&95 93 92&91 90 89&8 ° _.. 68&67 66-63 � 116-114 ' �� =°� ' � �8 87 83 82&81 80&79 78&77 7 � �.�.__��a . g_7 E-18 B 15 PLAIN AVEN 11311p '� B-6 41 i 59 60 62 63:. 5 65 6..m .� -'� 109 105 B-14 •46 38 Q&41 42&43 44-47 48 .�� 51& � 3& Block •13 •II i „ , , ; r , „ , . , , , , , 4/4 u) . b , , . . . . _ t � a. '.;'.mss-,.�� _..::.eat« ;" g Bus s Serv'ice :, _ e_ f Site 6 • 1 I • u a...rxmae...«......-. ,, , i r. I 1 59 Absolute Block 894 ���� • 9 9 26 25&24 23 19 18&17 16&15 14&13 12&11 10&9 8&7 65 4 3-1 Coatings Site °60 " k PLEASANT ST : EET ..... B-1$ 35&34 33&32 3B-8 0 2 :-10 2 -19_"B-9 B 450 46:!! 488= - 52 ': 55&56 57&58 59E �' 0 24-26 270 28&29 � 33&34 * 6 37~39&40 39&40 41&4i I X21 _ �/ : ill If - [-_—_: - 1 A Block 905 Legend Environmental Sampling Locations (Soil Boring) e Monitoring Well & Soil Boring Geotechnical Boring Locations (April, 1999) 0 Geotechnical Boring Locations (April, 2000) ZZe Rock Outcroppings ' r� �� _ _ Figure 3.2-2: Soil Boring and Well Locations ` Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project File 9916 Fig 32-2 09/08/00 City o New Rochelle, Westchester County, Y S Source: 1996 Sanborn Map and TMA SiteNew Visitsork Not To Scale Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, NY 10516(845) 265-4400, Fax(845) 265-4418 Topography, Geology, Soils and Hydrogeology September 14, 2000 • Bedrock The top of the bedrock surface ranges from surface grade (rock outcrop) to 95 feet below ground surface at boring location B - 12. The top of bedrock was confirmed in the March 2000 drilling program since rock cores were collected in nine borings. Based upon the rock cores collected, the bedrock is described as dark grey, white, and pink banded gneiss. The rock varied from soft to hard in places and from weathered to fresh. The rock contained some joints and fractures. A further discussion of bedrock conditions and on-site geology is included in Whitestone Associates' geotechnical report (Appendix K). Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in 23 of the 36 soil borings completed in the Redevelopment Area. During the drilling process, measurements were recorded of the approximate depth to groundwater. Shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed in March and in August, 2000. Four monitoring wells (E-1, E-8, E-12, and E-13) were installed in March, 2000. In August, 2000, six additional wells were installed; E-15 through E-20. The locations of the monitoring wells are shown in Figure 3.2-2. These soil borings/wells were used to characterize the local hydrogeology as well as provide water quality data. Soil and groundwater sampling results are discussed in Section 3.14 Hazardous Materials. Following their installation, the monitoring wells were surveyed and water level measurements recorded from all of the wells. The depth to groundwater ranged from 3.7 to 7.1 feet below surface grades. Water level elevations varied from 23.82 feet in Well E-8 to 14.47 feet in Well E-1. Groundwater flow direction is towards the east/ northeast, based upon water level measurements in the ten monitoring wells. A component of groundwater flow may also be towards the southeast (Well E-16), but additional data points would be required to confirm this. Wells E-8 and E-17 at the western edge of the Redevelopment Area are the upgradient wells, and Wells E-1 and E-16, located in the northeast and southeast areas, are downgradient wells. Well E-8 is located in the vicinity of a steep hill and rock outcrop, and therefore, the high water table elevation at this location is probably influenced by near surface bedrock. Given the fact that the native aquifer material is composed of relatively homogeneous medium to fine sands, hydraulic conductivities in this material are expected to be relatively high. Groundwater is not used in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area as a drinking water source or for industrial supply. According to the Westchester County Department of Health, no public water supply, private or industrial wells are known to be located in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area. According to the Health Department, commercial wells for car washes have been installed in New Rochelle prior to the 1990's, but their location is not recorded by the Department. Redevelopment Area Flood Zones According to the FEMA map for the Redevelopment Area, the Redevelopment Area is not located in a flood zone. 3.2-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Topography, Geology, Soils and Hydrogeology September 14, 2000 Pine Brook Drainage Basin The Redevelopment Area is located within the Pine Brook Basin subwatershed to the Long Island Sound (see Figure 3.2-3 Watershed Advisory Committee 5 Study Area). The Pine Brook subwatershed comprises a total of 1,334 acres within the City of New Rochelle, the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont. Approximately 760 acres in the southeast corner of the City of New Rochelle are located within the subwatershed, while the balance lies in the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont. The Pine Brook Basin drainage discharges to the Premium River, which flows into Premium Pond, and ultimately into Echo Bay of Long Island Sound. A complete discussion of the surface water and stormwater drainage system for the Redevelopment Area is included in Chapter 3.4 Surface Water, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management. Based upon historical maps, Pine Brook formerly flowed in an open channel through the Redevelopment Area, prior to the area's development in the early 1900's. According to City Tax Maps, Pine Brook was formerly routed through the Redevelopment Area in a series of concrete pipes, entering the Redevelopment Area at its western edge, flowing through the middle of Block 898, to the eastern third of the Redevelopment Area, then flowing south and exiting the area on the southern edge of Lot 51 (Block 905), and flowing under the New England Thruway (see Figure 3.2-2). This culvert has been abandoned and Pine Brook no longer flows through the Redevelopment Area. Currently, Pine Brook exits Beechmont Lake approximately 2000 feet northwest of the Redevelopment Area, flows south for approximately 500 feet in an open channel, and then flows south in a buried culvert, through William Flower Park to Fifth Avenue. In Fifth Avenue, the former Pine Brook Drainage is contained in a ten-foot wide brick box culvert (containing dual 51 inch drains), which runs along the north side of Fifth Avenue towards the east and into the Town of Mamaroneck. 3.2.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions Without the proposed Retail Center Project, only limited new development or redevelopment is foreseen for the Redevelopment Area, and therefore existing geologic conditions within the Redevelopment Area are not expected to substantially change. 3.2.3 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions Topography Extensive topographic changes at the margins of the Redevelopment Area are not proposed since buildings, sidewalks and portions of reconstructed streets would have to match the grades and elevations of existing streets. Excavation would be required in the southeast and southwest portions of the Redevelopment Area due to higher topography and rock in those areas, and the need to provide a level parking area at an elevation similar to Fifth Avenue. A Grading Plan schematic is provided in Figure 3.2-4. 3.2-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS ' ,'� , HAR ' SON t'' ' SCARSDALE ' L �-- r ` , / / / , _ _� P I / / Y 1 95 ` /'' 1 ,* ' MAMARONECK ,' ;/ 'i 11 'r ' .. 1 TOWN / .\cep :T ckahoe t\ Sr 1 ' / \, t ' I 1 ; ,/ ,lec • .. .neck Viil. ASTCHESTEW '� ; se, •J` 1 �`vy�, s�mfi `\�e 1 4 ‘41k i -*/ i NEW , . � ,"` /-‘.,...,/,d- Bronxvi e ) / mos ik / t I CHELLE •~••=! ` • ' / Lar t ant • \� , ♦ • Pine+ -i. • rbor • Z = Brook ', it • •Bar �\ 431 Redevelopment Larc . ant ' �, c ,' Area Co��'' P �� i 1 Steph-nson , . I, `, • F,,, it', ; I Br.ok : 1 _ It 1 Ba "n '•; - l % % _ 3 �� e. /.' Pelham i , /r O < < t $ Metro M 1 AO p t r MT. 40 VE ' IN Nia 414 --- --_-I) 15 it Pelham Jam' /� / Manor {�+ � I 0 lir _`t-- I./ i / , , \.. __ J \ BRONX P N Figure 3.2-3: Watershed Advisory Committee 5 Study Area wE Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project --oev>.- City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New Yorkt S Source: Westchester County Department of Planning 1996 Scale: 1"=4,500' File 9916 Fig 3.2-3 TMA 07/31/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 265-4418 0 4©` I Y' _. ' ' \ ' it I. 5 i 1.llr �L. `{---. j',/ t �C i J �1 �I .l�+i0 t < 4. +•'`,__._!-- f' �• t 1 ( I .i:!;.4.._ t1 t �°I -\ i c,_, ,� f! ' i I 1y�• ,�.,'.__-' 111 I �,o\ PROPOSED BLOCK 919 f 1 r I1 /%-- i .•. ter.,-.-..s SfORYCBPTOR #1 1 ,`��•,v :ar'•■ - - ! i II 11 �'`t ���TJ«.I' J/ tti ice} r—` • t 4 sf l - f f �; ,.• BLOCK @19 YJ l _ ,' !t Ili',f I f� - -. -• t� o I�r ' til . /; �" '� � '°"• � ' . '.�^tT' ~^ . PROPOSED i "�I ' !,_-t --.__� I' 1 i It�,+�\Y.+/J .i - S • ' I _t•.f f BLOCK 91Q' ,'+ ` ` t 1 I P % ___ AVENUE''- r STORMPTOR 4 f -. »1!-' 1 PROPOSED - =T-__' M._ "4......L__t I1 `----- =.—._-_—'—'; FIFTI•f AVEN E /` sroRYCBProR j t`it --ft' o �.v _�t En �- _ ... ...,_____ /0- .Hyl.... inete ■s. ®�® ''�� ",■rte ' _ t '� •r r r r"ti .r -- �� ��,��\\���`'L`\ '� 4 r- -Vitiomki I if vi. t. cm; 0--ovidr.,„,„..,0--1-0_,-1.-- .. .._,....... ------ :sm7------ - 1111Mil it 1 • limmislraiiiiiiammimmuld. .,,_ .. . ti . ...., ...._43:,....„ Ill -1 :11 4:). ...411 5E1 11111_kliWili.E_ET.-E.,1111114: ...lir: 7 123 ( .,:.4o. p NEI EN 13 40111' °.14 Jr ,,,,././ Ea 410 •EiL3 .111E1 ,11110 410 I 01 ,. :.. i� --.p ® ..p ,.v A 10 Q a} 4 It at a r a} it Ir It it �® !por � : ritaiti:LAT8T-1-..,*-..., s'.- : ''"• :...01,. __ Aniuskt,:aaik,P.A,_ himElva% • 7t ',/,`M'', 4164,i �.fF�� © (�01 `1` f y xiso1 \Y A 71931 _ tp— J- 11.1.1 V I$,J if"... ll _a" :. _ _ • iriI- 0 „,,,,,, ,...,,S',-,,,,,,,. ti� ,t � Y 10/ .• - . Ap,f_y/:„ Iiiiii.,,,.,,,„:,,,,,,, _ r -- 1 E_;* .130 PENNI 'MI ;;''''',. / Of '', ,,,..,, ,, 1 kik • OW =1 J` 7 PROPOSED , ----„,„,,_ 1 r.r �} �} It l rr f 7 '- i\. �� f3TORYCBPTOR 2 i�l it Q.y' .. .. .. --- ---- ..._ --- -- ---• -----..... et .,„.. ,.... ,- • JJ!r .... ,,E,ai {� 7171 aam 76-03 _. 71�_ f' _--f ., • r' YI . .',-" ,,,__,,,.,„---J' \ �.-...r, © I' - .-_____ ..___ _._ ___ 1 1 - :19'.„11 __ - �\`w l . trig } rE WEri 410 `\\ `�'r '1 1- o.s, 7),,lir(l _..___.- -,-,./r ,r} .`��14�;t< �,rR/; It Q 1 1 L ,- oAr!1 ,,,7 y __ « __ `�4 © ft , �_ P t -,::_::::::,..1-',T• /fjit r 1 `\----_.-'--- r'-,''A\J;� ' rd/ y\ `1 • • — O SFr,". ,! '' j,,,,,,/,,,,,,,-- } ••----I rr r"' I i!t-, 1 N)1 1 t ����_�© , illPintail-. — — ` - j�'��� __�r,- "� .�' i t f_J, ---*r s ri `ta ill,,, is,‘ II fi Q= �SGl9,5:!.t.—._. 'I -7--------_--2:.-7,-:"\7:,,,,,//6":::,t \lit `i .! i µ E r.../rt ^,tttt_k.;tt f) ! ` i t i ..`—�i�����._ :' `r +•� ��___ _ _ LVA �'� i'�_# r ?\��\�`' Lr� _ _ _ �-iT l`�i 1 I t r <� t �f`rii Y J-,t It ti�f<�1I.,/., _ _--_r-a...,..„____,..._.„-- - _-— _=-r - - �--'�.;-— '.�f_! - PROPOSED � �:� _.�!�~ ~- .' ":%,,,'''' '.44.:?..1 !,r r i.",': /ii' •"i. 4.. f ii 1 _ - �!-,,. _.. .'- .-_T. `;.z__"`a �� -i_.= = �: Y_-•_- ® \ Y/ .._. Y�__ ,�, 1 41:::':::::-"---- _ :sc.'x•#'- y '�..� ,\ -'=g _`"" _ _ m ac==•-_ _-- _-_ _ - `�.-1;-:,-,..2-7,-=.7:- „,.._ ,�.. If tJ :-ir'- r <'. % ,_ C- `”'�---- 1 '� y -j`` =�=^` t _ v„ ,-dr t.� !%_�____ 1 lt1 Y{ :. 1r-. I t••;t ,i PROPOSED __ r `------•-_...f,�_~_•�\. "_`, `...."`''' - - _ �,s,t> 1 ` _ ��' ' t 1 <.. -- 1tt� ` ;o t ,G STORI[CEPTOR 3 �T��rrr -�'' 1 —_ ��'- ?c \ - . 1 Jiff ^V - �'�,\`. .,.: ~,,''r"- .�" ~�= - '' 1V p' •-'-•r- -----"'1:----------‘;j___.. Hitt r r" /f as .` ."_ ,fj r/ \ ^^• -, r r �• 1 (,./...,./,--f) i N....-. .._` /I t•t' ',....-,-----.5;;;;;-'--.- PROPOSBD i t rf�f ,`1 r��.,:)! I j �f s.'`�"-.�„`� ^,.' r,•'� P.M. �1 _� r rt!S't� i ice_., /1%1:72:- �l _,,/ 1 , ! r �_... •..., `'.---- I _..-.\ !~ - rRARC QIfAIR`ti GRAPHIC SCALE Figure 3.2-4: Grading and Drainage Plan ' 100 0 50 100 200 400 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: 1 Inch = 100 Feet t Source: Bohler Engineering, August 2000 ( IN FEET ) File 9916 Fig 3.2-4 SMP TMA 09/11/00 1 inch = 100 ft. Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring,New York 10516(845)265-4400 Fax(845)264-4418 Topography, Geology, Soils and Hydrogeology September 14, 2000 Soils and Proposed Grading In order to provide level parking areas, the entire Redevelopment Area, or approximately 14.9 acres, would require grading to some degree. As confirmed by the Whitestone Associates, Inc. geotechnical investigation, the entire Redevelopment Area has been previously disturbed and is covered with 0.5 to 5.0 feet of fill material. Therefore, the proposed Retail Center Project would require minimal, if any, disturbance to native soils. In the northwestern edge of the Redevelopment Area, existing grades, at an elevation of approximately 24 feet, would be maintained for the proposed parking lot in this area. Approximately 3.5 feet of fill would be required in the area of the loading docks on the west side of the proposed Retail Center building. East of the building grades would be raised slightly by 0.5 to 3.0 feet for the at-grade parking lot adjacent to Valley Place. Grading would be required for the main parking lot located under the proposed Retail Center building and south of the building. This parking lot has a proposed elevation of approximately 21 feet. Therefore grades below the proposed building, between Fifth Avenue and Plain Avenue, would be lowered by 1.0 to 2.5 feet below existing grades. Existing grades of approximately 34 feet in the southeast portion of the Redevelopment Area near Valley Place and Pleasant Street would need to be lowered by as much as 13 feet. Existing grades of 39 feet, in the southwest corner of the Redevelopment Area, in the rear yards of Lots 30 and 31, would need to be lowered by as much as 18 feet. The cuts in these two areas found in Block 903 would involve the most extensive grading required for the proposed Retail Center Project. Grades would not change for Valley Place, or Biehn Street, with the exception of the southern end of both streets, where grades would be raised to meet the elevations of the parking structure deck. At the end of existing Biehn Street, grades would be raised approximately 1.0 to 3.0 feet to provide access to the parking deck, while at the southern end of Valley Place, grades would be raised by 1.0 to 7.5 feet to provide a ramp for parking deck access. The main parking lot would require retaining walls at locations at the perimeter of the parking lot. A low retaining wall of 2.0 to 4.5 feet in height would be constructed along Fifth Avenue, since the grades of the proposed parking lot (21.0 feet) would be slightly below the existing grades on the south side of Fifth Avenue. Since existing grades range from 25 to 33 feet in the southeast corner of the Redevelopment Area, a retaining wall of 3 to 12 feet in height would be constructed on the western edge of Valley Place. Along the southern edge of the parking lot, bordering the New England Thruway, the retaining wall would range from 1.0 feet to 12 feet in height. The highest point of this retaining wall would be in the area at the southern end of Biehn Street. Along the eastern edge of existing Biehn Street a retaining wall between 3.0 and 9.0 feet in height would be constructed. Based upon preliminary estimates by the project engineer, approximately 53,000 cubic yards of material would be cut to achieve design surface elevations. This amount includes approximately 9,000 cubic yards of rock, which is discussed in Geology and Rock Removal below. Where possible, excavated material would be distributed to other areas of the Redevelopment Area for the grading of parking areas or at the southern ends of Biehn Street and Valley Place. Based upon estimates of required grading, approximately 53,000 cubic yards of material would require removal from the Redevelopment Area to approved disposal areas. 3.2-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Topography, Geology, Soils and Hydrogeology September 14, 2000 Geology and Rock Removal As indicated above, rock blasting would be required in the southwestern and southeastern portions of the Redevelopment Area to allow construction of the parking structure, south of the proposed Retail Center Project building. Areas of potential blasting include those areas, which require grading cuts and have a shallow depth to bedrock, as determined by the geotechnical investigation. Such areas are shown in Figure 3.2-5 Blasting Plan. The closest residences to areas of potential blasting are approximately 175 feet away on Plain Avenue located in the western portion of the Redevelopment Area. There are also residences approximately 75 feet away on Valley Place. The potential effects of blasting would be minimized through the use of proper blasting techniques, as described in Chapter 3.13 Construction Impacts. Groundwater Groundwater is not used for water supply in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area. Following construction, the Redevelopment Area would have slightly less impermeable surfaces (pavement and buildings) than it does today (see Chapter 3.4 Surface Water, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management). Following construction, the Redevelopment Area would consist of 12.85 acres of impervious surface or 89.1 percent of the Redevelopment Area. Currently, the Redevelopment Area consists of 90.3 percent impervious surface with pervious areas limited to the rear yards of residences or unpaved parking lots located on commercial lots. Thus, there would be no significant change in area recharge following project implementation. Since stormwater run-off from the Redevelopment Area would be collected and directed to the City's stormwater system, run-off from the proposed Retail Center Project is not expected to impact groundwater quality. A complete discussion of stormwater management is provided in Chapter 3.4 Surface Water, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control A site-specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been prepared by the Project Engineer and is shown in Figure 3.2-6. The primary aim of this plan is to reduce soil erosion from areas exposed during construction and prevent sediments from entering the City stormwater collection system, or from being transported to adjacent property and streets. In general, existing grades would be lowered in much of the Redevelopment Area, thereby reducing the potential for stormwater to flow from the perimeter of the Redevelopment Area onto adjacent property or streets. In accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, the Applicant would install sediment and erosion control measures prior to any grading work in the Redevelopment Area, and would maintain these structures throughout the construction process. All soil erosion and sedimentation controls would be installed in accordance with Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices Manual Series, Westchester County, 1991 (BMP) and the City of New Rochelle municipal code. The Town of Mamaroneck stormwater erosion control and stormwater management requirements would also be maintained by the proposed Retail Center Project. 3.2-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS William Flower Park MacLeay Apartments , 57-59 60-62 47-56 7-10 11 12 13 14-17 18 5TH AVENUE) •:31 1-35 36 37-39 40 41 42-44 45 i. II 1EjLIi __1 .• U U 11 !lit, • ri „, „ „ „_cr 116-114 I I •,•• •. 8' .8 :7 83 82&81 So&79PLAIN6QVENll74 69 68&67 616-.'6 3 113-110 109-105 • A�• LLLJi ft I— i1hI 44 4 48 50 51&52 53&54 55 57-59 60- 2 63& 65 ;�=v, �"'�"� 4 g �������Block 903 liplilloi,4.t"r. ii 4 MIIIIIII1111111114 I— .4 0 59 !fig L &""�� Wtil .a . Block 894 ��0�)'.I 4 4�i,G.. ,. �— 4 31 , '0 i " n 25&24 23-19 18&17 16&15 14&13 & O -.e••vrr�►'T'r�� b i♦ PLEASANT Ire 114 ST �t.ET 10_ _= �� �- = ► � " "�� �Tom- 0 ffl Eb • on MI Ell I Block 905 WIPP'PPP"- 11111 47:11111 siii air NOTES; 1. ALL BLASTING AND ROCK EXCAVATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL AND STATE REGULATIONS. 2. APPROXIMATELY 9,000 C.Y.TO BE EXCAVATED. 3. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY WHITESTONE ASSOCIATES, ROCK FORMATION IS ANTICIPATED TO BE GNEISS. 4. REMOVAL FROM THE SITE SHALL BE ON A REGULAR BASIS TO AVOID ANY EXCESSIVELY LARGE AND DANGEROUS STOCKPILE AREAS. 44 Figure 3.2-5: Blasting Plan 4 / >,Q. Approximate Area of Rock Excavation Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Base Map: 1996 Sanborn Map p Source: Bohler Engineering, 2000 Not To Scale File 9916 Fig 3.2-5 BP TMA 08/01/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845) 265-4400 Fax (845) 265-4418 �w.lry `'-- , i t t1i f !! I ! Ir • • �P 4 i� JLI,iI1T OF \. STABILIZED \-,. Ott i t/ il! � fr r t , �,` �� r g./f i ✓ DISTURBANCE �` – CONSTRUCTION INLET FILTER j ii! ! ♦.._♦ + '� r , 752,373.81 S.F. TYP. INLET FILTER r ! t ill `• DISTURBANCE / ENTRANCE ( } ♦ BLOCK 919, ! { 1` �� STRAW BALE LIMIT OF }°t F'_p 0 _✓ _- t7.28 ACRES - \ / urn �- (TYP.} / ! t t!r ` (TYP.) rr 752,979.81 S.F. \1 t �` f "BLOCK 919La a , _r.- i '`5s'� ' 1 ,/,!/'i ! /1! 17.28 ACRES ,� C_-. 7• ♦ _ .•�� �'^ { t t I r /." _r.,f BI.f7CK 92 LOT I r�[�• .. - • ,R�M..wr..t„ -_---_ _ ---"-- -`•w+3„� ,. ' TUt fi'- `�`. -` �- r; ` T � F i lkT , t .,.- ..,,./ ♦ „ - `✓ t � 'O 1t t\ ',ft �,,,,, ! ,-. - „_ "�^'^ +-....r ".r' ----_�.__r—�'r' IeMMIC7MC . _._ 'r.�r�� �♦��-__ ---_��� :r a ♦y �� __I,.,..•. i _ �ow _ _' ' ! �!w/w'•-"'-_._ .,�,,.- � •• �y __ �..-_�4111- -�'�'wrcws•.arwi.rrrt•.r • ... _ f r-..Mrowuwi.A."ir.�.r.�rr:nii�..w _ =-------;—':7-=- - —r'-��.:T� pat f/.I/ - �.L• _ �` wM•..�J '��w""L _ U. -L------.J. -__ - __,__- ..,. _ ., •,� - ,••.err ' .N�/ � � , --. -s•....... � rl - -•: •mmusw'� r �„ .... ZG�w.., ..�raC`�� �1 .fM � i1 s`"` - 'C�`:i. C�:1.'�i''t�`►a'1► i. - ►w "�'7,1a K., rI:::: „:,..►,i,, – t �: , ;� - . — – `•;•fir �11•�.� t:, •rom.n«r:.mm. T ,n u a c-.' $-a -`+= 4111 : ifi �/,Z- - - -- - -- _ _ - •, a^ "'rr ' •• v ( ' G"u�J ���•u.,-., Olimmur -����� m=ss' - . a -•r, s i' tom KIM •i1;'1"--"17. i:_...irk- i�elr� to _ ,r.M.. 1"Y ' .iii • �:/ =iW-tr- „ "•itis _:'- -�...�. � J�' _ _-�' �� iaM ry+i1 Aft Il�� � "'” ,..�' /�'""' G. �ii•�i:�i'' it �0 —Malta. � I ilimigium .`fir prj .',', ,\ .'+\ry... ... - •;:'.:''•R a,� riii iii.14 -� •'+J __ ..r' j� J _' y_. i111 •'"` ..� :-. .`.. J 1 .t. it f, i 1 : I .1 y..1 4 S to----\'''N' 1r i ''''"'•-•txr-tai ( p ` s.e .w. tf:- 1r i �f F 4 ..,. _ - _ �__• r -- ..,,... !♦ \ {r ^t7 i _ z: } f�4. ~1i6. h i I MIN , ( ' ✓ pri �•� •.rwr rrut2T Tom.a,>_ �� �!/'r ,� �`° % i# ! 1 ' - I 1111- , , I#a .7.-- 40IL : _ } y�/ rIi_ °� », ' i t r t� t}N ✓11 1.1 i t ,tt r a:M + t : 1 t it r :11;1:17:"� ! J I . Ir. �, 1 - Ct t t t t t t'^-°`l`_+ li: �',,,.'`. 1F 'r , R..:m! IG• ! a!f �_ -- d --- ___•._N.9 f ,r '` �[rr • _\ r' -- l t gi�� !rr �j %r ; - ...rs.. ( lit� i 9 ; r M + ...K 1 # '1.!Hill n�;.11 5 1 '' `_ ,. ♦ _ _ t E• d 3 a -i 7� i ' 1 �` w ;" m►' r -- 4.--,4I it :i 4h tau 11 i t_! [ ✓ • .,.....Z----......` • . ,,l„ ,.� �-.*• ii .� , 1 -; 1! G "ro ♦ i,�j .[ { t ij G 'quu, � ,�#�i t i r -- �� Y 1° 3�r r, r!! hip E ilk rr^ - i Qf1,j r / �C it ,/r,-----,77 ii 33 r-a~._ ,�•:. ��� \ rrr,.- -'^^45 ���='- � .�_�.,i:�._�� tw,? .. w.i gagee SILT FENCE } 0// - : ter" ci�. ..Z:". .♦ —_ r�� '.b:•:••• r 0 TYP M!'14rr _^ - r.. iiii ' � i .va sarzc:. �\ ���� ro , GJ� /fr/� itt"��i - i r ♦ .. .. xrac ., t'kSr "'�Y-o�3s.•,*-..-.+ Y _ \ E } III ....„, �y ,trr nx �– cid {t_ i MIE .t� I •:_ �, – dme ,may t.r / .1`os '+k�7 -- ' '. j N/ '` t-= ax .. --- ----._.. - n.,rrr,,.. i , ,\ 1 1---- 1 ,• i# G---- °' ♦ I.t I i - - - ja -- — v *rn'"*"a^k .^–' .rd/ !rlt! , 'ti w° !+--11 r –' • i ? # # t �t 1# `',� a 3 1� i it t \ tG l�4/:- i�� � STRAW BALE __ r t , - (TYP.} -__ , 1 3 _ .I, ' ' i AL- . vel I It r �� : r! r, r; ,�7r f •.,,,4 �" l` f A , 1 t i t i . 't t • ; c! a i ! :%! may+ ♦ / +;+� aV E IQr S) - ( I _ur ` a(ueu✓ -'- �..,. , = l '3 /. --% t „,,, ..,. "�5 ,,. F'�.r, • ,Q ,� �.. �, ( ,t , .. \\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ 1lisatiy,...► J E '%%_ ' 541/.4.f7Is,/i� 1 `-,` - t. _- °”` `�,in: I1 . t 0 tJ �1 �1 t + �a\v '' t t� E w.. Sl.fiv 4. SY - EBLOCK 920( -ttVV1l • •{ / l F _ p - . . .._�• . • . • t ___. -- .- j :- ,,- l�... -_ I• S ..�t! . 4 T171 ,J y ` _ '-' ! �1 �Z t -t ;IS- err kt �+t "1-- I .•\ \ G r d • , ! . .-1 G ., /i JIM �` "'-���. ,,,, , ♦ ♦. �.Yr,r. ',ri3F � + _ nom:: _-�!7 ?G - - , ♦ ^i 1 - 1 /• `-••\.y/ .-- - .� �, /.,.r at t•'i A l 'WM' �� - ___ - -.(1 ..._'_;_' ---'''7 uru , 1 ' r, •y h+wu» r 1!��lir a ! it�• �r ` .,� ;� cw �wri,'��.�� .iZr /'�I` r' SILT FENCE �1�tt {t+ st t rest _ mil _ (TYP.) y _ I .t t , t11412111 r ft ' -�,�,1.»t1d11♦\ t ! Ar 'Y+44 � 1I - 3.rrri„a G 1 \� �' _i i ."7 i:47, l r ,,p►' ��Fr �1 r� / ' ,.' I.Y/ r '-y.u,/!r! 5 ( j(Ai �tf 11, w lE� a rT.. ! �-n f ��l /'•_''!( �t�•�' _._ // r/– /• ,J,/kr:x't 1 r, i� "rI ter ra gi ileii1111.��l�w ,. { 9 a: �;! �� � \1LM `� – f •� t i r...1 .!Hp/`/ ♦♦ jl ! t .wr .f..►`....-...2:___=:_ iwipti-- _- -',ii t-, _` •-- D , - \tiµ.•i.••.. • ri : , 1L-so.:. L-s i,.:1i9,t `\ ‘,/!:ti. ,F�.a_'-„^•!w'4` �"�.�i.,�. �l x±s ii tl . - �,� � wa---__ „r — - '- ,..1;17,1"� J htr•a __ •�uurau�. -'�a�L`',� .. �r•••.-__� -_-- ." N . ♦ �!!• -- _------------- -'75:1-77:7"-' ..L�`.: i171!'l}F?,Y'1fYJO . Jam r r '1.47:-€.-.7''-- _;i+i .1•r r ' �C- •.., tai' rr r"�. +''' _ •.1R��'� r.s'...rl, _ _� �,r .n.r r r �w +µ ....- _ \ "......S6-':1% .: �^�� l / `J^'.,,`r --^^r ,•. �v41',.. -- t�• LOCK 910 + am =-=s--==� -- =-'7-�n _--� �-c> _ ��; - r =? _ -_•a_- r *i` •40 y� •'w. ?.`., ✓� c t�___ '/:."'L-'n" " ' ' ./ / OP : arvi iff. ,........ ...._ ______ .„. ....... ....„._ • •..... . , , ‘.,, ,, r_...... ___,............_ ___ , . . .. , ... ... ,.., _____________ ____, _ .....: . ______ ______. _ r,„:: . . i ,...... ; -.-- © �r . . • r ,.., ;,ems„ ri GRAPHIC SCALE Figure 3.2-6: Erosion Control & Sediment Control Plan III ”"" ., ..... Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Pro ect -.•,' ' 100 o 50 100 200 400 1 °° " City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York �' � • =f7 �'""^ti� Scale: 1Inch = 100 Feet o7? Source: Bohler Engineering, June 2000,u l ( IN FEET ) File 9916 Fig 3.2-6 GP TMA 09/11/00 1 inch = 100 ft. Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring,New York 10516(845)265-4400 Fax(845)264-4418 Topography, Geology,Soils and Hydrogeology September 14,2000 As shown in Figure 3.2-6, silt fencing would be placed at the perimeter of the entire area of disturbance. Two stone tracking pads would be constructed, one at the western portion of the Redevelopment Area, on Fifth Avenue, and the second in Valley Place. Hay-bale dikes would be placed at specific locations to prevent the transport of sediment onto adjacent streets (see Figure 3.2-6). As the internal stormwater collection system is being installed, all catch basins would be fitted with filter fabric and wire mesh. The contractor would be required to inspect each inlet filter after each storm, and clean the filters as appropriate. The proposed plan minimizes the areal extent of soil exposure to the greatest extent practicable in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines of the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (Permit No. GP-93-06). According to the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, all disturbed areas that would be left exposed for more than thirty (30) days, and not subject to traffic, would immediately receive seeding, or would be stabilized with hay or equivalent mulch in accordance with State standards. The City of New Rochelle would require a construction bond to insure the proper installation and maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures, and for site restoration if necessary. The Applicant and the project construction manager would be responsible for the maintenance and monitoring of the erosion controls. Monitoring of erosion controls would also be completed by representatives of the City. In the event that sediment control measures prove ineffective, as determined by the City, the Applicant would be responsible to promptly repair, replace or provide additional erosion control measures. Blasting Procedures As described above, blasting may be required in the preparation of the Redevelopment Area for the proposed Retail Center Project, including the building, parking facilities, and utility installation. Areas of potential blasting, as determined by the project engineer, are shown in Figure 3.2-5 Blasting Plan. Based upon preliminary geotechnical data, it is anticipated that 9,000 cubic yards of rock would be excavated. Supplemental geotechnical borings are required to more accurately predict the required extent of rock removal and blasting. The blasting protocol, found in Appendix L, would be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to neighboring properties and residences. The protocol is fully described in Chapter 3.13 Construction Impacts. 3.2-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Terrestrial Ecology September 14,2000 3.3 Terrestrial Ecology 3.3.1 Existing Conditions Animal & Plant Species The Redevelopment Area is a heavily developed area located in a metropolitan setting. Existing development eliminated most of the natural vegetation and wildlife within the Redevelopment Area boundaries. The remaining vegetation consists of small patches of mowed lawn and a mixture of ornamental and native flowers, shrubs, and trees. The following species occur within the Redevelopment Area: red maple (Acer rubrum); Norway maple (Acer platanoides); white ash (Fraxinus americana); white oak (Quercus alba); pin oak (Quercus palustris); apple (Majus sp.); red bud (Cercis canadensis); white birch (Betula papyrifera); tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima); basswood (Tilia americana); black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia); American holly (Ilex opaca); white pine (Pinus strobus); eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis); blue spruce (Picea pungens); juniper (Juniperus communis); yew (Taxus canadensis); rhododendron (Rhododendron sp.); flowering dogwood (Cornus florida); rose (Rosa sp.); and rose-of-sharon (Hibiscus syriacus) Wildlife species found within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area include those typically associated with an urban environment such as squirrels, opossums, raccoons, feral cats, various rodents, gulls, pigeons, starlings, and sparrows. Threatened & Endangered Species Correspondence from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Natural Heritage Program, dated December 10, 1999, indicates that there are no known occurrences of rare or protected animals, plants, significant natural communities, or significant habitat on or in the immediate vicinity of the Redevelopment Area. A copy of this letter is in Appendix C. On-site observations are consistent with this assessment. As previously noted, the Redevelopment Area is generally devoid of any natural areas that support populations of plant or wildlife species. CEAs on or Adjacent to the Project Area The Redevelopment Area and adjacent properties are not located within any designated critical environmental areas (CEAs). The closest CEA is the Long Island Sound, which is located approximately 1.5 miles to the southeast of the Redevelopment Area. As defined by New York State, a CEA is any geographical area of exceptional or unique environmental characteristics that make it an important area to the local community. The designation of an area as a CEA is not intended to preclude development, but rather to ensure that a proposed action is fully evaluated for potential impacts and that referrals to all regulatory agencies are made. 3.3-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Terrestrial Ecology September 14, 2000 The proposed Retail Center Project does not involve any disturbance in or near Long Island Sound. Stormwater which would discharge from the Redevelopment Area and ultimately into Long Island Sound has been fully evaluated for potential water quality and flow rate impacts (see Chapter 3.4-1, Surface Water, Wetlands and Stormwater Management). 3.3.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions Without the development of the proposed Retail Center Project, the Redevelopment Area would remain in its current state. As previously mentioned, there are currently very limited ecological resources in the Redevelopment Area due to its developed and urban environment. The future condition without the Retail Center Project is expected to be no different than the existing condition with respect to ecological resources. 3.3.3 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions Since the Redevelopment Area is located in an urban setting, existing vegetation and wildlife habitat are extremely limited. As stated previously, the NYSDEC has identified no threatened or endangered species, or significant habitat within the Redevelopment Area or adjacent to it. As vegetation within the Redevelopment Area is sparse and there are no natural or significant wildlife habitat areas, the proposed Retail Center Project is not expected to result in any significant ecological impacts. As described in Chapter 3.4, Surface Water, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management, the proposed stormwater management system is not expected to result in any adverse impacts to Long Island Sound. Based upon pollutant loading analysis, stormwater quality would be expected to improve following construction of the proposed Retail Center Project. The Retail Center Project includes the establishment of landscape plantings in various locations as shown in Figure 2-12. Although the primary purpose of the proposed landscaping is aesthetic enhancement, this plant material will provide limited food and habitat for various wildlife species including birds and squirrels. A list of the proposed landscape material is provided in the Landscape Plan. As no significant impacts to terrestrial ecology are anticipated, no ecology-related mitigation measures are proposed. 3.3-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Water Resources September 14, 2000 3.4 Surface Water, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management 3.4.1 Existing Conditions Surface Water Resources The proposed Redevelopment Area is located in a highly developed urban area, which does not contain any wetlands (US Army Corps of Engineers, NYS DEC, or local wetlands), or wetland buffers, water bodies, streams or intermittent streams. There are no wetlands, wetland buffers or waterbodies present within 100 feet of the proposed Redevelopment Area. Based upon available resources and reports as well as field visits, there are no wetlands nor waterbodies located within one-quarter mile of the Redevelopment Area. The closest waterbody to the Redevelopment Area is Beechmont Lake, which is located approximately 2000 feet to the northwest. The lake is at a higher elevation, or upgradient from the Redevelopment Area. Beechmont Lake is a small man-made lake, formed from the Pine Brook watercourse. Currently, Pine Brook exits Beechmont Lake at its southern end, flows for approximately 500 feet in an open channel, and then flows south, in a buried culvert, through William Flower Park to Fifth Avenue. In Fifth Avenue, the piped channel of Pine Brook flows in a 10 foot wide brick culvert towards the east, and into the Town of Mamaroneck. Based upon historical maps, Pine Brook formerly flowed in an open channel through the Redevelopment Area, prior to the area's development in the early 1900's. Following the construction of the street system and residences in the early 1900's, Pine Brook was routed through the Redevelopment Area in a series of concrete pipes and culverts, entering the Redevelopment Area at its western edge, exiting at its southern boundary, and directed under the New England Thruway. As described above, Pine Brook drainage currently flows in a culvert on the north side of Fifth Avenue and does not enter the Redevelopment Area. Long Island Sound is located approximately 4,500 feet south of the Redevelopment Area. A portion of Echo Bay is the closest portion of the Sound to the Redevelopment Area. Existing Drainage Patterns The Redevelopment Area is located within the Pine Brook Basin sub-watershed to the Long Island Sound (see Figure 3.2-3 Watershed Advisory Committee 5 Study Area). The Pine Brook sub-watershed comprises a total of 1,334 acres within portions of the City of New Rochelle, Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont. Approximately 760 acres in the southeast corner of the City of New Rochelle are located within the sub-watershed, while the balance lies in the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont. Pine Brook drainage discharges to the Premium River, which flows into Premium Pond, and ultimately into Echo Bay of Long Island Sound. The Redevelopment Area is not located within or near the 100 year flood plain, according to the FEMA map for the local area. 3.4-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Water Resources September 14, 2000 The Redevelopment Area consists of 14.9 acres, but only 14.42 acres of this Area would have its drainage affected by the proposed Retail Center Project. Therefore, the stormwater drainage analysis includes this 14.42 acre study area (Drainage Study Area). The 0.7 acres, which would not be affected by the development, are at the margins of the Redevelopment Area, and stormwater from these areas would continue to flow to off-site structures and areas. The Redevelopment Area and environs have urban characteristics with relatively dense development and a high percentage of impervious surface. The exception to this condition is William Flower Park, north of the Redevelopment Area, which is mostly landscaped lawn area. The Drainage Study Area (14.42 acres) is 90.3 percent impervious. Pervious areas in the Drainage Study Area are limited to the small yards of residences and several unpaved lots. The Drainage Study Area consists of four separate drainage areas, which are shown in Figure 3.4-1 Pre-Developed Drainage Area Plan. Stormwater from the Redevelopment Area is collected in the City-maintained stormwater drain system and exits the Redevelopment Area at four discharge points. These locations are identified as "point-of-interest" or "P.0.1." in Figure 3.4-1. The drainage areas and corresponding discharge points can be described, as follows: • Drainage Area #1 consists of 8.91 acres in the northern and central portions of the Redevelopment Area. This drainage area is the largest of the four, and includes most of the properties on Fifth Avenue and on Plain Avenue. Stormwater drainage from this drainage area is directed to a 10 foot wide brick culvert, which runs under Fifth Avenue (see Figure 3.4-1). After exiting the Redevelopment Area the stormwater flows towards the east into the Town of Mamaroneck. • Drainage Area #2 consists of 1.11 acres, located in the northwest corner of the Redevelopment Area. It contains properties fronting onto Fifth Avenue, including the Citgo service station. Flow from this drainage area is directed to a 15 inch stormwater drain in Fifth Avenue, which flows towards City Park Road. • Drainage Area #3 consists of 1.12 acres, also located in the northwest corner of the Redevelopment Area. This drainage area, fronting onto Plain Avenue, is nearly completely covered by buildings. This drainage is directed to an 18 inch drain in Plain Avenue, which flows through the middle of the proposed Retail Center Project site on Plain Avenue and ultimately drains to the box culvert on Fifth Avenue. • Drainage Area #4 consists of 3.28 acres in the southern portion of the Redevelopment Area. It includes drainage from most of the lots fronting on Pleasant Street. Drainage from this drainage area exits the Redevelopment Area in a 24 inch pipe, which flows south under the Thruway. 3.4-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS I 4, ��'. 5TH AVENUE INLET i \ _ BLOCK 919 f 1 t r t r 1. 1\ i t,_ `t__/--1. i . - -✓' ��--'` ,,*» `� i i i .1 R0.I. f 1-5TH A II r 1 i__ -i r. ../ t'< 11+ �'\ _,_\------..3/11.1 \--.3 t'~ IBOX CULVERT ��: , ____r BLOCK 919 i •,r^ r r ___ r ( jt.1j f"'�_r�f/� BLOCK 910) > pT�f 7 • C __ LW 40 FIFTH AVENi7� r ---"‘ ri r `, f r�f�: _:-t-�--. 910 i =^;`3'! 9� f rr I j w 1 ` - 1 t 1' , _t:._ 9 �\ - __] -----� �:=— II ..-- —= __._-- 1.�`"•" `` `�,.` _ \'�_� +,'t C_—_ -. ....4. E ---t 1,7 I FIF*' �'V NUE 7J' ;r_....t.,_-::::-----1-- ' + -7:- _-`) �`i`` .�-- , wn ,_ _ _-` _ - zt:___-_ �'r,.------- --- - --------------------___------ --------- .��� ----=‘..:-...-_---,----4- �'a,.-- • �.r= _Sa,c�=.�_~ `"�+ �_ J� yVaVV ,"V �— • �a �+�f.>n r _ r7 *_�- �. _ _ - —}u. •'____ —_-- __,T.;_... $T — `i' —a.-1 —_ _--_ 91F- _. r• - o- .1.---t- T mr _ _' i r I .nm a 1 a S .. - 3 f:�.- - +� t _ a tv::;tlf ti_' a •,..:,..,_........7" -r r` - - !' . .`1,rn 9 • _ mil '' 14 + a f--. I is � c ., Y ' --r t'17 'i• 1 + I I G DA /2-EXIST yyr } r / - _, '1 `t I ? ? ! 14 fi AREA - 1.11 Aa i C f ---4-^_'' 1 ! , G y 1 I j `t �/ } . fr „r� 03 mm f-1 ..ft,1 ` Tc- 10 t \ /• I ' i + I I 1 1-1 nb c i i i I t- I I I t I 1 1 li , fE, it f I • +' `rt a+ - ss �f lr :- I 1 f I 1 I 1 Lt, t4i I 1 _i I I i,...ili- 1-- Iji 1 I �'~".�' r1 1 1r II t�Jb' fJ �ta r�r� + yu l '-} t r 'g I �_ I _ +1 I i1. ,i-,i1.,-:J fr yf 1f` .,....,1 , 1 a i. tt i t t 1 .✓ . I Ir -_ 1-1- _+ ---i-----1— �_- { I � ' I I i i +�t ri.Jyr A 1! i` / N a • II I , r I f J57'9�-..`a�— 1 t I k I Ic .1. I I I I ' '_I tl --74::::+-\-:1 - . H i w,v • Q I / + 1 1 r + f %��--+-_.:t ry i '1'-�--- -''�-t�— _ ."` + + �! 1 fir, b r. t N OA/3-ENST 1 i i rte` f 44,---,__....' r1 L.3..„:,11,),, E �HIt - r e66,Sd� 1 AREA 1.12 Aa i S ' ' S + 1r + c ^t V +i l - - • Te. 10 r J 1- a-- _, i ( f t +is j '�3{ I `�: _ t , rIL—_ tI -t Jr !Jr `�" CN98 I i Y44 w rsi lr1� 1 I ' '` I ��`` J q �n� r I K...u uu.vu.T r f '! I 4r I ` ..s- c % ��,,.mm�n.t"�,n F�;}-- -!_ ,n'N i+ ,fi t f 6flr�' "'�"++,t �1 / .v��. c t tl + #- I �tc a! a i1,,...,1_+ _ '`�I �_ -- i Iii I�nr 1a. 1 /ra�^ r d4 i 1 1 sq4�1 a1 I I r'I fi1----_-‘7,.+1,1---..:-/,./1 ar 1Jft 1 r `��` ,- + c i li- •-t" 1, c : n', I a Of 1 c ' rI `1i f 11-- F-- ' i } Ir r '1 / r w, -a'.•.. •P Y(` t i /• DA EXIST Of + t • _ I + 1 { ,� } ;-__';``'7i � f """--..'•• ,�t:sr�v-_,�5':"n. �+ r `�I►° �,. !i .11r1 '`1,1 `i. f r'� . . AREA,- 8.91 Aa i+'i c �j + i I L__ -- • 1 it r' , ! -r V • ' _a .-. _ --� _,r �,�+ z raL t t pr se 17:; #Iz�'EI>~'rL „ ^..r _ �- __t_ f 'Q zazad /!/rir6 ` l •Yi�.gld6 _- - "++' : w _ _•_ ___'__-_-" -s --- - •___ J' tr ,..*�+ r - ++..yam � /+�r -_ '= 9.� _ -� --_- '..�..-re M1 - - -•-'__ e__ -•____ -t.^i .y,__ i.•�{•t ,• r r"•r. 4:7 tvr. ' m ,'t *i;" � 1:? i -`1 - r 3:iG -, - - _- .� �c7 --....'== _..„c.�= _ T..... //' r 1 IH, ' ^` _ 1 ^ \ ♦ -..�_ > �- 4-T.•=_" ,�'�=" .^ f �� """'. r.--P...-4-rt' r '' `��:` I Y• r +-, 1 1 r I ,+ .:.+,.9r'.....Ir.' -� tl N. ,,�•y.a r .441 �4 ;r { /``/ t _ P.0.1. 3-PLAIN + #" 1 1 _/ t 1, t r i t r t e a _• , \ - r 1' ` -i AVENUE INLET _. s t 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I J +i I 1111 ,� (ril\-1,---ii t * t/ft , ^+_ ""w 1 1 -.E 5, - fi:' + f Ir-. I 1 r�}}�� 1 c1t I 1 �r )Y �Cr ' I1 t +��r�fr-r I I - .cl yl oI1111 1� �tf4r�Y.4 �rn l'•-4‘ ^‘ rr 1 I eA. _�` _ ♦..... o f -ar A% I\� 'ill , �.,,� t4 ^IN `* '*+>*�„ f .•✓ /I, _ y ,r : ^. i 7 1 t� I , �! -- `it YNJ 40�`.^ d�.iV ;,,,, .. i j••• a Ii. i l,. `•.t -'=3 i.;,11 �,.`.:.0 y I I I i 'i r .t N yt `'W j. y t 3 • !'F.n�y • _fir. _ nes•-•,-�-.. �-r _r H*�,Jn r I I 1 f _i 1 I i I i` 4..../• .-_.. 11i1 t� /Jr7r -`art. 4 t ..' �"1 i '-'1 f' �'n 1 '\ • < +- 1 -' } It/vw' >./ j p �`ti `r-` �i C � i i � ` �j _ - l ••_-. -`'il ` r_..: J C - ..1 `t ` 1 -i 0 II 44 1 fir' • _- C�, r-- ! • i i r,.nnr„— i I `}' _� s /f ( '` r 3 t i ^;' hk j' f l 1 r ' r erg .x. ++ 4 r.- .. Ir_ t tt I I i f'� + 1 ? ! r: 44� i _` g )• i �u^ 1 / usru. ( i 1 ` + J I x a i \ t p/ ups " y `� r' `i• 11 1 ,.,....,,rr,>.. i I I \ • --1 '1"I. t I h_Jt I t '1 i ' : r ] ___ /i e / I l t r 1 I i I r .r A. • + ,+ `r•;{\ j'i i a1 i • t \`\+0 �t� i•• ',-__--- -,I rlr tt r ___- a'_ 1 i c , 1 1 I 1 I i't, ri tr 1 i �N./ `� `�' ` f,O/ / t r 4 _.:i_ I _.La,.. ,A. + t Lame/ s ter . .6- ^'-'o I - r `' -i tl f .t 1� r }�, Lt IP r ` • .4,,„?(J, ``__-----'--___ i + f J('it`J /`.• i _.:77C '.►xwa..lr--- s A - _'„ -__ , =- _-.•.L--.4___ r:•--�C---*--•4 :1/4.,......,..,_,,,,,,,,,, + /f Pi; r` ! r t ,. y+r,y` OA/l•-EXIST . ...--7"- •---_ A, -'*-------7--- --cr J'� r .;4„.I rrltfii ` • -+1 .. 1 ` 441 t lC ,g Fia AREA 3.28 Ae. YI>! t}t_._ .'T -.7......, ^.r„---- - _� -•--- 42 --.-_--\_ _ ...e--•J �- / /iii /t 1 _ ..�(',......a• .' (h t t t, .�' -'el a Te 10 \ _ ,a �..,..�_. _�._ •� Loa __ ^i t i r ___.-. r--tl r 9 a-__ / /r r i t rr -- 1! (i i I f .„i � -'� \ 0 1 1 �t � i n=i Jn-; �.� i. f �, ,/,',',/,,,, E r ,-- ��...'_-it yt1 `, t t`J tit 1 c i�T .1� i +''t--- c' 1 ' , �i J +'# rf r ' t i,. .--.I f \ ------- rr~/, `// ri---� f` 1 `)1- P-1 1 C.�r/ -14' r r'-. a r i 6 7�•J ti 1 P.O.L /4-TPA MAY I^� ' ._.� G r J r•"•,.-- /,„,,.,, r- t 1 ------- /r" !....,,,,,,/,_....,,.,,,,,:, t + d i J + i } :au,�" 11 + --. J// r r t t ,-_ - rr,+ -, f /1 ,.0. r r --- ., ,.Ft / r t INLET 1 I Ir �. c 1 1 --;---:,-A,/,` . %-•--1•7:4-1" �✓ �‘iil��1, .1 t r fl��!11 .. - +�vr �s � __- .u� ry`- 1 1 1 _ '^lam/ir `� -/ �_/\\\ f IL % i \` 11 't},t /- - iii i_ + -"® a , r--. tAI3 �l. -:----♦ ` �t 1 1 j I i 1 _--_ �`..f '/% i If II f r. i J't ___,.=..;... _..- -. �\-_ �r ( ~/r•` - ", \ •.`' a_G.„. 1" / /, fes`__ !ri-... i t\ i''t 41y��f + ` -tea-==- ` _-_! -ti_._ _ - - __ _ �� ' 40-6*L� � L _ _ - +li___ -..,„__..,-„,1,-,...„,..- rr _ 1/fir. '`j\ ' -• .... _ _ '� ------------------------------t _ -,...-4,,,,-."r __ __- .7-7--_-_ - _ r." / s'"'"../-„,--_--2::---- I I It "'' 440...,--'''' r e I0^0,:"'"J. _ - - ` i -'-� t 1/''J riiff/./r,\--- -, t j -1`• -:•i%'r-s r.'rs /,- rr _,--- .✓-- '� ___ -<_�_. - r-_.___-•- 1f `, •` fJ`t.`,S��r/-r ,c//,,17;,..7-___...- 1 r • .-' r"r 4`-' ...,-1----......,‘ 'I t\, i t ------/--- • - rr // r/' r='.` '�.., /-- _--i • GRAPHIC SCALE Figure 3.4-1 : Pre-Development Drainage Area Plan Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project 100 0 50 100 200 400 City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: 1 Inch = 800 Feet Source: Bohler Engineering, August 2000 ( IN FEET ) File 9916 Fig 3.4-1 PODP TMA 08/16/00 1 inch = 100 ft. Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 264-4418 Water Resources September 14, 2000 Existing Stormwater Runoff Rates Existing runoff from the Redevelopment Area has been calculated for the 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year storm events. Runoff quantity was calculated using the computer program entitled "Hydroflow Hydrographs for Windows" by Intellisolve. Pipe design was based on the Rational Method for a 10-year storm with a "C" coefficient of 0.95 for impervious areas and 0.35 for pervious areas. The existing flow rates are presented in the Stormwater Management Report (Appendix E), and below: Table 3.4- 1 Existing Flow Rates' Redevelopment Area Watershed Size (ac.) 2-year storm 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year (Drainage Area) storm storm storm storm 1 8.91 28.3 45.6 51.6 56.8 63.6 2 1.11 3.5 5.7 6.4 7.1 7.9 3 1.12 3.6 5.7 6.5 7.1 8.0 4 3.28 10.4 16.8 19.0 20.9 23.4 Source: Bohler Engineering, P.C., August, 2000 'Cubic Feet per Second Existing Water Quality A Pollutant Loading Analysis (included in the Stormwater Management Report, Appendix E) completed by Bohler Engineering provides pollutant loading rates for both pre- and post-development conditions for the Redevelopment Area. This analysis, based on the Simple Method as described by Schueler and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (July, 1987), establishes a baseline for pre-development pollutant loadings using loading rates derived from the National Urban Runoff Program. The Simple Method is a model accepted by the NYSDEC to estimate and predict pollutant loadings for major land use categories (Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development, NYS DEC, April, 1992). The stormwater pollutant pre-development loading analysis is summarized in Table 3.4-2, following: 3.4-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Water Resources September 14, 2000 Table 3.4-2 Pollutant Loading Analysis Data Summary (lbs/yr) Pollutant Pre-Development Loading (Ibs) Total Phosphorus 1.52 Ortho Phosphate 0.37 Soluble Phosphorus Data not available Organic Phosphorus 1.15 Total Nitrogen 19.11 Nitrate Nitrogen 12.51 Ammonia Nitrogen 1.55 Organic Nitrogen Data not available TKN 10.12 COD 229.09 BOD-5 Data not available Zinc 0.56 Lead 0.55 Copper 0.15 Source: Bohler Engineering, P.C., August, 2000 n/a - Not Applicable Analysis based on the Simple Method as described by Schueler and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments(July, 1987), 3.4.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions Existing drainage patterns in the Redevelopment Area and environs are not expected to change substantially in the future without the Retail Center Project. The City has not identified any proposed stormwater infrastructure improvements for the Redevelopment Area. Therefore, minimal repairs or modifications to the system would be made by the City to maintain its operation. Overall, the stormwater infrastructure is expected to deteriorate over time. Stormwater quality conditions are also not expected to change within the Redevelopment Area as long as the existing mixed land uses remain. 3.4.3 Future Conditions with the Proposed Actions Proposed Drainage Configuration The proposed Retail Center Project would result in the redesign and replacement of the stormwater collection system within the Redevelopment Area. Under the proposed condition, the size of Drainage Area #2 would remain the same (1.11 acres) and Drainage Area #3 would be decreased slightly by approximately 0.01 acres (see Figure 3.4-2 Post-Development Drainage Area Plan). Proposed Drainage Area #1 would consist of two sub-drainage areas, consisting of 5.10 acres and 3.74 acres, respectively. Proposed Drainage Area #4 would also consist of two sub-areas, consisting of 2.26 acres and 1.1 acres, respectively. Stormwater drainage from the building roof and from the upper parking deck would be segregated along the proposed drainage area boundaries and would drain to the corresponding stormwater collection systems for each proposed drainage area. 3.4-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Q .--^, ♦.... 1 f1 11 i ♦ f1 t �� f vv t . . , ,, I „ I, t t / \ ,,' _, � i/ E f =1�----,t r -+ is !__ t ♦1 r� P.0.1. 12 i' \ t i 1 t1 ♦ i ; / i °t + - 5TH AVENUE INLET PROPOSED >� / \ BLOCK 919 J 1 i i ~-- ; i --} !� i. _.-:_ STORMCEPTOR 1 1 _ _ \.....�'� .._... '-•t^.r» '_ / i i t t ( S +' '.-.-t f r• S i.'.'...,`+ (:4 �r �•. .l I - `J _, +\..� . i fl !�E it f �^ +��^i j r� , T e ♦t I / BLOCK 919 ; -Jl r. I / r r ilia f Yl� � r t \ c C ��_ PBOPOSBD ♦y - f I \ - f \_r.J BLOCK 91Q ) I,l i �` .. a'a`�s, q LOT 411 FIFT A%EN ^ , STORYCEPTOR r - 'y - y\ • i r i mr t , ; B.00K 91V ;5. '% � � —'.�.-.�_� - ...".._ b'- _ _ `,.5*55t e J __'� • �1 -.� t_• \i,-�7 t' ^ - - - �i FI NU PROPOSED P.0.1. �-51H AVE. ,i �F fort .. I / - + _ _ \ -__. . 9TORMcRPfOR r BOX CULVERT twmga 4'�% .� "tea x ! _:::: ot\ . ms's-" a -- - _ _--+-'1' ____._;: 7....,____ lememmen" azge �m '-1. -4 –'�©ice c -���r� \\ \ \\4' " " ___.‘ •71t4 , , / 0 i* Or 1111.11111L••••• ii- a .. "...7-L-,.."-"----- -a...4""". ""'..---- -•=-7.-'............"."".... .."...........=.- -.V-- - ....."1:1-. .. '-- ".''''."..-..":1111241r"Illmni.• 11111111111raill."- ° fel.4, ,_ ei!mummas!OW , /44 t. 0-01.1.13:.-...\ "g‘Ohmar-' 13 :;;: J.,:: / a n-�aorosm I��� El 71*, • — 1rJ, ` ..,. „411V / MFA=1.11k. •• 1 •, r • Itirgya'93 .111 \I 1r . t‘ 4 raf DA., 3-fficm,i XIV Min_ ____ ) AP i ..1.11 k. TU 42:1 IUD i 21.05I Luci ,Er) CM 4-4. ®' p 1 ���Witilll �� I tt at at 4 ^i t 1 ;t at it it �® �� ` , . '. . •115 Pk-PR:POSED AREA.5.10k. hi , ! / , ...7 "1111 .. wr•'. "`"^-., NV „ iiit„it_ _-TI...,„,„.,.„,„..„... ",,,,,,,,,,,„:„i„,„,„...„..7„,,,,,z,,,,,,:,,,,,,.. — .- —" ��\\ ` �\�\ .\ �\ .\�\\\Tch-;1.44 o W .:.� i. ' Iy � „,,,1,.,,,,,.„,„-„,,„„;.....-'„-•:-; \ a-9e �� I nm 1 sa>ol . 3' +Uri .'C 5i . 1 {5FiliMarialt �inamit.7 ----iiim_ineiii _ 44 i A1004,}1, E i i 4 I 0 pi ilitH. `,',,,,, 7,..::..°L. r r4E AVENUE INLET �,MEM I tit F64;43/I .12011• 1111111P- „, , - ' -_ i tif 44, ...w /.-Ex ----/ Allr4 ... Aft , PROPOSED w •;'f -^� t j / J+ t i 9TOROPOSEDR 2 r. t7 .. mCo . .. �a --- 11 J taoo..... Si III mto--• ---. ....... \/© rr''-,�. / • 1,11 II —l t. r 1 ' '-'''' Pli‘,PI__AWFMCnif,i ' - ill ' -, „ ii, if 1 - 1 I __El._. • ��jj 1 _ ! l �� 1 yy_, -...:-.!,,.''‘:.F11■�n'n” :at- 'M-PR(pC6ED \1 ..%/ +""a,,,,+f/ Y`�_ _ --r 'f/,.". )1 41 t7.tl 1( lora�� •m IN® /® !a'iQ 111Pc. r, -® ._,® __ ®" \ • �' ✓� j ri. .. „ .. .-' ! ./Aj/itJ' / \♦y+\-_.-.._ ---- '�"'�t r j�.IJJ r � `% .El - '- ... ...... ..«... 1Fr� • l ` .....!,' 11 ,,,.;•'./711 . 1 t 1 V nw Q .... ..., 1 .... �d1 rl r: r"^♦ 1 1./74 rrIlli ♦i♦'.........,.. - r� /'..' i .l • t♦ 4 ,r. Y _- - . _ N Q f .. ._.._.. J �` I r rJt J t 1 \ _r id I i APl. t .. ,, -PROPOSED -- y- z _r r },�/ir ! \ ��. -_._ 41-14•y •\ t i F.E.S. 2 7 J r /ter ,r<tij .S\ 1`--- ,,.' , ,' ,/,-„,..--;;;;,-s,--, ` \ 1 _.....�ion...� . . Y� i./..2,1,--/ i t ,--- r .• L.....7(/,---., rf t It airb.] I\, J '` l':''''':&:-.13.-5 S i\ t.. '--7 -1 �, .^♦( i ti-`- • r ♦♦ ,, i ..r -E' a;!_�®►rQ 4y 4G�Q -_ i - = a tle n T;&N4.\t. 71r \ __ it'~�\ i-i-� `.•.L'1 r r/ a\ t -s w_'il�\ ti,•1;r t \ f1 l.` `4 �' --•%'i�i� .. -^_a_� ,..,, ,z sy cm F"i Tc IOiMI k. \\` G J •-.y" {~ � f,-.'..1 ` ,!..i /i/1/1 .• / .. •. ♦,,�`JMJ i IT \,../I--i ^' -, ." ' VV 1.. ,---....---,.--1-7.---_,T.'_.: .. 1 ,i i Q` �A i 1 r•,- 'F `per t -.� ` im¢r'i - t!/%'-- ♦ rim' �� \ J 1 \ 5 s x -- ��0� ...____� - t . it 1 ‘‘‘`,.7`...f7.-7.7.7.71:::„__ j:hi rt e"-..t..--;,S- t r PROPOSED - r _ -_ - .• -. 4' ' ti -4.'"---'-• ..s^ =4 / 0 j t_ \ `\tt\\i p�.F >' p'� "SSORYCEPfOR -- ` . -a.. - _.s i -i ,L ':frr t -"'y'J �" " J'/\.' ! it !\�-�` �tbj �.i ♦ r� P �x�r. .✓�' PROPOSED _ -".' 1 i1nLET �\ r \ �,.,r" �..a "i rsy' I.... i•l ,,\'Tri j ♦t --moi,^ !te i•'"� R.B.9. 4, t -- GRAPHIC SCALE Figure 3.4-2: Post-Development Drainage Area Plan ' too o 50 ioo 200 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: 1 Inch = 800 Feet Source: Bohler Engineering, August 2000 ( IN FEET ) File 9916 Fig 3.4-2 PDDP TMA 09/11/00 1 inch = 100 ft. Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845) 265-4400 Fax(845)264-4418 Water Resources September 14,2000 Stormwater drainage at the edges of the Redevelopment Area, such as on Fifth Avenue and in Valley Place, would continue to flow to existing drainage structures or to new structures installed at the border of the Redevelopment Area. This drainage, which lies outside of the area impacted by the proposed Retail Center Project, would not affect existing stormwater flow rates or quality. Based upon engineering estimates, post-development impervious conditions are expected to be reduced slightly by 0.17 acres over existing conditions. The total impervious surface would be 12.85 acres or 89.1 percent of the Drainage Study Area. Pervious surface would be added to the Drainage Study Area in the form of landscaped areas in the parking lots east and west of the retail center structure, as well as at the edges of the proposed Retail Center Project site. Post-Development Stormwater Runoff Rates The proposed Retail Center Project would result in the slight reduction of impervious surface in the Drainage Study Area, and would slightly decrease the rate of run-off from the Drainage Study Area. Therefore, stormwater detention would technically not be required, but stormwater detention is being provided for both the further reduction of stormwater rates and for stormwater quality improvements (see discussion of detention in Section 3.4.4 Mitigation Measures). The proposed grading of the Drainage Study Area has been carefully designed not to increase the runoff rates to any of the four stormwater collection systems (discharge points) at the borders of the Redevelopment Area. Stormwater flow rate calculations for the future conditions with the Retail Center Project are presented in the Stormwater Management Plan (Appendix E) and in Table 3.4-3. These calculations indicate that total Redevelopment Area and composite stormwater runoff flow rates would be reduced under the post-development condition. Table 3.4-3 Post-Development Flow Rates 1 Redevelopment Area Watershed Size (ac.) 2-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year (Drainage Area) flow flow flow flow flow 1A and 1B 8.84 28.3 45.4 51.4 56.5 63.3 2 1.11 3.3 5.5 6.2 6.9 7.8 3 1.11 3.5 5.7 6.4 7.1 7.9 4A and 46 3.36 9.4 15.8 18.1 20 22.6 Proposed Composite 14.42 ac. 44.5 72.4 82.1 90.5 101.6 Flow Existing 14.42 ac. 45.8 73.8 83.5 91.9 102.9 Condition Net change in -1.3 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.3 Discharge Rates Source: Bohler Engineering, P.C., 2000 1 Cubic Feet per Second 3.4-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Water Resources September 14, 2000 Since the stormwater run-off rates from the Drainage Study Area are not projected to increase, no project-related impacts would be expected for downstream stormwater infrastructure and flow capacity conditions. Post-Development Stormwater Runoff Quality The quality of stormwater discharging from the Drainage Study Area to the municipal stormwater system is projected to be improved under the proposed stormwater management plan. Based upon the analysis or pre- and post-development stormwater quality, stormwater quality is projected to improve without the proposed stormwater management facilities. This improvement is based upon the proposed conversion of the Redevelopment Area from an "older urban area" to "new suburban NURP (National Urban Run-off Program)" area. Additional or enhanced stormwater quality improvements can be expected to result from the proposed stormwater management facilities, described below. This is particularly important in light of the fact that stormwater from the Redevelopment Area ultimately flows to Premium Brook Basin and to Long Island Sound. The Project Engineer has investigated several alternatives for stormwater quality enhancement. Since the area exhibits a relatively high water table and limited difference in pipe elevations, the use of conventional water quality enhancement features such infiltration sand filters are not expected to be effective. Above-ground stormwater retention or extended detention areas are not readily available in the Drainage Study Area. Therefore, stormwater treatment would occur in Stormceptor Treatment Units, underground extended detention basins, and overland flow in an existing swale at the southern border of the Drainage Study Area. Proposed water quality measures are described in Section 3.4.4 below. The Pollutant Loading Analysis (included in the Stormwater Management Report, Appendix E) indicates that post-development pollutant loading rates would improve water quality from existing conditions. Calculations were done using post-development imperviousness as a standard for six recognized stormwater runoff pollutants. Calculations were completed using accepted pollutant removal efficiencies for site Best Management Practices to determine overall impact to receiving waters. A comparison of pre- and post-development pollutant loading rates is provided in Table 3.4-4, below: 3.4-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Water Resources September 14,2000 Table 3.4-4 Pollutant Loading Analysis Data Summary Redevelopment Area (lbs/yr) Pollutant Pre-Development Post-Development Change Loading (lbs) Loading (lbs) Total Phosphorus 1.52 0.36 -1.16 Ortho Phosphate 0.37 0.17 -0.2 Soluble Phosphorus Data not available 0.22 n/a Organic Phosphorus 1.15 0.14 -1.01 Total Nitrogen 19.11 2.78 -16.33 Nitrate Nitrogen 12.51 0.67 -11.84 Ammonia Nitrogen 1.55 0.36 -1.19 Organic Nitrogen Data not available 1.74 n/a TKN 10.12 2.10 -8.02 COD 229.09 49.45 -179.64 BOD-5 Data not available 7.08 n/a Zinc 0.56 0.05 -0.51 Lead 0.55 0.03 -0.52 Copper 0.15 Data not available n/a Source: Bohler Engineering, P.C., August, 2000 n/a- Not Applicable Analysis based on the Simple Method as described by Schueler and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments(July, 1987), An important factor in the improvement of stormwater quality in the post-development condition would be the removal of existing non-point sources of stormwater pollution from the Redevelopment Area. Stormwater run-off from older urban areas, such as the Redevelopment Area, typically contain relatively high levels of stormwater pollutants, such as phosphorus, nitrogen and biological oxygen demand (BOD). Existing sources of pollutants may include: existing vehicle maintenance activities; the long term storage of vehicles undergoing repairs, construction vehicles, and buses; the commercial use of diesel fuel and gasoline; and the outdoor storage of petroleum and /or chemical containers. Although mitigation is not needed to offset impacts associated with this project, the discussion below outlines those measures that would be included in the applicant's plans for this project. Stormwater Management Facilities For treatment of parking lot and building roof stormwater runoff, the proposed Retail Center Project would utilize five Stormceptor Stormwater Treatment System Units, in combination with underground extended detention basins, as well as a grassed swale. The stormwater treatment systems were designed in conjunction with recommendations and guidance from NYS DEC. Stormceptor Units are pre-manufactured and utilize floatable chambers and weirs to provide effective treatment of stormwater runoff. Technical data provided by Stormceptor indicates that these Units may remove as much as 80 percent of suspended sediments, together with their associated pollutants transported by the runoff of the "first flush". 3.4-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Water Resources September 14, 2000 The value of the Stormceptor Units would be in their ability to remove sediments and floatables (including hydrocarbons) from parking lot runoff prior to discharge into the underground detention structures. The Stormceptor Units separate oils and floatable hydrocarbons through mechanical separation. A technical description of the Stormceptor Units is included in Appendix E. Underground extended detention structures would be utilized for stormwater quality treatment, at four of the Stormceptor Units (see Figure 3.4-2 Post-development Drainage Area Plan). The detention structures would consist of a series of interconnected pipes that will provide for the extended detention of stormwater, and allow for further removal of sediment prior to its discharge to the municipal stormwater system. Stormwater from the southern drainage area would be directed to a Stormceptor Unit and then discharged to an existing grassed swale. This swale would be located at the southern property border and is approximately 500 feet in length. Discharge to the swale would be intended to allow for the further removal of particulates and allow for stormwater infiltration prior to its discharge to the headwall at the edge of the New England Thruway. Maintenance of the Stormceptor Units would be mechanical. The Units would be physically cleaned twice a year in the spring and fall by vacuum pumping and/or manual removal of sediments. A record of maintenance would be kept in the office of the store manager and would be available for review by municipal officials. Monitoring of the system would include measurement of accumulated sediments and floatables; this information would be made available to approval agencies by request. The underground extended detention structures require less maintenance, than the Stormceptor Units, but they would be inspected once a year, and cleaned as needed. Maintenance of the Stormceptor Units and the extended detention structures would be the responsibility of the Applicant. Should the Stormceptor Units fail, which would be evident during maintenance activities, they would be replaced by the Applicant. Construction of the proposed Retail Center Project is expected to improve stormwater quality by removing existing non-point sources of stormwater pollution related to existing uses, which handle and store petroleum and chemicals. Erosion Control Measures The purpose of the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is to minimize the erosion of exposed areas of soils and to prevent the transportation of sediment into surface waters during construction. The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is described in Chapter 3.13 Construction Impacts. Permits Required from State Agencies The Proposed Actions would result in the disturbance and grading of more than five acres, and therefore, stormwater management plans must be in compliance with the SPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities. This permit is typically administered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 3.4-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Water Resources September 14, 2000 Conformance with Town of Mamaroneck Stormwater Code Proposed work in the Town of Mamaroneck would be minimized to the extent possible, and would be limited to repaving and striping on Valley Place and on Fifth Avenue (approximately 120 feet from the Town line east into Mamaroneck). A retaining wall would be built around the cul-de-sac. Without the retaining wall, approximately 620 square feet of grading at the south end of Valley Place would be needed in order to construct the cul-de-sac in that area. If ground disturbance is required in the Town of Mamaroneck, the Retail Center Project would need to comply with Chapter 95 of the Town of Mamaroneck Code, the "Surface Water, Erosion and Sediment Control Law". The intent of these regulations is to "control and regulate land-disturbing activities to assure that best management practices are used which minimize water pollution, retain valuable topsoil and vegetation, and prevent flooding, erosion, and sedimentation". The Town Code requires a surface water and/or erosion and sediment control permit(s) from the Building Department for any development or land disturbing activity in the Town of Mamaroneck. In the event grading would occur in Mamaroneck, an application for a surface water and/or sediment control permit would be submitted to the Town of Mamaroneck Building Department. The permit process allows the Town Engineer to review the plans and specifications for surface water management and erosion and sediment control. A key provision of the Code is that surface water control plans reduce the rate of runoff from land development. As described in the Stormwater Management Plan (Appendix E), stormwater flow rate calculations indicate that stormwater runoff flow rates would be reduced under the post-development condition. Conformance with the Long Island Sound Study The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Long Island Sound (March, 1994) resulted from the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) Management Conference. The Plan characterizes the priority problems affecting the Sound and identifies specific commitments and recommendations to restore and protect the Sound. The Plan is organized according to priority problems and specific management actions in response to those problems. The priority problems are identified, as follows: • Hypoxia • Toxic Substances • Pathogen Contamination • Floatable Debris • Management and Conservation of Living Resources and Their Habitats • Land Use and Development Hypoxia According to monitoring and modeling data, dissolved inorganic nitrogen (ammonium, nitrate and nitrite) is the primary cause of algal growth and the depletion of oxygen levels (hypoxia) in the Sound. While sewage treatment plants are the primary source of nitrogen to the Sound, non-point sources from stormwater run-off also impact water quality. Therefore, the LISS called for a freeze on point and non-point nitrogen loadings to the Sound in key geographic areas at 3.4-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Water Resources September 14, 2000 1990 levels. According to the pollutant loading analysis, the proposed Retail Center Project is projected to decrease existing total nitrogen loading levels by 85 percent. Toxic Substances Urban runoff and stormwater are identified as the third most significant source of toxic substances in the Sound, following upstream sources and sewage treatment plants. Non-point sources, including stormwater, may contribute a wide range of contaminants to the Sound, but these non-point sources are not well quantified or documented. Many existing state and federal regulatory programs have reduced the contribution of toxic substances to the Sound, including the Federal Clean Water Act and the Pollution Prevention Act. The LISS recommends continuing and enhancing these pollution prevention programs. The Redevelopment Area does not contain industrial facilities that directly discharge to the Long Island Sound, or that are permitted under the industrial NPDES permit process. As discussed above, existing uses in the Redevelopment Area indirectly contribute petroleum and chemical compounds to the environment through stormwater run-off through parking areas, outdoor storage of equipment and/or vehicles and minor petroleum and chemical compound spills or leaks onto pavement areas. The proposed Retail Center Project would eliminate these existing non-point sources of petroleum and chemical compounds, thereby reducing the contribution of toxic substances to the Sound. Pathogens Non-point sources, including urban stormwater run-off, are major contributors of pathogens to Long Island Sound. The LISS recommends the implementation and development of non-point source control programs to reduce the pathogen load entering Long Island Sound. The general stormwater permit program, as implemented by NYSDEC, is cited as a method of controlling pathogen contamination. The Retail Center Project would require a general stormwater permit for construction from NYSDEC. The proposed erosion control and stormwater management program for the Retail Center Project would receive NYSDEC review for adequacy to control potential pathogen contamination. Floatable Debris The primary source of floatable debris in the Sound is from Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO's) and stormwater systems. The proposed Retail Center Project would result in the construction of a new stormwater infrastructure for the Redevelopment Area. The proposed structural controls (Stormceptor System), as well as the Applicant's commitment to maintain the stormwater infrastructure, would minimize the contribution of floatable debris from the Redevelopment Area. Management and Conservation of Living Resources and Their Habitats Since the Redevelopment Area does not contain waterfront or marine habitat, only indirect impacts to living resources and habitat are possible from the proposed Retail Center Project, through water quality impacts. As described above, stormwater quality is expected to improve following the construction of the proposed Retail Center Project. 3.4-10 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Water Resources September 14, 2000 Land Use and Development The LISS recognized that land use and zoning policies, which guide development in communities surrounding Long Island Sound, collectively impact water quality and the Sound. A key recommendation in the LISS for managing the impacts of new development is to ensure that these impacts are minimized to the extent possible through existing and enhanced land use and regulatory programs. A recommendation for new development is that land use programs require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for both construction and operation of new development. As described above, stormwater BMP's are proposed for both construction of the Retail Center Project and for its long term operation. 3.4-11 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Neighborhood Character September 14, 2000 3.5 Neighborhood Character Definition of Neighborhood Character Assessment Study Area The study areas for the assessment of potential effects on neighborhood character incorporate the following land use and traffic study areas: 1. the Primary Study Area defined in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy; 2. the Secondary Study Area defined in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy; 3. areas adjacent to proposed off-site transportation improvements as outlined in Chapter 3.9 Transportation and Traffic; and 4. the areas along thoroughfares that are projected to experience increases in peak hour vehicular traffic of 20 percent or more. To the extent other locations were identified which relied on traffic modeling results (including air quality and noise), these were also considered for potential adverse effects to neighborhood character as described in more detail below. Within the Secondary Study Area, the potential for adverse effects on neighborhood character focuses on locations projected to experience substantial increases in vehicular traffic, and / or physical changes to roadway conditions or intersection signalization. For purposes of the neighborhood character analysis, off-site transportation improvements have been defined as installation of a signal, or geometric changes to the roadway (Le., pavement widening), rather than more minor measures such as adjustment of signal timing, roadway striping or installation of Stop signs. In many instances, the locations reviewed for potential adverse effects overlap each other. The instances where they do are discussed below. Roadway segments projected to experience increases in traffic volume of 20 percent or more are shown in Figure 3.5-1. Essentially, the affected roadways are those which provide access between the Redevelopment Area and interchanges 16 and 17 of the New England Thruway and the portion of Fifth Avenue between Sylvan Place / Pinebrook Road and Potter Avenue. As shown on Figure 3.5-1, roadway segments or intersections where transportation system improvements are proposed as part of the Retail Center Project mitigation include the following: 1. Valley Place at Fifth Avenue (traffic signal control added; pavement widened) 2. Madison Avenue& New Jefferson Street @I-95 (traffic signal control added; pavement widened) 3. Portman Road & Fifth Avenue (road widening) 4. Fifth Avenue between Valley Place and Portman Road (road widening) 5. Weaver Street(NY 125)and Murray Street(traffic signal added) 6. Beechmont Drive and Pinebrook Boulevard (traffic signal control added) Intersections 1 through 4, above, are within the Secondary Study Area, and also are experiencing increases in vehicular traffic of 20 percent or more. The intersection of Weaver 3.5-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Neighborhood Character September 14, 2000 Street and Murray Street is outside the Secondary Study Area. Beechmont Drive and Pinebrook Boulevard would not experience a traffic increase of 20 percent or more. Transportation improvements are also proposed for two locations situated outside the Secondary Study Area, which are not projected to experience increases in traffic of 20 percent or more. These two intersections include: • Hutchinson Avenue and Weaver Street(traffic signal control added) • Garden Street and Cedar Street(traffic signal control added) In addition, two locations identified in the air quality and noise analyses, which did not overlap with any of the areas identified above, were also reviewed for potential effects on neighborhood character. Since these locations had been included in other analyses performed as part of the environmental review based on increased traffic levels, they were also considered in the neighborhood character analyses. These locations include: • Huguenot Street (US 1) at North Avenue (air quality modeling site). • Murray Avenue School at Murray Avenue and Forest Avenue (noise monitoring site) All locations reviewed for potential effects on neighborhood character, and identified and discussed above, are shown on Figure 3.5-1. 3.5.1 Existing Conditions The Primary and Secondary Study Areas for neighborhood character are the same as those areas described in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, and shown on Figure 3.1-1. Chapter 3.6 Visual Character provides detail on the visual character of the Primary and Secondary Study Areas. Primary Study Area Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy provides a discussion of the evolution and condition of the proposed Urban Renewal Area's and Redevelopment Area's land uses and its current character. Figure 2-9 shows existing land use in the Primary Study Area. Chapter 3.1 also provides a description of land use and character of the Secondary Study Area. Figure 3.1-7 shows the current land uses of the Secondary Study Area. The Primary Study Area is composed of mostly industrial uses with some retail, residential and church uses. Except for some larger industrial buildings, structures are typically small-scale, with at most three stories. One or two story structures are more typical. Many uses have no setback from the street right-of-way line with little to no yard area. This same pattern of land use and urban form abuts the Primary Study Area to the west and east. As described in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, since the area was zoned M-1 in 1953-1955, the proposed Urban Renewal Area and Redevelopment Area have experienced a gradual transition to nonresidential use. A number of businesses, usually of a contracting 3.5-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS ,$- (AU p xi Qoy��h� y: ,>„ n Q4aa + f4.£ f .4Y - 77 1IIIII • raY•. ✓ J a +'� ' �° a4 04Pp�t tr Ham` ~° 0.i © ;LJ e e' ?e w ao a `r eta. a t• ; ^ ao // aC !. 1 s s n a '`..1,4, >' ,., .v,'!� / Zw.�. TTT N I �� \�` Q a 7 Q� O ' ti�t�"�Ft��v,�p } ��CP F.. °°fie 4.'",r%..4,. .„*..,, 2 ! tO PP AV Zr Y,lA V pt. ..*r c S y\\sA k.'"qV e"' 9 GA` /t•+t o h "7 ./ V o.L: 3 a `„A ' '�O ,rtE'•\� y o :irj; Aiv, ', ‘1 .: ,• CooOti• �. / ///Y/�/ �‘• y� a .Rte, , �� • /I eaAAi°0A4 oe., rs a' .., Poeu;;illkik ¢ t Q.�•"r�R,,.al �. k* 41 4,0• Ill-. i �� �f... ,N PO *,: S 4 1 `y �b�¢• .. Nk 6 h P\0e# P pA y`e , 00��4 0�'Q��„.„ ... :,,,, \. 3'111„ ,S o 10...,� GC a d j+r A ,,,k,":„ '� ��. Ff�O+'+K..�Q ,,,, r t o e° . 3 �:. ,, e/\ F, D C O F a�N el.} ., A 4t*, '�.\ Y a> .'!dy A � f;'e'h> it.4 ; ''°')* Y,✓. ii�R'. _ . ry. xe "..\ . 0}p * sf 1 " °�• >20, I1 0 ' p (74 ' ./ /7,• .. , - ,f%. I. • a y , ' ° 4 A C -NT ST✓ r f: I44\ {fta"^`�` d.1.° , e- Rdevelopment *` ,•:.'",,,o, /=6 < coq '' 4* , Ar :.`, Amor l 1. if 'Ata, °. f : .t y�` • /O= �; \ hci ' .� . /'e! /+%: ;1-..' ,.' , ° +,'' pP � Alk Area .- ° me ° v, �"CTY „ ` �tq' q ,,Fa (—)a . K < r ! a Fa lip • ` rR \111111•141),.0.,.., „,, f Y+\�4"11117110,1 PAKK 3 ' 't / jn? W g. ka% � oipS 0a4:7^. 4.4°Sah1` 'Y g � . < e �/J rav c 3 >\ r: ` i s. . hA �!�a ; % r x ,,,,.„,,A.,....,, * ��! ,...,,,... .. ._,,,,,x,.,,7,,,„ a4!`t4e u'�..` 4,-.:„i, vy} 7a ,�'>e�� /`°` • ydrcBRiKoJP, w , q t. 14e y� L � ,'' 1oav ''r v, 44k1� o !`Lois \ eo •,.c°ti � ” ! ° r1tuti ? ;; > ✓C t c., ;30., •,•0. y .4.,...,,,..,;:‘ � , /a' ;it e. aG 2,*" �'t* ,.u',� t/ � SC, .. s 0-..,, ,,..,,, „ , ..,,, „,4,67 ,.., t 4/ ,„ li i iof 1 4 ,.. ,,'•'(/)S. •1, 4°asP .y ia ` AA \ as s ”"dA ,.vi `r ♦ , ,3LNyri / .. v!6r,.Siv-,�,/gie5Y3_ <t40 O•iy 46 , � G A' pysA` ,, ill°:. .„,,,. /�APw 'o \'a O tIpl,o0,...°1,4,> � amy> ` f �„c � frPAo\ , � � r> / Q JA ir! rya . pc,-. ,,...01C` y / y� .. { VA,4io �-•'g" =" .+ !A" 4 ` -”' • � / µ \V !r0 6. � �1l,� 4.„„.. ar5 ,tr ftpk��s... --.,OpQ. 1° / ` A \ 40 >ja°" . < s` `. `s ' , _�,,A •- /,' -'" i ---„, ° „ rs- '�.„ c .ari ,,—. ,". O p r „„i,,..---\ .,,,,,( �JrAYj0pP+` 4, : xb�v � ,',a ,.ort,,,,,` 0 , ailir$, —. 1' / L\�- 0 ilANx`pEpt'S ,y r h�4";" 0i< sy: ptoT, ` $ 3 eQ, :14.g.--1 Legend tea p ` 4.:. .-<1.'1',',/e/ ;wv ' ?3 op ♦ e\ ` j a t L Roadways Projected to Experience ,;,,,,,,N>.... • rt< Increase in Traffic0aaa + d Q. a� � Intersections Experiencing MitigationN >e>f 10° uaku° -s „ 0° Other Reviewed Locations,` • cakwed 1 .'� ' 'Nam' '`s '. 4 O , , Secondary Study Area . �'°.d°.. .,. / d\ The _ N Figure 3.5-1 : Neighborhood Character Study Area Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project w E City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: Hagstrom Lower Westchester County Map, 1998 S 1"=1,500' 06/14/00 CD TMA 9916 Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, NY 10516(845) 265-4400, Fax(845)265-4418 Neighborhood Character September 14, 2000 type, operate out of several of the residences. Also, many of the remaining residences within the proposed Redevelopment Area are owned by existing commercial users located within the area. On weekdays, the Primary Study Area experiences a fairly constant level of activity, exacerbated by the absence of loading areas, work areas, or sidewalks. Deliveries, auto repair work, and the staging of school buses, all occur on the street (particularly on Pleasant Street and Valley Place) contributing to an overall congested condition on the streets bordering the Redevelopment Area. Assessment and Building Department records, as well as field observations, indicate other activities of a commercial nature, including: 1) the erection of barbed wire to protect inventory; 2) the installation of a variety of incongruous signage; 3) the erection of large billboards, 4) the presence of guard dogs; 5) unauthorized excavation, and 6) unauthorized and authorized building expansion activities. Secondary Study Area The areas directly to the east and west of the proposed Redevelopment Area are characterized by land use and urban form similar to that of the Primary Study Area. North of the Primary Study Area is William Flower Park, an active recreational facility, and seven-story medium density residential uses. The New England Thruway right-of-way and the right-of-way for the Metro-North Commuter Railroad and Amtrak are located directly to the south, and further south is a medium-density residential neighborhood of garden apartments. To the east, Fifth Avenue rises sharply away from the Redevelopment Area, separating the neighborhoods farther from the Redevelopment Area The balance of the Secondary Study Area is characterized by primarily residential uses, consisting of single family homes in both New Rochelle and Mamaroneck, along with some areas of six to eight story apartment buildings; the shopping district in Larchmont, which is bordered by the Metro-North train station and its parking areas; and retail, residential, and commercial uses along the north side of Palmer Avenue in New Rochelle. Socioeconomic Considerations As outlined in Chapter 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions, the Census block groups, which include the population of the proposed Redevelopment Area, contain a greater proportion of nonwhite persons than New Rochelle and Westchester County as a whole (see Table 3.8-5 in Chapter 3.8.) Also, the per capita income, and median incomes of households and families within these block groups are lower (see Table 3.8-8 in Chapter 3.8), roughly half of comparable City and County figures. Generally, the block groups in which the Redevelopment Area is located exhibit characteristics that are common to many older urban areas. These include a concentration of nonwhite persons, persons with low to moderate incomes, and a high proportion of children. Approximately 60 percent of the total population of the Redevelopment Area is nonwhite, and just over 25 percent is below the age of 18. 3.5-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Neighborhood Character September 14, 2000 3.5.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions Primary Study Area As noted in Chapter 3.1, without the proposed Retail Center Project, individual lots in the Redevelopment Area are expected to continue to undergo piecemeal redevelopment as has been the pattern to date. Given the M-1 zoning district and the small size of most lots in the area, and based on uses currently and historically occupying this area, an increase in auto repair, vehicle and bus storage, and open storage of materials and equipment would be expected. Also, as discussed earlier in Chapter 3.1, when lots in the Redevelopment Area have been redeveloped, the commercial structures have expanded to occupy most, if not all, of the entire lots. Little to no provision has been made for on-site parking and loading. A continuation of this trend, in conjunction with the large amount of equipment and vehicle storage in the Redevelopment Area, would contribute to increased activity and traffic blockages along Redevelopment Area roadways, which were originally designed and constructed to serve a primarily residential community. The City's zoning of the Redevelopment Area allows nonresidential use, and prohibits the intensification of residential use or expansion of structures in residential use. Given the Redevelopment Area's established ownership patterns, its relative isolation, juxtaposition to the New England Thruway, and M-1 zoning designation, it is likely that the Redevelopment Area will continue to support an increasing mix of automotive repair, vehicle storage, and open contractor's uses. Private Acquisition Efforts The Applicant has initiated the acquisition of property within and outside the proposed Redevelopment Area through private negotiation and intends to acquire 100 percent of all properties privately, if possible. This is being done to facilitate relocation and eventual redevelopment. The Applicant understands the risk of such strategy. In the event that the Retail Center Project is not approved, in whole or part, the Applicant would be unable to implement its plans. In such event, the Applicant would dispose of any properties acquired, or redevelop them in accordance with the applicable zoning and other requirements existing as of that date in the proposed Urban Renewal Area. For example, acquired sites could be marketed to the public (including prior owners) with or without existing improvements. Assemblages of adjoining parcels, should they occur through this process, may permit larger uses and more marketable site(s) than that which presently exists today. Any such sites could be redeveloped in a manner consistent with the standards of the M-1 district. The Applicant may retain all or a portion of the parcels for its own use in a manner which complies with the City of New Rochelle Zoning Code. Alternatively, the City of New Rochelle could continue to pursue Urban Renewal in the area and acquire the sites for use by another redeveloper. 3.5-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Neighborhood Character September 14, 2000 To the extent that the current occupants remain in each dwelling or business location, and retain or regain ownership, potential effects on neighborhood character would be minimized. However, if properties are vacated, potential effects of the private acquisition effort on neighborhood character may be felt in two ways. The first relates to residential use. Under City zoning regulations, nonconforming residential uses vacated for longer than one year are considered to be abandoned and thus may not be reinstated. The same regulation applies if the residential structure were demolished. Thus, due to the private acquisition of existing residences many or all of the remaining properties in residential use in the Redevelopment Area would be converted to nonresidential use or become vacant. The second potential effect relates to the increased likelihood that the sale of properties to the Applicant would lead to the potential turnover of commercial properties in the Redevelopment Area. The potential effects of any new construction on neighborhood character could only be assessed at the time that a specific application were made to the City Planning Board. However, the private acquisition efforts carried out in advance of approval of the Proposed Actions would trigger future changes in tenancy and / or ownership of specific parcels, or redevelopment of assembled parcels with more intense uses. Secondary Study Area The existing pattern of land uses and overall neighborhood character in the Secondary Study Area would be expected to remain substantially unchanged in the future without the proposed Retail Center Project. 3.5.3 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions Primary Study Area Effects Adoption of the Urban Renewal Plan and construction of the proposed Retail Center Project would result in the removal of all existing structures within the Primary Study Area. Blighting characteristics currently present in the Redevelopment Area would be eliminated, including: incompatible land use relationships, excessive land coverage, improper or inadequate building conversions, obsolete building types, and inadequate or deficient street pattern including lack of sufficient parking or loading space. The proposed Retail Center Project would replace the mix of buildings and activities with a new, single-use retail facility with accessory parking on three sides. The character of the Redevelopment Area would be dramatically transformed, with a major retail facility replacing the mix of commercial, residential and community uses which characterize the area currently. The rnix of existing uses, on smaller lots with a variety of appearances, maintenance levels and site development, would be replaced by a large, single structure with a unified appearance. The amount of pedestrian and vehicular activity in the neighborhood would change. At present most activity is associated with numerous and varied commercial operations. This activity would increase with traffic traveling to and from the new retail facility (see traffic chapter). This activity would be concentrated along the Fifth Avenue entrances. For the existing pizza restaurant and the residence and business on the east side of Portman Road immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Area there would be increased automobile and delivery and 3.5-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Neighborhood Character September 14,2000 service truck traffic accessing the western portion of at-grade parking, overnight truck storage and loading in the service area of the proposed Retail Center. Changes in visual character are described in detail in Chapter 3.6 of this document. Noise levels at the perimeter of the Redevelopment Area are expected to increase with the introduction of customer traffic, delivery vehicles and on-site operations, such as truck loading and HVAC equipment. As described in Chapter 3.11 Noise, the Leq at two of the ten noise monitoring locations currently exceeds 67 dBA during one or more of the noise monitoring periods. Noise levels are projected to increase between 0 and 4.7 dBA above the future No-Build Condition at the ten locations monitored. In the Build Condition, five of the ten noise monitoring locations are projected to have Leq levels that exceed 67 dBA during one or more of the monitoring periods. Interstate 95 is the predominant source of background noise at noise monitoring locations. It is expected that 1-95 would continue to be the primary source of background noise at these locations in the future. Thus, although the adoption of the Urban Renewal Plan and construction of the Retail Center Project would dramatically alter the existing land uses, activity and appearance in the Redevelopment Area and significantly affect the current residents and businesses, the change in pedestrian usage, traffic and noise levels would not result in significant adverse effects on the general neighborhood character. Secondary Study Area Effects Indirect effects to neighborhood character in the Secondary Study Area would occur primarily from increased traffic on area roadways and a change to the context of the properties bordering the Retail Center site. Growth inducing effects of the Proposed Actions such as increased potential for displacement of existing users, and redevelopment pressures could also affect existing neighborhood character in areas surrounding the Redevelopment Area. Analyses at Specific Intersections Within the Secondary Study Area Fifth Avenue and Valley Place /MacLeay Apartment Buildings (Front Yard) This intersection is proposed to experience a transportation improvement as part of the proposed Retail Center Project. The neighborhood character effects at this location would primarily be experienced as increased activity and increased noise levels.. Noise levels at this location currently range between 59.9 and 66.4 dBA. In the Future Build Condition, noise levels are projected to increase to between 63.0 and 68.4 dBA. Noise monitoring in the vicinity of the MacLeay Apartment complex occurred approximately 50 feet from the intersection of Valley Place and Fifth Avenue, while the closest residential building at the MacLeay Apartments is located approximately 200 feet from this intersection. Vehicular noise levels attenuate quickly with distance. The reduction is generally greater in areas with soft ground (not paved), such as the grassed area in front of the MacLeay Apartments. Assuming a conservative rate of reduction of 3.0 dBA per doubling distance, the exterior ambient noise levels at the closest apartment building would be approximately 6.0 dBA lower 3.5-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Neighborhood Character September 14, 2000 than monitored noise levels at this location. With window and wall attenuation, interior noise levels would be even lower and well within planning guidelines for interior noise levels. The elimination of many of the school buses currently parked on properties in the Redevelopment Area would also tend to reduce projected future noise levels at the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Valley Place. With the Proposed Actions, the residents of the MacLeay Apartments and users of William Flower Park would see a large retail facility featuring integrated landscaping. Pedestrian and vehicular activity at the Retail Center site would increase. This would be a noticeable change from the mix of active and rundown industrial/commercial and residential uses, which now characterize the Primary Study Area. Madison Avenue and New Jefferson Street/1-95 Interchange 17 This intersection is proposed to be improved as part of the proposed Retail Center Project. The neighborhood character changes at this location would primarily be experienced as increased traffic and noise levels during the Future Build Condition (i.e., with the proposed Retail Center operating). Peak hour noise levels at this location currently range between 60.9 and 64.4 dBA. In the Future Build Condition, noise levels are projected to increase to between 62.3 and 65.9 dBA. The intersection of Madison Avenue and New Jefferson Street/I-95 Interchange 17 is located within the Town of Mamaroneck. The noise criteria promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have been used for the analyses performed in Chapter 3.11. This location abuts a medium-density residential neighborhood of six to eight-story apartment buildings, and is opposite the Interstate 95 on and off ramps (exit 17). Since the ramps are part of the Interstate system, it is appropriate to compare the noise levels at this location to FHWA exterior noise standards. The projected noise levels at this location in the Future Build Condition do not exceed the FHWA noise abatement standard of 67 dBA. It is noted that Interstate 95 is the predominant source of background noise at most of the noise monitoring locations, not just at Madison and New Jefferson Street. It is expected that 1-95 would continue to be the primary source of background noise throughout and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area in the Future Build Condition. Beechmont Drive and Pinebrook Boulevard Southbound This intersection is proposed to be signalized if the proposed Retail Center Project is implemented. Pinebrook Road south of Beechmont Drive is offset from both the northbound and southbound legs of Pinebrook Boulevard. Signals are proposed at southbound Pinebrook Boulevard and at northbound Pinebrook Road (primarily for left tuning vehicles), in order to improve the level of service and reduce vehicular delay at this intersection. This intersection and the area surrounding Beechmont Lake are illustrated in Figure 3.1-1 in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy. 3.5-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Neighborhood Character September 14, 2000 Modest increases in traffic levels would affect conditions at this intersection because its capacity is limited due to turning movements. Many residents of the surrounding neighborhood have long believed that signalization of this intersection is warranted to improve safety, although some have disagreed. The Applicant has agreed to provide a traffic signal at this location, if desired by the municipality, despite only increasing traffic by less than two percent. Commercial vehicles destined to and from the proposed Retail Center would not use the Pine Brook Boulevard approach. Potential adverse effects associated with the Retail Center Project and signalization would be due to those associated with potential additional queuing of automobiles, the greater frequency of traffic on residential streets, and the perception of increased urbanization that the signalization may represent. Hutchinson Avenue and Weaver Street This location is proposed to be signalized in the Future Build Condition. At Hutchinson Avenue and Weaver Street, a signal is proposed which would complement an existing signal located at the Hutchinson River Parkway North Service Road at Weaver Street. This addition would allow traffic along Weaver Street to be better coordinated with traffic exiting the Hutchinson River Parkway. This signal would reduce delays on the Hutchinson Avenue approach, and also assure that appropriate gaps are provided for vehicles entering and exiting Weaver Street from adjacent properties. Weaver Street is a NYS roadway and currently carries relatively high levels of traffic between White Plains, Scarsdale and Larchmont. The northbound ramps to and from the Hutchinson River Parkway are located near the end of Hutchinson Avenue approximately one-quarter mile east of this intersection. Single-family homes line both Weaver Street and Hutchinson Avenue adjacent to this intersection. Given the high existing traffic volumes along both Weaver Street and Hutchinson Avenue, no adverse impacts on neighborhood character would be expected from signalization at this location. Analyses at Specific Intersections Outside the Secondary Study Area Garden Street and Cedar Street This location is proposed to be signalized in the Future Build Condition. The intersection of Garden Street at Cedar Street is located in the heavily traveled ramp system associated with interchange 16 of the New England Thruway adjacent to downtown New Rochelle. This is a highly urbanized location situated between Interstate 95 and Metro-North / Amtrak right-of-way. No adverse effects on neighborhood character would be expected from signalization at this location. Weaver Street (NY 125) and Murray Avenue This location is proposed to be signalized in the Future Build Condition. This location is one block north of the Murray Avenue Elementary School. Vehicles traveling through this T-intersection are currently subject to Stop sign control on the Murray Avenue approach. 3.5-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Neighborhood Character September 14, 2000 One option to facilitate the increased number of left turning vehicles projected to travel through this intersection during peak hours is to provide all-way Stop control. Such controls would unnecessarily require all vehicles on Weaver Street to stop, adding delay. In addition, it would require that drivers obey the rules of the road regarding yielding the right-of-way. With increased traffic, the potential for mistakes in judgment in these situations also increases. Given the high traffic levels along Weaver Street, signalization would increase the safety at this location, and tend to have a calming effect on area traffic flows. To this extent, the new signal would benefit this neighborhood of single-family residences and would contribute to maintaining safety for area pedestrians, which include large numbers of school children at the Murray Avenue Elementary School. The increase in vehicles along Murray Avenue and Weaver Street, however, would affect neighborhood character. The frequency and density of traffic on weekdays and weekends and the installation of the appropriate traffic controls, such as signals, would contribute to a heightened sense of urbanism and activity, just as it would along Pinebrook Boulevard, Beechmont Drive and other residential roadways. For some residents, this increased level of activity would run counter to features associated with quieter residential areas, which are a valuable part of neighborhood character. Analyses at Other Specific Locations Undergoing Environmental Review Two additional locations have been evaluated in other assessments performed as part of the environmental review of the proposed Retail Center Project due to increased traffic levels projected in the Future Build Condition. They were also considered in the neighborhood character analyses. Murray Avenue School (Murray Avenue & Forest Avenue) This location was identified as a noise receptor. Noise levels at this location currently range between 53.7 and 65.3 dBA. In the Future Build Condition, noise levels during the weekday PM peak hour are projected to increase slightly to between 54.3 and 65.6 dBA. Such an increase is imperceptible to the human ear. Therefore, no adverse effects on the existing noise environment in this area are projected. Huguenot Street (US 1) at North Avenue This location was modeled for air quality purposes. This location is not expected to experience an air quality impact from the proposed Retail Center Project. This location is also one of the most urbanized in the City of New Rochelle, being the focal point of the City's downtown area. As such, no adverse effects on neighborhood character from potential increased activity levels at this location are projected. 3.5-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Neighborhood Character September 14, 2000 Traffic Increases On Individual Streets Substantial increases in the volume of traffic, as a percentage of base traffic, can affect the character of a street. This may be so even if traffic operations are still acceptable. On commercial streets and more heavily trafficked roads, the effect of more intense traffic is already part of the character of the area. It is less trafficked roadways and streets bordered by residential uses and community institutions such as schools which are more sensitive to increases in volume as it relates to the character of the area. Figure 3.5-2 shows traffic volume increases during peak hour periods on various streets in the Primary and Secondary Study Areas compared to future conditions without the proposed Retail Center Project. Figure 3.5-3 shows 24-hour traffic volume increases at select locations. From this graphic, one can ascertain the net volume increases, as well as the percentage increase. Those residential streets in the Study Area, which are most sensitive to increases in traffic, as it relates to neighborhood character, include: Murray Street between Myrtle Boulevard and Weaver Street (19 percent); Myrtle Boulevard between Murray Street and Weaver Street (19 percent); Eastchester Road between North Avenue and Pelhamdale Avenue (13 percent); Lincoln Avenue between North Avenue and 1st Avenue (10 percent); Weaver Street between Murray Street and Hutchinson Avenue (7 percent); Pinebrook Boulevard between Quaker Ridge Road and Beechmont Drive (2 percent); and Beechmont Drive between Pinebrook Boulevard and North Avenue (1 percent). These percentages apply to Saturday peak hour traffic. Because of its location as an access way to the site, Fifth Avenue between Pinebrook Road and North Avenue will experience a higher increase in peak hour traffic volume at 78 percent. Fifth Avenue, however, has characteristics more of a through road than the aforementioned streets above and is a designated truck route. With the exception of Fifth Avenue, none of the other residential streets would have increases in Saturday peak hour traffic in excess of 20 percent. During the weekday PM peak hour, these streets would not have an increase exceeding 5 percent in total traffic. On a daily basis, percentage increases on these residential streets would be lower than peak hour increases. This level of increased traffic density would generally not be expected to significantly affect the character of these streets or adjoining residences. Growth Inducing Effects To the extent the proposed Retail Center Project is successful and attracts interest in the Redevelopment Area as a commercial area, the proposed Retail Center Project has the potential to induce additional retail development in the Secondary Study Area. Potential growth inducing effects of the proposed Retail Center Project are discussed in further detail in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy. 3.5-10 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS :s.---‘,,,......7----"- -ow % ,.yr. ty'1 `_ s --"F'--------- „ j a it ' }� -1 • �i ' 1 ``'',l> r si -- it % %�.-'h` -*” .i' ; { /� .......1/4::!..,,,,,,7,.. V. ` 1�:.� ��Y /r \\'t _ -�L-''' 171 /� it,, • ` F'\ 03 tG ,�/ ' ��; '/ til f is 5 � p �••/ :.:/,::::'.1..,,,..-'-'-', i y-' �C tr = 4, I . i '�sfV r ' �, V„ /�0 !,r, i%',/ Ar High c, �t�l u' `'Q ./°7 �SlwanOY � n4, it--_,---v TER n �>�D V\u�S IR�9< 0 r %` %f C 4.i..•l 'I� � 'LRO 1' i1nf ��ki / � • �� �t.�0 \i`.•� r - ;rCOUntry Club ., Ctp,rir „ _ ((� vu ljy + iyf�� 1/ / 10 311 \. 10 - /' a SN ..� J� /�\ r.r 'q/ /f �t_ '' ,>,.i 1:%7l/ iY RO j! . ll�L7 MRA \":-�.!Y �/ i 1 a6 213 w . '® 6 ,® 19 E' `� i .fij ./ : ~� !//� \`�ti"� l�/ '� '. (C�." Yd. �-- �vE. :� 1 8 )O l� G N\ ) Cl I lII 5St / i \ jfin4 213 6 n� Ia r2 �. �}; 1�,i, -- // tiv / •� ! ,� f_i •7-. R - - . I, f k YO �l i ^i` r- \i• sT(t ` �" S ( c q \ /•�' vf �` AI_ S ito E /- ;is, E 1 Wiz. \` ��. //! P!y% ao,_N - _ �— tv W ! I ;.� - , ..y •� 1 � !�,;3 \\ � , ''. -- le> ,a s ' 1�� r �t � r 1 /( i/ ' ",0 - _P_ .�7 , > 4v� / '� �+ Ali h �, i "��• r-'-^�„i tr , -�' -81®�i3 '' �CO[T',ll /� r� ,��,I !v'• .r heservvt _ -s; la o -I, E.% \ _ ^' f /l-, 1 # I® ! // in� y , v•�'r '`1410-------•- ___-'-''.n 1.' r'� PILE 1 �` i ' `, ,, )e-,,,_,„l '' Y_i • 0.2 .i.,• •cT : ,/ ) i -.�i+�J. '� fir�'` . ��,', • 7 Q � t ,,r ao1 322 5r\ .. 306 �4r t" t; •r-g ,f (}(;l)j A ;i % 1ki t 4. -471 ® 13r, Z79 4 J [/�� ? � M('i b l j (��-IImo_ A 13l L4d' .%��> ndf� rFrl \ ✓'' r y✓i --?h ji` fr13 � \ t mS�/-,2,6„, p�' �;-)Ii--,., q0/pc. I • .s '._, 1�+ 1 jt�/r� ;;;.:127.1. . \\ ?; qL `\`may -fJ�Yy -�'/ i - =•'�� -. ._♦ c , �',� �1 S • � i r+ «L__ 't k .. _ �G tir1 i Redevelo•ment Area * T� C' / 1 A,t+� 1 ,®:I.nr!';'-;.--,-:- /�� 'r ~^'-:, \ *i;il '�', � .;I �Hur 12 ' t I �� rit ;/ na , �, - > 84 ®� r`ny,,•' F ,I '-` ti !rY Ci: � ;• i ':�-��=�) �. F• Park '387 N _ l .1 r Y _ 41 mon'-- J C \`�;'C l� "r. ` .� t�=-�y— ., \�N j C c��9C= `06 ! 1'I ` t !EMI t 1 -.,i,-,\,. Il)' 155/ .i M� s1 f P i /~' L5 ♦ `. �/%`- t% I ';', /7 � �. -9p^,, Ffr$. r� t �J ' I Hu ,�5 •1,_,., ,,,,.. ...,.z.::: tn 26 IMI �S. 87}®i , / ' I® ice. / "`� .+ �// I) Jr�```-v ��.' �/ `1"1 ��' r' `` t r Par EM1r-"�' Vis', -P,---,-. B9`., 100 P Ald .328 Ira - h`f '/.r• t` .,r .. k 1� r✓ Pa ��J r. oak 1,7;m h 373 r hat. oy Ay' ^� li LL • „ `.� \ ��Qnl�'�r \ l`` � 'Z% �''�r (,•t G ''/ t,i\1CA' t 12 - r 5 �� 9, 0 tNPVEii''�h. p.371 �� � y�y ,Pa � n. -I.-CI ` 4 `'' fr �:��"��Jt� : i t',y Hit a4 41333.-----i\ a I )� \\,� o .„ tom P�, '' ,ti'•' r ! ___ t, /:S- �ti '` (� (f 1 ' ✓lf ir :r I ii ' 1.-- 't ''t '�'✓{-�•`\ '. '\ a• �v WEf '¢ " • , /% ♦. rr w ill '1'•• ti L 1F ? J/ ?t /t �_� r ti�_...0.--,--5,4--, -,rt r 56 i� lona e - ,� /` 27 < ' � s,GC ` :5 reaCBn 3i i'•,_ ( �Q' �_. - l i, 'QQ,` ! ;j 1' �� j , 81 l7e}��': `y,1 '4+. �' r 125 , '1 _."! / �v, / f4/ \f> iyy t t r� 7 �`D 0 � Po t n t Ji *** •`,-: ,r 'ri ', k � - `r 1 { , }1 `\.(� ~��-...i' `107 ' `! ,47x'rr �-n�/,^, 1 FIIIII] `'�• - I1 •de: , S``.., -t e I�j , ;�'•�. Y Y . ..* �.r / �f 1.1 Site .' `� '1' 2 it'i, ,0 -i' 'i0 1 �1, ' .Er 1� �.,p' `�� 5,1 ' y rrf/Q,S4 ,� l�/J� V 6 1 ` (--:_____\ /,.---'. .. ,,N fydBr ` I (} /'�i+� �, ~ �; l' o »-,ti st ;� 'rlr L� 14 J. PEP ! /.4'.0/ Ott i t J" m • G \J.. ir � \ rk , fir!/ ,t\-",„ i 41 1` ` ZJ, -S'._ ,i`® 5t 1,1 ,' r1 53 r 24 ® 1 gh t S Jtifi/y'\� / . •Qp il, / • `' //'- �/ ,/ J sit � _— ` ± ii S �1,% fir- / - �r ` i = s�-_'�`� •I 1r, it h ®_ 8� ® -_ - _ '-s'�Lt /''�'i:� �y,i„ '�. ! ` �'' '• � , _ �L� t� ,t. t i„ 4//� J .. 'f ;'L. ,, -^'�,.- 11 4 E _- �:t 101 • < ^fl- •,.. _t\•:_ �^...i .� _ r _ r' r�i 11 t.�n L • 7,•, v ,`�, i�" ._ ----�'l I�.w I 141' it '"Y,`ra fi0o 5� ®r �E �' :!` ,/ C1 \11 _ '4 t�,�'1µ 0 _ -D, i'< /'� `t 'f-f': 14I, _ ro;l t= y �9 '1�r \- ` Il •°.- 1, ' , X311' , ® *=---- y, _,,,. , ' �- '.a N ,, _0, t 4- rrF1; - �'y A' F��? - 1 �i 6� m 51 2a ®/�'Lip -� E. 70 ago c `V4;• x 0, ,N , 1, , '.. '... :J' `�1 � HCGI'�3U7' I i, dgewater Qa87 4' ---,--F-.11,,----.711, �-r �, l.. �' \ ky II1 Q -c,.,,,, 264 ® \\; -! ..' ( r IWE t,� \'\,„...4f-X-'-'4''s.-9..7 X�=3 1'! �PQl rlt [burg r 1 �ti �ktl_ _ 1 N• ss ape , r1 'i'300 nom1-',.,,,,.',A017,' rVO, `� ' ice .i> • h �11 1 r Jtdr.7iut`!r}1(f '. --4�`'L`---t r ,aV��..- 4-,y- qtr ��:� f �1 .�,/:-'17 m-'N, i �4/!` / �� -.,i .r / perk• ' t �� ;' 1 • '� ; CQFfn iti�, f J ` �� \\_ . i i2 \ r .rt ' r r'r-' tty KI , ` �.\� ,, I4 ' •d•�i 't ?� _ i .J /<.' - I rirNORYOypali jj4� r 4 �jr , �;402 �, 'r �� v \ </, -f , :„.-----":::_;)::*--1\ ..% i ,�,/� \'\ Cl'1�Yfelta V - - ,. ♦ j M. r \ '/ �f+ 7 � ,ice -Y'�4 ,1 i ,- - EaY # - . '1 1 34/ '\1I'�r :k. f ,'7 fr / ' Q: �!' i -•�•..�- Point • P , : : >(' q 4u ® yI� < j t, ` ti r ,1T. _ a�� �L''�at�• :�' mLight ., lr_ b ' ;raa b,l�t , ,�• :_:` a / a✓ `t ,; r \ _ ,' �z _ ' \---_—,[. .,.....„.._,,,..-„,•-•,-) �'e1• - _ �5; - r -=• J L�7""sef1 l't t • 1ot ',\.a 1/ ,�;�t' r( \ �..Q,.,,._;'� -j(p r j/ 6.z�11 ;/" it k `':� .._ i1' f�. ( urphii.r,..4t :5. - 1F1 1211,---`---.-7-r' VEr^•+4,, w r ?" _ a'ti, 2 m r 5• ♦ r'TI� ,e ty sf,i�, , t „�5 / • orseshoe faM .4h i ,,, Ea A ss 1� z3 4` •`� 4�; ch ----;____,/.(:/:}a.._,........._.,,_... � w • >: � it C r .� . .�, _ _ -.y/ �� Sy(,` 5 A'\'. *4 Aj'i ` // ty. 1 ,, . 1 ,„/Pre' itin t' Zr:' �t! Harbor 1S ft,.. <in. Imo, ' y�. ' 3 '' I - �!'�t r , 05 \ 3ill:I ./r, `� \., : l ��•. '' ; 1 'L I T� ]t `' • '!I` 1L S E t` , is '�?�� �J- - - 4: . ( �. 12 \ s•, 10 ,,, f - � Mti?Portd � ,I(r 1.- r 1 - p - , J �.�1Ps „ ,MD ., \ / C.t,lro:cd 1.:.i,,, ( .r ;tiQr� / _ ir r?S _�f-,1 Mtaka1 p,dE '12-=-----4.,- ' ' 2-,® 5tke� ':t Armor ' . -. .. , f.,� L ` ,�4 pat, ! i. , i ,_- _____.•;---- 6 ED �s --:',.:4019_`-'-4----'-^ Ac,•`tl `'*�., A`'•a / IEEE! 10 iii,,,,' 0„.,...;,--,4.ti. •r` .'i,,.`,C.,, r•b•' 1U ii-/ 7/ .t .r 1 / -�! w„ i; 4' `gjy-`FLOL' v Edi. lft? t / (611 u '1 EED ,,..,-� 1En ��a lend y� f 1 ter. Nom' 4;, ftS(}Ji�iII V t 4271/t��, FC f- 63 1tY' -.t$ E \� (-<1...y”/�7 , Table rr(g .41 ' �, ♦ t t`f'• tit pr.*, �4!..h j ,� 1 Th•.+ Mud"/ i .t Rock S6z t� `\ T°A-...'''.4-. ?''1 ` ^`'r :, • fi,,� Ea ,At �, ' Qy• NtNOc,�br rlAtSc� a , • i i >jd ...__ •, i to . br y w -,;-T- t1 a ` -,--.2 - �..`Q'e a' \ \ . \, i/ !'�' 4't�edgl�.:. Yacht rub l� a ' ♦ 1 •�` `�..� ti '''-'--.0 ` 11 'C .�., \� 691 �% }r3` arriSOn ,a, c f ul{1 .4 ��t , 1i ti• \\ \' ' ` \;‘, 410 `�� . ++ ' I Ar r MIIF791;@ !Sr".t'' z _ ''''''-•-.-t �_ M� '' 'IC •tf " '• t `C�,4`,' r' 2 \ 447 #'-. ,: 4.♦ c _ < 'Fi��a'tlll �'( ,y '(' 3 1,,.,•:,',-,---kr"--1 l A t, ' ;i`y , ;; :-w,, .7 ,l ti.i3O., 81 '�kilM \.. \Y •ti.•A• '' ';�e2Ufort Q.tea � � L'1".0 i1 t3• ''Xi,''. ,� 1 ti '., _ ,',(!, �1 a '' I ri' S• ` ✓, 7 I�';t �)7 \\ -1• Jyf Z" /� p,t ,� }.T{,.: r I r.S.r't �•1r�:--'-',;-----11-5 -1,1 -)7.:.---"v:1-1j1:§1 ;�\ ,i)\-.\t '.4^`\ 14^ _1` �T'!1'. 1;-n iLtn`` ECho k iy (efY11Un't .� _ .1 a:� ,7 .- J. 1 ,i Dtl - _ V� + r ,\.. - y- ` - . L ' C„ , c., 1f ,• , :,r•' team,;. 1f� �15M ,,, ,1i.i Duck Gut Pt _),. �. \� �la Pt Cemetery •__ ,,Y +f moi•` \��,,T�-�' , ' 1`ti 1�a }1 o jf �' a '• ?� `� k, tt r •„ z - Q r Echo Ba NIci cin:A �Cv V, r ti. i �� s• `i� ' Retail Center No Build Traffic ,,_ U 1 p �• 4 >;., Generated Traffic (VPH) Peak Hour Traffic Volume Increase on Local Roads llt 1' h ;h`A 'I f i� l em /\ ---:� Ni )� EJcm a; \ (VPH) • 'f IgolQitla.11�"`' f I mt1 Cemetery i :r/,� ,. �;,` ^• \ 1 ,r.. Batley Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area 7/,/ r,. ,, _ 11 ; ' �` yti � citing.4 \ a = : ♦ /s Weekday PM Weekday PM Plan and Retail Center Project /f qCK'' ( �f t 2" - I r. i, - ,•\ _.' , ..z.-..„:. . \ ti :, °�, f .t Rock/6 SaturdayMidday Saturday N 7 : ,: {-1 ='. `' �____13--*--„_,_kii +, , �`` \/ %. ... f„”\�t•It r 'Ni Y dadyMlddaY- Y' - ..._.:,!....,•;,,.,;,..--- y '1=`�` "!a�f —ail 1 'yY '/,'_ •�._, -\td `,No ```�� 1 " ', ,S l% t ~ ` .20 tt7{. \ ,�'/ Saturday PM Saturday PM ^t lAL - '' '', 'r ,1:'r '� .i'`:' ' ',� R�.S Cie n r .t•�, -yv aii;i '=�,r(':13l�,._._�, , y,.. Echo Figure 3.5-2(Page 1 of 2) r R r ---'------- � c7t3 x „ "tsx. ` \..� r `ter i' Fie i 't! G � { 2et 4, RC.44.0 y �, r/�4-- -tN��0i/ 9 j _1 \\_\ �-P�\ a0 r Boulder ;c � �t klarrisnn V-r' R ;, �/ r t T y / ; tii h soh ,. II __��-_�� • Qo < I/ \ o� �/ ` �1 8 % t !C O t= B r ix�k Golf Q 3 ,, �q '�s : •_ S J y• ,7�`` ,'� O R� f��/ l[� �i`.`r- 1 �r r / ,i F(C I(j \\ a Qt 'a1�' J �� o\ ,, i, ?cA ,j -� " /` lc—�" 1 ,r y \ :1-25-1t a-' / Fire ;l , (� Course o U - t r ! y oHT _ t ITt t+ t r�- 91°A Sta',G r1) y , i �� -.....4-4 - ' rvr ,`—�r�ln a✓ 7 /_ }/S L.,________,„_., f\ r- Sc r� + GP // N .Q' Svrlrnminy o g0 r;) ' �L /% j i;'1 + R !•.•IeT ��F� r� �! J i./�/, / > v( 1) t (� • � u o , • \. x GPoot )0 At % • .••� . ! y� y ,111,�� (fy ��p$ ,r .�,,, 'B % %/y0? 02,/ { r '`E a s • \ \ �y .,g e\ \ C.O(Ttr E X 4C7 } • I Li__. �, j O• �� ( ~ // v/\ / ` '/ I r7R S)....),!;" j / y� 211 \ , 1 Cr0$tilV3Y �\ �. J ��; ` �,? • , .; I �:-_ --.1 v 0 t 9iv✓ I R� i,y (n 5', • e` F;(?lit Z I i 1 1 1r • <•�\ ;, `'14 l/ if�'' t if.i// `i'- _ �� ; ,;' c" iii,.i to `ti, i.. x. ~ � 'O \. M, 1 //14sJ Water'tr f m- _ Q II r �,!� - ? - =1/' i'�q c�, ' ',,,-----.N �y tip )s 3 '� 3_®�' r t ..+.�'- gam / 1 = .� ., ! i ,_ ,t. / 11 1 r �j t 1 /1 ! 12 3 ® ,f ' i -~ - . �.- 0 -- . at i ! ( r! ! ! ��,r ��f rr ^/�� N, �¢ afi �9 /7 „ ♦ I I 0 ~AKNF �/�' -p /\ • ! .- "'i 7, / j /t • )l �t1 I + ,i / 1. CrX\ ° a. \ 1 ' .'s \✓'- s Ppm `f y ` i. 4 v� STq Q / I , ,_./', .l C�/, +/ '/!/ NNNGGG ` , �kz. \\.2 ••: r ,3crs \ �1 _ _ }. (�', •J ` C1 •Weinbu► r •r�� C �RJ!- '+ if / Park / 4 /. \�'Cen �c� �%ill-- I ii //sr yRr ,!, �� r _�-r• � ,} 1 i + �� Colonial Acres • 79< E `�-9 ri+.;:, t •rf, y �, �. �j YfP�1A \\ Jy�rI ^� i QC w ? ' r/\ C'�J� .tai j �� (�� o • A ,i�,, (". \\\>.\ t. 0 . Leewood , � `r__� V 1 e — 21 • \` P"�• \ r � ��-r,Golt CEub /fI / i` + �� ' / \ \ 1 t�'"' ,, /�; \ 'e8_erooir / t/ r!' f f'• i k4 \\\-p /\ �� Oua{Cr '-'"f�C •• /, r' '' (j N�. J \ /s� / \. %\O :t 0� J/ r'ltill / t i oy. \ / 0,�, •<,'\c:,,.. i. ' '/_z+ Golf Course ,` t 1\ if - 01: // y 1 f q ct / y it 1 ,r P F� 41� !( } , / 'P��_ e. tN p 25, Quake'.R(dge •• t 66 ( �t- v . ��o Nt �!!�+ / r •. 5`�`'' ..,c,‘-' :/>'"\v(. !zv r, Golf lub • 1 •., (i �/'; �( •_...,....7 -s ,`, O �l1r -`o + ,/,,,. .'22 Vf�'t�� �\f `' 1` / r 9 ,' �`� I r , I\ lam' I5 \\\ - r �,'6 5 ii Park� NC SCI /Ir'= -- • '_r (ramuf;trlSClY� R E�` .,41) .„,, "f�� , •--'(,),K.,.. ✓' ] `�i RaO�• RD `i0 (/ ` �`\ \� 'i:�ti s - a((, ›-‘•=1"-- .`is _ 1 f ,� k{ ty Mrounty r -' y+� / ,vl g ,e ', �1 1 11::V'. V -� 1 �� �.. n ' '...7f-9,r,„,1/LI /6t�1\ \;. I �I / ,/ r J j rW Q~1 � r„a \ r ? Ciy-'- 12'� •�/ , ;-� .: \ p i .`i �P,0 Y �r . " / ,` I Murdock Woods /`�I i� Q �'` i; I&,‘....,/ (� �- P Q ren t - ) 3I 40, y y ` !��. \ '�v, /'• -,,,.,....,L_t' 9 Fri: SCh ' / ! m \ 1 ® � 10 sae 10 aa3 a \ t \ J7o7i� s^. /� , . i ;,:',..'''''VP `ir, t `t, iri � gn0° /f ® �� 3 ®j.a a as 610 .. 37 536 �! 4 / y /\ / � {7.`/ �\ n f/ I� 1, 609 az 522 1 j : .. r / (r f ` N. �{ V J y� t'� _�// tl N �`� 0? a i r-k �+/ .1v_ „ ,,./",/,,,,,,,,..4F.r . ., lrO' r Il'��Ch tel! g `+t S e r Z�O yt 33/ f ( v �/� y1 • '.1 ` ih f Y rf L '.t; \\,,,:\v, 5 \\ f % tl ✓;,, Re ( 1 / at i ��� aOJ��..• ) Acre �.� I 1 t25� _ Winged Foot _ ' % •� �-, P _r 1 ,'\'.• \, jiTo I F^ Ip I Park. v( 25- �' y'' ' ort Club +' ! , ,'� \ ,C , II n \. ? , �, �i0 ttz7: E f G 0 / J _�. of �� i\ ! 1 it f1 �x ' �t /, (� Cl �. r'yDRic ,/�� ! ' - ^l' �/ �p \-- x�- e..1i=�' if 1 �\ •'F /84 •r �O O ` ./, >.t!, V e �`�U'.t r`) `,: %/ �° _ '� l� w ,r /. err -- rr -/9'�Z. `x,,�' `\ `\\ r-, - _�� �ti/`�'Q Rte], S, // /1) fr r��/. / 4./3'- � `► • • Ai' Sw,mming /1 „ )11 4. 6 ,” \�✓ �'. �t p \ \ J` .4 d3 _ rM;Lc Ii` �._=�� ,1F `i .. / ,Ori �! t `t r 1 11 Pte, , /, 7 tom" \ 1 fir, „1-- s t ,f5'\,..1. (i,i •JJJ r �, . l I_/ / // -� _ • cf a' j• "\ \ �.i �� 1t r R '/ I R� ''g tt •�\..,..,,, ,,--7\s_.) J14 l' I_ • o \ �' / > '� f� (� /� �1 Pf� .. `i d , }� 'C n5 ! i;' 1 �., `1 !E� ` 1 -^ r:�`Vvltr,! .\� ` QJw ' Bonnie Briar eiL �.\ \\\ i' ,//�( 1rY. 1, _ - •.G n '��, ���< 33 ;ii'," , ,r 'N 011 I. r' y�- \� l Chin Sc li l ;� Country Club ; /. - — / j1' �1 fi ----. C r� „„,--\,.. \,l //'%k �`v, ,,` i k -(7t O/1.-7rQ �n Tan tot`'±� fj�‘.'i'>�f /' (e • e-b t • A. WO/ •�'' rr \ tr1 iPp� � • / /`/%i /h. !., •././.1” � �Ged Y C �0 Nvi,s. � l %1 %/ „1 Q kyr 9 Y i !' a T�y� I 1 \ • C+T. (l. O �_` �/ ! fis/et7,-6,i • ♦ .irit 11/��� l W (� (WIN �, // - r // ,, // c7 A, i ` q� y rs f!- '/` o / (.j /f, i.9 _� �' ,c,3f'r� ! �j' m l i r- ti ''; .�\ x' < • U I / 3 OP, v , 9�, t\ r1`_r� i10 t `' I �IYI a LAMES y 76 1 , 576 / 1yr,F ` V„,,, oa __ �y// / A' ; 1- _ *- ` + O'\ (.`,I.i h,!') 'i l fir 7 461 K (>1.") A _ hJ ( ti, ,f / �-E � S e .�� / cc� \\ ra s4o 1?G } ce 1 / f , :, /j L,g' /`7/ , 7 CZ 7 77 ( 1 ( C (! } Irtitr :i:Ji t l __ 10 !� / O %/ "„ `l zs m 1 L� -�-.ti - . \ �� 6 a I `// / 'i1 Park 37 ®` \ (/�f . / / f � `' AVE£ ,. ��,1/ ~--r-. .�. .?I ,///�j ` 26 I� 20 lap // A '/ `'i ` R ,12 !D r \ /..\.• . __�-�,/ �-_ Q /J�j/l •- %/ C1, `j^(//� ---,-,Z ` ,{b6, \ r---�1 �`�.�_ .� / .- 23 - 23 MI 2 6 2 (. ....11t I ,. "` �' - / , / //// r/is.'� ,V 1` � jj ' _ N~\`�, s; M1f pts 9 571 3.C(tll:(Iit I ,.' 10 ® / A w _ t`/ i/ i \`/ Ij, 0.✓ ��� 8 ,moi ,a !', '0 \ �` ( t19 00 a 553 2 co 1 ® r ae /i 6 v r \f P -�� �_`, I ��//JJ �. �ti�hlEc Srh,!ul 9 ® 1 7 ®� tt Z- • /� e �•/ �t ) P 30 ,mho -sr_.„.---...,'---no, i 1 AC �� RFs rvoir �V ( j r_ d `' 8 &a,• .: 8 Ea J ® s , , • •/ \; Si(S0 1r7 % l 3 5 4� ., t ,r j �: / try . �5 35 ',m� / `, 0$t r > J ,_ ' IJ E\ v° 3 +l ._ ,^'' .... U 7sA • • �, ` ,/ J t\ `'s ii�,. se� .'�,,< $czsin ,r 1 A C�i 1 /23 1//::`"\-101, '; 11 ' , f -i ,Os al=1411r\„/1, � \•, $< f w C RetaIECeMer NoBulldTra(flc v`- �ti'J ; ® r i' "�c.1 _ 'r' ,f f'� ' GenerateedTraffic (VPH) Peak Hour'hafSc Volume Increase on Local Roads ce, R Q4�ro t o-0 i -s i t25! \: Weekday PM Weekday PM Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area r J.' •� v Wykagyl i W r t — 10 291 !b.. 10 �h Y Saturday Midday Saturday Midday ��pO .. !/ Country CIub �� /�� ` >�G } r t' `:,i 40 291 37m %� /t • Saturday PM $atuldayPMPlan and Retail Center Project SC /ti4 :j-` ,� Y � \t.:>�O it 1' `1 \L�`. 41 2S1 ''� 92 >� ./ ®: ,a.r`:" % ' h T " tr V�c t or,t 1 ,;l r r ert� �� w \\i ✓ �\, p�E;t wl 1 i f% :� >:__ / t. �, /_____ own n Figure 3.5 2(Page 2 of 2) 1. �` J %� \/2%.,:,,,,,,..-- frl yT �' J ._ )�! ` f( �% f ,�t �, f/y //7,0 i, vlHrKh� f- 1f� 4f ..�t ' j'-+ `' : -- - t`-.. ' rr `vl. `, `�., u'r_ Si.' -��, '�.� Slwanoy rJi,rJ I'. , 'R t` 1 '1�J� f u ��aq p ,1 ..-)-- �./ SI I� .2:• , /la,/ ° : `��0 `J i n` \. "' �;, ntf • 1' _ -} ,D in :% \, .4" (t.' ---,_ f 1Q',�. mss 31is8 ir -d97t -t \, • d d p ij li' I� `� n 4J Y Club, }; ! A,t;' ,._ ___,...RAG _-__: tl tL/ �-�/ \\ / / >. 13 t✓ `� \ i\ i .� i` I y� /t _ t4 �t/ y�(3C f' i i '} I �r 1r R 361 3639 4512 % _ ` f / 7, i p� ii _ �,1 1l- Y I f PrfO �i % !� ! ` rz F `§6 \ /� , �, '�,,,......„/ !/ ` Vii/ A ,,:ri , ,E -r` I �� t o �"--'4G \,` t t �1 , .,;,......--1--, 26 ��_ \ / % I , '--,,,--/..., / p �'� IV:' r / ^R P - = 1 �1 io i? 'A .I n � �7 1-= Jr. 387 B'3 r ,I;;�=.�lf�/ ! y �� •, ~ 'r tri P.7i"��l� �'/ , - _ �= I/ L I mm , ` ,- ( .•-"7/./r' 53 h. �.`-� 'i 1 1y ca / \•> \ i• ••• , r`�-cv ..:J •� ,i. doN .'^ --_ t �� 4f II h 14 �� 4 i' �\ ` � \ 2-,' 1.-2,--"\. a.� k e9 �, \, r (r `f,f' , 1 ?4�t y /i �- ! _ _-_t E (f i'. } W ,C (i P lµ� ��r \ .7.:/"'-',,,,_../ �l V;( riv r1 I 615 � / / L \:,....:;...,:..);:\ 'C1r'r1� 19r� , . /f/ Heseruoir _ _ m �` :I 4 W i �,:\ '1' \. , 'r �, i 1 n., Cent711 //�� '',"\\ ,,rr:' �� "i • :Q t �' �, -1 +,y�.� v ,, �, t} O 1,yE%'. \' '� ,',/ �? f%', II' .,-'; 38 ® t 32 7764 ) s / ` �% \ , r.. .:.�7 a5f'1-17--4"---------'''"'( _ .k.----,---';=A\ �•� :-� Ql� / • .jj// ., y (`//// f' ,J 0 r, 6l( 7W6 125 1/ // i/ r, . j /;, j NU'l L �'! ,,', / Y - _ �. \` I JF=„..„.0:.` E. ` 1,,.-:%:..----o•Vr4 ,�qTT 97 m ��,, 112 so- i + 1 .// �� `„/f �.;' ' '�~ r .0Prr� / I r�S =� r :\ �4 :✓ al llr�v \�A �\jf Gfr-� �J h �;'i 4r, i ./i. t -l_='� 't _ s �� ' ` r 77 t93 ', \ i., i� q. ^� 'T4 yf),1-f'. Q �/i \-,„,1---”, �� \ n y , r �Q 41.4,5----!. , {• >yy> t 'L Y r%{ J f 2 Tl - 6 r �". :r' ��f c i t i' L =} R „� I t 1� 4 .� e c b y \ tN r. �y ` PMy Hammocks \ }�r`v -7.,-,.-• t:1 ".--4, !/ r.1` • . - C - .3'-. 4- -y1,� \-iI”,m t GP �.3� P� .r '1 J"i: ti r - �`iy�� ,.,• + r� if L Q "^ter:.. 1,p ,\ I'10'J `t v r i `�a.', Z a: r t14 r � _,i, r, i � �/' I Z. Q,.O]j�, qV r =T �- 3 LV \� Ft I Ha �\ \ pit �� \+ 1_f ' a i --r-- ,-1 11,4„._-.•, % \C.�,�'%- f' s, �/\._/ /'- "+'Cf"` ---ed r.l,. j:�7 ,,. ,l m ` '. ,{ ---', �' '1 .1 use�� /� 25 �� 34x6 f ,;�> ,Q:% / 7,9 "f'O �.•. j3 `'. - JSC}i �Q->r4 : Countrylub r- i;% �r'vTr7y ff\- .. -"-'N r r► Z Ji' I.RE STI'uY I. r rl:) -� o I/120 _.12es 7/ !� >�:' ''�� ( ;f'rry" i\•a t ! _ !/f' �Wet3t I `` t,1 , h tr n(.11`_, `y ..r 1, i i/ 11'i \ 'r+( ., 1- ® i!�'�c_ /� 't `�•,•< �� C� \ �.` _ ,i'f J� �� t! orf `1�1 ! �`{,t;1 , �� Il t;l `\ 1 (.�\'�f, i/ W„ -:i\ -' t'� J5J3 ® ,(,'Ll f. I / -N,� \41 r :...ii /ti�✓f t+---.f 1�''., �Yr? ,, _ tl tq ////J u \ a L \ i t 5p > r „1�r //! eCjZ r ti 9.°;'› SCh - / / : 13 5092 t� i \ =l� 17 r(((/ \+,t`� O ,i ! t%.te , i --)n � pi �11 �t `1 �' "'---ti,...- f , k f)� s? * w a'I'v�F /,' - / 1.1 26t9 • �is fir 34 t�6 ~��`; � �o _��! �\ -s. y �c�< -�i_ eo . ��/�` -F. / 4716' { — > " '! ;(- ., L_ -.—�- ',, % e e \• n t �r�� ' • �fiRedevelo ment Area * . .I ,� /' - /-�: Fiin-'-t:-Park- nC Park \ `�j �l, �- f' ,-,, ..3, 41 O1' .i H1cert.at \ nR ' i" \ F �� �'• •a '`':i.'1''''''''-----/ _ \• F I !f ), ',Y ( 11 "! -ft f71Clf1�' 'i' . 1123, V rr 'e - _ -4,......A1 // • �L Y �__r s,- � y / .....4 o �' ci' 'cy� t b9 1l �:=' w so +'q� r yM 11 � � ti ,—,/ t,r /r a t i i �� a Pr---1",-;....,.,. ,% c_. !•ItuC G , Vii \.- \ y '(-'��.�. j' aa`` '�r a I' c; It �` {+ /' \ f 2�` JE ® 1l f 13 I�� ( //" ✓' • f� �J 1� 0 -`J' n ! ` 1. 'Par MC\ ✓Y ..� B 273 P _AIf' ` ��*�c.!! r �'-/��l \,! •:/..-../..k.- ,� G�' ;/ I $v \\ : 4 .8 p ? ; / r/ ,:at 1 ,�G 13 rail�;ty . 9�j\��9t1 5090 6S /r"/ sr .\ hac. o Av t ^. ,( Ci.--,,:.-�� \\ \ �6'O"Z�'/' `I� =� , � r r plr .ffi ,i New.- 4Ytt 1c�';. 1 1Ot' s ® ✓/ \ qo, 0 NP :. .�:�r P -'� a N _I.:, t. � + 4 f --•,-__=,---_,.......,...,.. _4 %Lo .i I , f Hit126 t. C %'+4. tY P� %; `� :i f f l • 1L= `• i' f / rr , \ t om t_• � C=I 51, , a• �. P , b 'CC i i ? (,^` '. `� �•� 1i Sch /-* L f } `� • 1;t, ona ., _ • ! - N ., \ reacen /' I r , , , 7 'U' -, . • jr \ 340 IS. i ,G (` // _ 1,E' f; %' z, '' ` f ,( -,-2'-'--1---5--t grT / /~7!! �� '1 1t-" 'S 8f t l�ejy'E':'f :}', s%�.( l \y 942`� > t/ i7 • `V /' (� 1 .fir ` i� �� • 0`\ Point A , �# *` ''r .�• '+ 1t 4r N S �.,n y'1 t }� Io '�, t �ri•i_- l ,P 'J \ U t� .•�// .�f/ C. ._ I I �, j_`�f / t�*' `., r� �, �' S '� as1 7909 ','s 4� < \1` �,' .`� _! �- _ 0 C _ �, '`EPOES� ;!�,. �� ��• _ t r tit ." Ertl,. `� f edar \ rr'' � :.�; �! ;` ,' ', , 715. = - I'r730 .i 14 •,;\ ';;11;:, ;', \`- s='`f' =.' },, PP1 P .1 ,/,,,,-,013,-.•-• -Q,Q Pt' .",- . 9, ' / � •'�J� .., , ;/. fr Vi 2;•f.:t0 ,X t%1 ' .. }t'lZci\. `, ,',r h --s' •� ,�r` 252 ICU g h t s.- {.ti\.lff_�'\,,i" Q '✓f_ :� 11,� `%-;` J '-� M \1� ` - ' it S ` 'tx' �Yr ',. • Q�' ,f' r,� , g ' tr ,e '4 .'qvE_ ,' „;:0R 1 869 --_ J"� `' G1; y- '' - ..) ,. �r`} I{y -til ` LlarC i2.m on.t` �� 4 1 G _ tr a _ f !!1_--.•w� • WI iIDIV!'F AO _ }v1b��j' i �It1�R�s%f� "�P� P`l ' /% o ice" / 5 r' i NT \ t • �,, f _ Q �7 _��t �" ,�[�_ t- i�- %\5: •i' \, / „,....,,,,-1,;,_ 13200 / �~' ,, • # �' P .: 1�I 1t (' tl, 'I, _AtmplL L-- ---^� ry p Z1 +'., )1k. is 1: �J” 302 m.' ,„ (r.� /,v % r v ,\ 1 '� \, Y.. .�,,,, �--Z _04e. c),....„.\ '1+ .f! ` .\ y' \� r, W r b r7+�^' v __•", ,€dge ate ydl ..,--_------;',f"' „ ;j' I n ' 1` t ,.�', 035 p �\ 735 ® .\\,,,,,,,.c. 1 - �. � INE 1' \-> Point tburK • 1� ` 1 _i .r S k :- �4 1 NA i.� �l Q� �).\ «f 25e0 1 3 ! 4�iy4� �1 :'fly; yy0p - ` ,,,,\ \ /i vt� ��JJ " r� 'j`AVS�� 0,.....---\ -- t 1 S i `\\13 r1 --1L ./../(• , ,,��-!— /� .Joh f�j 'bra' Y2.U'/1 li dal rG ? ?..i �. \ +1+ �\Jj 7 , �, .«(` ' 3 \', k , t1 ,+'t •• ,�� i, 6 l,ll�ir , tH rn (jtt y' ` tty 17,1,81 t) OJ r y{'� J�� '�Y \` �lti�!'`r /-�/i` - ��L "_� \-----•,-'� i �Z ��f :� • Y__ /t ,' ome ;Y vE ``S� r , o� / r �( \ sal j cif `r- • - `r `r-�.j ,........4t---,-,, ,�P 68 .� y\, :'.1 4. '1096 m { `\ .���"; 'C ; �- - � '�?,•- ."� ./1 ro \ ,I ..,;."--,.„,-,1,--,;;;),�` mbre(la '`• • . '�a "ori t,` t (p e C t f ',3854 ® ,1.\ �\�� e'�,j / r`�\ � c C y�� ��`' �' Po i n t \ fJ T >( t' w i"�, I f ti cn \ /-4..,44,..-....,iz� Ci Ei �, 1 1�~--,_\__,-/l ,C ' • . 7 P' ,t ST t'.- U.,; - ;.� - - .,,t..J a r .: .� ,,,�'a,7 liy .:-\. '?N., \i. `j'' �\ / .-S' 1:' ' � y� -`" '.,;„.,..„...,I„,./;??.5,,t,- \-, m Light t ., eir,,t i ,--, y.• • `e +` f 7lIIP ,".5 •', U`,:�i 1' /-5 / /./!• ,/ -ti/ /'` �,, ! 1---- -.'---'-'-'-:--.';'-'..___._...,,,,,---- •� � Imo~ _-_,_:, - I z' ..; '. .�,,, _GEre but----<-71 c1 -, - _ ASF// ;;4 '' r^�.�` /.�°.•✓I �� 65)�I _ ;,�1 `� "� j `_ �� `.,,�„i•-�(-)1/1,.,r'--- - If �, _ 2r ti .' t, may' .t\l r�' -t -f t� //' .,1 �)r' 1 . uw,,,,,,.. , -'1105 '', E + •5 \1, :� /, '21 �'>c\e ,t ' 1 '�v,' /il,'•�r ' D ( r 4 �� i`'f o'rsesh.QP fi l',1-.i. Ii- • 37a •mi y • �� •',ham ,:4---4 r-IS \' ' •'., F�r r`; / ) y C ;' .� ••} "., .L_ „--,--•-•,-- ;` * - = Sg4 a , ,�• j / J Fre 2?67rt �) ��I HarbOY h., < ~`(:C fi•�� Q i� v T l t, c(;� ,r /.�/ 9,_,y)- P�. i 38 � PSN `^ ' ,t, Mil �and �/ 0 I �'' i /fit 1 ' ,, E _ �" O� �N�s Crr1 ;d ? ., i 346 ®� _,,--...-_,--- -,.-_-----0, M� a! FvE5. � �E�Pt 97 *Armor � v I J�• ,o �Q81�+f �,(�! ;;. �Iliolie., \ Ice J� , • 3' ® 7...55__•,:.,-,-"--•'''- _ r f. [ r- '� 5 3z ® �,' 1 r ti�6J'". , 'y,/r-\'''1,..:(:') Oat,/ • '4=("L'6, -,-,,---- /- • , u O i . hril�.. , (--�, J'' 'i.;,•{.^s+' .' f ='1T • , �._ - ';., { E"1► , , •�:s,_.;: ` - ''S., i 1 . i'tg ;E L-fir• !S 17 / -���% .Tattle r, rng •.� i , ., • • • N - � r; ,(�'> , 94 'l (31.3...„,,V):- - �:i 3i►trit Mud°'� �; Rock `/ _ rt .,br w? -- $e yr,rsel� ,cis \470 4 .+ `i \-,,* i' 1- ' 1:fi r5ed t Yacht CfuG � ijr S8 = c / •irl b '� ,..-4_,„:„,- m ; ., 4 4 , j ' `y~' --P... .:,••• r �.r� r"�r, • }r> Harrison Ii 1 `l i a,- - 7 uh3 ,,1 4 -' + - h/�a -Y„ .C'6,\ ,.„,,..• L.L. - I ; 1 �Y1119 r; t Sc r t 1 25 it 9'-' I n L d1F P. i' " C ,- ,' ,�h ,r• ' 1yt ": "'� 5 -;,�� _ ;1� Sv'Q- \. 52 �,Ea'\Z , •,,"� ♦ .: /,`;,„,t u fort 4 �l 2. t ,4r rl a _ �L-, -4 rt �'1 'Js+�--:>.- ''''''",1- �v ,`'�\, %�/ �. �\ L 1t _ 'l'4 !' f4 .C41..3_lri,js,5, �y ` �,t tttrrr 1 J c; \:/' < 1,. s%�- {, j- .n fltyt Echo ) i ' remium $ ` •11. ,Y' amen. f� Ouck Gut I.II_Yr �a '✓ ¢ .ti`s P ;ti; ',1,',. ----:,',-..---7:,:::. Cemetery •L_`1, .✓ I \-,, ~ �.% ,� \�70 \ j4 t p' - i✓ Sul . , '�r'. V p- -',.;,.., -, !+. `t \. . itw" 1` \Z,%., ,fit CO. '- ` ,Ech.o Bay t {y y� ,\ >� Daily Retail Center No Build Condition .,, -Xti'11kiill :f ^,r O, 1{I }-� !I J �.,, �` IY ,f)-714 O - `� 'S` 'i' l I t `t o U 1 I. ,"t�t 1 C e m e t e h ' l�, t�� ^L -� ��, �. �i s + l Dail Traffic Volume Increase on Local Roads j/ C\ �� \ Eleni a' Generated Traffic Daily Traffic l/ 9 /t \ \ (� ryEHt �EH� I 14 r o <Ir.,, r. ! 4?'filalt z �� 11 �,1`t f / /' �'\ �, \.„,,._____,,'' +� \ i1t111F; ��` S<�h ' `.: ' Rock Weekday Weekday ry r �� Battey Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area �,a r y J 1C�rs' I � , k '%/ ,�;�, '` L' �` �,:..�� `' .:� ac Saturday satorday Plan and Retail Center Project GCatq• lAC P V f —, 1i! ` R\ s t U e 11 " r�% i ,. L 'I� 1('l S ``O � 1Ecna Figure 3.5 3(Page 1 of 2) 1�: !+` �. G-'4„1,- yCEL'�' . '�f`j `' FQO•' L�� .f.IO% rJI '.‘1.-,,,-;---- /f A 't\'7c ' \re ...W.- ' �' _C"0' -17 ! i cz , i `..1 fi // \\_8700\\ IE O: Bot:lcI r Q + o . / Ct Highi1rrSch ,• d. ((4 j �7 / . 44 TT R J e , 0 t V cr j f .r �. -. // / ![iethC`0t = �lC5Goff C /� l` 1 I r• �A~` _.� -r. ,./ ti;^`` ,`i)1'�sa_,Z('t� ,t(� }r��-"\,� \r .l' r(f1 ,) vl __,---......„t I l+ I t3f ',, .y - pVr l~ \`�r r tij- '��11 `� �Ir \} r �y 1?5,\ apo- Fires r ' r l.;;).-.'. .4421d Course \ ' a ; Fir [ ,.— l_c., - —`1 ( \ i � ,rr ------------ -- m 54 A at, l_ S `1 sta / 1 • ' '', rc bi/Jr40 ' r ' `=, � af'r j /N / I r`S+�FE7i`J r-'-; " i Tl r `(,� , c\fa) �,i �mI HARVF S r —`� (� 'r • ti� _-� `�� r' ! I l /'1 `e .1 r; ri f t �., .'r• .7 /79 ' 7. _ ` i �y� 22 4 n „�J' S ! /J 'la ,f 1 // .J?rr1(KJ1....:''',/''' '''''i /J j'�/� r/ f I f !� ((2)L �, 1, ti\ /r..7. J, t ( { , /:.• Pp `�' /� �1 y / I., T P4T f/�f r* !� �/ '' J d��.J% f! r ! 1 `O 4� • ` 1� lyl ` ' • J \ /f ! ! \ 1 e "R ,� i�. ! � /7/6-'5(e',/--:4,11 ff `t ,t v f/., vEar e, ers ''° 1 �r 'W�inb /� � 4 �, \ :tic /, ;t 1/ !l J'/ -J it __ `� '', t� k o t , Cem s5I f atxi<71<t rte_'1 :/ i r / ' r,, O¢ � dsal p Nature r O i ��[ Jam ,, / t.v°►`^., t`vv.; 1 \ P • / 7 / Park �� le .Lr .I /4.\• /./. .;-:77,^S //, jit r�' �rh / t , y�-- .e , � I i/ 3 "11 r ,l / -!� r M � 1� �� Colonial Acres •_ fr r ,i, , t, x )'i- ,; //; y- ▪ 1) 1, 4,- ♦ r94 _ e i a • .,/ iIf , \ c��-�1' 1 ` �J , ;C-,'',%,\. ! ,1\ \,� f! 1 5Y ` :t31 , �i i / / a S �� /�• S , ,'r` I•” ei j„ \ (yam{ ��- ti • 4 `O mar. k !� �/ Leewood + 1r,I � _/ 411, \\ i, ',\ , �\` 1 e211, ��y,i �Ti ”`\ • ,•P;� �-, ' o �! , ,,..„__ — Caolf Club ft +! r/` i � � \ ` <2..\, `� i ...._ ,_ .r �. :' r• 7 'e,8..;ero OLr \ J1 .., tt,/ 4 ,,, i \`>\0 1 / \ r , 1 ) Uuarser ��f'el j 4 it1<�F l 'l _ Golf Cour;e ,;4't'.\ ; 1 w -i r OP ,/ _J. r (:.luitt i �f • - t ro t• 1 -� I �_, .- / �:`5_ �. r tj. l• ! / ,�� 'Ptite ', e.. t,'S •• �p i?5, Quake R:dge r •• J /' 1 • 1T9c Ifi - ,Jt 20' IArt/� 1 / `' f \lam% ��` 1t� �i(� �/ r r , ettwo fVr r �i �Tuna i" �U / ‘l "� � : moi-=;Y ( _ ./ \ ,� -..,, rJ•.if"�y1 P '65/.-�.iPark '1,7 t - _ . (yMounts : (ir:Ert'iatiir Sci. "'tS� �` / yt,(/ • t -.Q.��� C ARA or-RZZ-..- ' .PO �!\ �V'\` �,� �, t 1>�_ i.tl�`./ nf tr�r--r° ri f4.` \.. Clfo 4r / ,-<' ,0 f ' �. +f.- t Q .�� y>-'�`` t, � )1 ' f �`"� 1,\.7p.:41117:1..." / , //�T�t,:�v� %� ;7 ''� �� r, p " ' PrP j '` Murdock Woods L t, �i , II „1 ,/,._7 1�}�\` I I; .�t,'fV 7 ':1t ,(,ill�t /:%4���E./f 11�1 .. d •- [/./rte _ \�-`� moi- t� /' _ f' ;Q„'r i �:. � � 14r. \,` `;<l. / 11 - (STC `Clti'� ! r. i 0/. 1.i;4 y I � ! r�.. ;r,-r\-', � { �,,^d.n. 1 \r\:>:-.ii idy 7,;::: ”`//.t.\, 1y n f :/,. ., \� _, -,.,....j, 5 , 11� ...� �$ �� �\ �n ri• 726 705 5759 1/�- _ / /( Gedney - t //'.{'!¢`',` iflj( r•5, �,, \� / �� � .� I .4 361 :161 7047 Y -^/ �'j �� ( P"..:;,LLL'JJJ :-. ` ^,.__ ! `j, � \ �. :: j � 1 • ,� �� 111 — Jl \rs �'P j �. '. I _ \ ��� :7/ '..#fes_:- r .J • j \-- -e7.-----41,-:::---..--- - _./ '''.--00--- f / --V \ �,rrr♦ J� ' / / 7 -0 / .ave. _ '' 1 , r / l„ .r,P�,' i�`f // ; . - ''''1.7--)-1"-` { sc � ar �7 /' �P \ t �' ' SCh -_ __ \` � � , ' /� �1' r Vv,-feel „ 1 =- ' _ : rs' •t \ � Re �rZ�Oti►� e tz33 /f � f� JJ� :�(� �^' ��` g f J f t'• re jj% / .\\.,,,,\C--p. �\f � \ ‘kr'-:'' '. I1,___.././\. }�;" o, I. 1 P 125 _ Win ed Foot +� `�_JL t �S ` t 1 O `t v Q� 110:7_, dr„.„...... / id a�° Park {t39/ om, f,\• �` f Go(f ClubA,.! / f'N J�__� .' + �r . f♦ \Y tt`^ I ,� \it'� iF /64 'ko 0 'rixi .,C f- ."..7 . ti-.`\, ^`\ GOR? 4�` /_!SS r ll, �(' p l' !� • \ `. r_l'.03 _ 1 MM/t-C 7r -- ,•_ :fr �r /rr O'`; I- ;1 (+. ', �r `-( 'j / f,' Sw.,nm.ng I %J `� t •i )tt ••(y �:,yN y/,�h` /�5\t \N-p � t\,. `' '18' ` .,i.� r h J t. J r_-•�-�� r • Il 1'!, _ pp! -' / r/ \-' 2,i 4 ,\ //i ,,,.... <<? ' •. .ice L1 j� U/ff :�•t'_"' v / ! \, �r. t P r ,.�, L y�y$T1 1,1L- 'ra • r / R4 '.'� 'al _ f\1\.�/ 1t� .r '' 1; �7k' � 1 - Ili .\ ..` � �' 1r - - _ - \ti_ �� `r ` r� jl ! 4 „ ' 0 0. - ( t r , ,,, may` `' '`'+ �dt P;i's tj � �s (l�itcl 6' Ii / ,. '< • '0 _ ,,`{ =J �I'v..,, ,,! ` P0�9 Bonnie Briar �1 \ /� ,>r ! „' i'�- ► ♦'� \U `: ~�\� S ! h 'f` t' ` '� 1...4„1 : ti ^. I,r\ ^, _. L �:�-�_ /4� r .//r 1: 7/e i ,♦ •G- _i ne,-tet, „...---,5--- -:--, '`4,fh A. !/ J. 1 cr '/ tat < \ >tu; tem cit ,..„->:• t / country Club I / / f `. i/\` \ \ • �O�J ,1 'V5\ '\ Jif' /' 4-' �r� 1 y,'.' Ta^k 1111 g! ,,.--.....--•:-'-.1 -11-K.,;_-11-1 r �_ ♦ lt,\ \tr'•, e U 9,11 1, /29 1+ � � � //+ � Th f /,� \ `�1Ged Y C \.yti I 1 ;r 1 V i t Ia r ,(ti`� �( .4� Q rr �r i �. :• j�"l�. �y J r i• YI � l�� Ilti!N\ �/ 1 �i • � ' P P. �' ( 'At. ;_ k/ e ,./:;/,...."'__...4.,,,,,,,,,,,i7., r; % "� ,, �J r W - ( o f - 1 . ', j �•-..� J Jti m I It LAKES E.S �:-- y 1 , �� "t :� < . b v' �• r% ,�' n ♦ \ Nr j � �9'Zl. /: `��\,`r _--_ in '-' --,-..—_,,,,...:"),/ INT' 01.1 11-(:'1'1,i y: `�I 116 1 f+ // Nl(Yr 'f ?'" '. J, 5) />O- CI - A r, // ♦ ((`e= \.O!G 4 f rt. e / 'r 1,44),,,,,,,,,--,-.„\\ /5� �';fif: �� 1.7. 'c / ,- 3 1 f` r �� „-t�N ti; iylm cp ~\.,o / 1 > �� . / r 1ta= �� �% jj /i N. M 7 pf ` l' h� ' ' % �1 e._�- - 7% � in it J' l gi=g Park t k T:1 c_-/ / ? u.....` re: , 7 / / � , ,y/ .v', `� A .tv£� f ` ` ' Fr i7.,..-,..,..,. .c,,4' =_- '{ ,-=ti'`�\ �l• - i l 4 L 1 f jp rods • Q ,�y //i v/////7./.040,t,,/ ,t V • +\` `,116 \�� 1y� �'` .. — NO �` // l79 °<1P� I.et',o.ir',I �J �/j }�/ �' \� �/r l `' / /'h ' '/ / '/(r0 % \ MJF' t / ` �`` it � QaF I 71 j M \lit(tl(e Shaul 25 fi^ 4864 �--,4' f/ i '{ `1, ../ • :• f' / °J '0 / (Ct// /`-/k, ��f,:C *`ho ,,`li—N 1� l y - 's�� - RE 3 r?JOLT r /�t 154 t 70!c, - 69 .,5657 I 4 I-,q ." Ii <' ftf 'i/- ` '��� °�v� O. •,` %\,! ✓ , 4. ♦ �r-1 - r� Iva .O• r - •� - '.; -- ll I'`�1 Iq J� ;;``... Il'', \�Q�' ,1t�i"�.. a'$t- .i �J.-�-ZI` ' II :- 1'- J J, ,.\ i�_ w. . -� fir" \,-...., -t ; `` fit, +: yYY ( 568 B('+� /v,� `v`',.�i�- `L (I$ `J r ` A� \ 1 `t ' /' `.µr� < I q ;�r� 1 `-� j( ! s. ` --{/ /a`''rt\ t`�, c f/ r; _h (tui .i ) _ / 1% r09 � �, \` < f, Daily Retail Center No Build Condition i,„___,.-,---•=-- �1 i t • t lit ��• Y '(O '•--,:s"--"---. 0— r.. a / • f� 7 ,J/ GeneratedTraNic Dai TraNic y f 9.„.„,........„..-0,--"' �;t I { /, if �' __ ! .rG �k,',1.-------:---..�`. 4: , , Jt• / -! (Ved NTraEH) Dail Traffic Volume Increase on Local Roads ll,� jf i !-b, ::1 T J�3)) �__ , ����� ,_•••••,), .= ('' (-:'''V'4-'.° `~ r ;'o ,r vi'� ,-� C `I f; 'r` `�\�•• ! '` / Weekday Weekday Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area a Nyka�YE `. Q 1\ � fit_ mr' ,� �1 ' '" Plan and Retail Center Pro ect •• --- r 2' i � k , -` ;, j + .t r % 1 { j Saturday Saturday �' Q •• t j V"' r Ft 126 '61 - � -- J SC.f n, yCCuntry Ciub `� \� �"� o + �� '0 ` 1� ,t , �� a �- v h i `L : 7.: 00 + ,f ` J 3a7 a6, /, I / �,� a� Figure 3.5-3(Pae 2 of 2) Visual Character September 14, 2000 3.6 Visual Character Introduction - Study Area and Viewsheds The study area for analysis of visual character of the Redevelopment Area ("Visual Study Area") and its environs is generally encompassed within the one-half mile radius of the Secondary Study Area defined in Section 3.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy. Views of the Redevelopment Area were analyzed from a distance of up to 200 feet from immediately adjoining streets and abutting buildings (described below as the near views), from a distance of 200 to 2,000 feet from the Redevelopment Area (mid-range views), and from distances greater than 2,000 feet (long-range views). Potential view points were identified on a topographical map based on their proximity to the Redevelopment Area or topographical elevation in the surrounding areas where there might be views of the proposed Retail Center Project site. Potential view points were also investigated from on-site by looking outward in all directions. A field survey was then conducted in early Spring of 2000 from roads, public properties, and publicly accessible locations in the Visual Study Area. This survey characterized the wintertime views to and from the Redevelopment Area and identified the limits of the actual viewshed of the Redevelopment Area -- locations where the proposed Retail Center Project might be visible. At this time of year, the maximum visual exposure can be assessed due to the absence of leaf cover. During other times of year when trees are in leaf, the proposed Retail Center Project would be less visible, and visible only from shorter distances than discussed in this Chapter. The Redevelopment Area is readily visible from William Flower Park and the MacLeay Apartments to the north, portions of the mixed use neighborhood in the Town of Mamaroneck to the east along Valley Place, from the New England Thruway to the south, and portions of the mixed use area to the west along Portman Road, Plain Avenue, and Biehn Street. See Figure 3.6-1, Viewshed and View Corridor Analysis Map for the locations of these near view viewshed areas. 3.6.1 Existing Conditions Due to the volume of traffic and its proximity, the greatest number of people experience near views into the Redevelopment Area while traveling on the New England Thruway. Views from the New England Thruway expose the rear yards of buildings facing Pleasant Street, including some residences. These views reveal a variety of shapes and colors of buildings, plus a variety of storage sheds and open vehicle storage areas in the rear yards of buildings. The closest views from the Thruway are experienced from moving vehicles traveling southbound at highway speeds, and therefore are glimpses rather than studied views. Northbound vehicles experience views from both momentary stationary positions at the Thruway tollbooths, as well as from moving vehicles. Actual views from the northbound traffic are truncated by the existing concrete barriers which are located in the median and on the north side of the highway. Figure 3.6-2 Existing New England Thruway Views shows stationary panoramic views toward the Redevelopment Area, one looking north across the Thruway, and the other looking west from the northbound Exit 17 ramp. 3.6-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Visual Character September 14, 2000 Two prominent existing features within the Redevelopment Area are highly visible from the Thruway. These are two large billboards which face the Thruway, one located at the south end of Biehn Street on the west end of Pleasant Street (estimated to be 35 feet high) and the other behind houses at the east end of Pleasant Street (estimated to be 45 feet high). These billboards rise above the horizon line as can be seen in the upper view in Figure 3.6-2 Existing New England Thruway Views. Some residents of the MacLeay Apartments on the north side of Fifth Avenue and northeast of William Flower Park have a direct view of the Redevelopment Area from windows facing south and west, as indicated in Figure 3.6-3 Existing View From MacLeay Apartments. Intervening large shade trees located on the apartment site buffer these views, particularly in the summer months. It is likely that the Thruway is also visible beyond the Redevelopment Area from the upper story south and west facing windows of the apartment buildings. The Redevelopment Area is visible and viewed at close range by people using Fifth Avenue, and is visible to users of William Flower Park on the north side of Fifth Avenue. William Flower Park is a 20 acre public park, which provides active recreation facilities for the community, including a swimming pool, playgrounds, court sports and playing fields. Activities in the park are heaviest during warm weather months for active field sports such as football, baseball or softball. Figure 3.6-4a shows typical views toward the proposed Redevelopment Area from William Flower Park. There are also near views from the mixed uses along the east side of Valley Place, both sides of Portman Road, the south side of Plain Avenue, and west side of Biehn Street. Due to the nearly level topography in the immediate area, street level views do not reveal distant features beyond the foreground buildings and trees. Potential mid-range views were investigated from several blocks away to the north, east, south, and west, including from the south side of the New England Thruway. Views from these locations are constrained by various factors. From the north, including Henry Barnard Elementary School north of the park, potential mid-range views of the Redevelopment Area are blocked by dense woods and the MacLeay Apartment complex described above. Potential mid-range views from the Thruway are blocked by the topography and the Potter Avenue bridge for northbound traffic and by the topography and the Exit 17 ramp for southbound traffic. From adjacent neighborhoods to the east and southeast, the height of the existing buildings block most street level public views, leaving narrow vistas primarily between buildings, down Fifth Avenue or perhaps from some upper story windows. The upper stories of the six to seven story apartment buildings on Chatsworth Avenue and Washington Square, located several blocks east of the Redevelopment Area in the Town of Mamaroneck, may have views of the Redevelopment Area, as well as of two prominent smokestacks and an antenna structure located on the Thruway Authority property. These tall buildings effectively block potential views from points in Mamaroneck further east and southeast. From Palmer Avenue, Larchmont Station, and other potential view points in Larchmont on the south side of the New England Thruway and southeast of the proposed Retail Center Project site, there are no clear views of the Redevelopment Area from public spaces due to intervening topography, buildings, fences and the Thruway Exit Ramp 17. The activity of the railroad and the Thruway further limit visual exposure. 3.6-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS 22 o ¢ JE AJ >� A '3.-,,\J :QIP �Op�p °0° JE 1 p'1vk ` �1°ti ;;;;N. " J�.. p '�, ../-\ �+ C A C '^ ' ES1 $ �• 2.Ca ,tt1L0 A • N LL ,4 LA .11, / 'z j. .1 °J JE i` FOR m GI- >� m 0 Jv Q �° X992 °° LEAf °0 '6\s'4 c� s�ti �� Jti gyo9y P 125 • A `� x G c�, • % 10 c. cF t• oe"ti O` 0 NIN a 9do,,, Mkt' o riF� Pym *� z o ;Di * { M°off q�' -off LLE o- 6' 6AL° 1 • /� P E�� 'i o• M 1 �• o . $ a m f'- ��rip :- 2 z o Roc 0 .s. p•• o 414. NN �° °* y �� �Ag1N i of o Park 4, / Vo: �j 040o°tq0 RO oty � 5, AOR 0 k, / PO F ri ASE IR ca tith, i'�..✓ l W y Pt� Pp:)T rye` �. / OpVT ` O Q0 �O O rr _ ♦ i P 9ya o E OR 4'7. 0* ESE ''q ?�\40vp 1° e �i >ta s�° d 4\?' -P 0�y �� - gyp: rC"y /� h v o p PL R°A° QP �0 o<soy o. © ���0 0 �� O ��� P /• ��a° P t0, pNY ir C l(� t I I el' Is 1 v ' S'P`A y aQ4 �Pr P G0�0 ��G LZ y\♦OR r jr 9 • ® Y T`Z'r 9 • 0+ J� ,� .440 P � f°.E5 ObFRL•°� 'y I 7o Off. \ NO r J� LF j<IS P �P > 7t= iftirAvenue �s OE P °� 94sr it, QG �'� , 9q • • e e © 1 Tl t ctR kView Corridor . s�``, v 9`FST J� p ��F 0° e0yy C,� EQ RA -DA r, ® N Fj� c-,,,,e'Pi .- ESi BFf BA ` PtACf Yi f , y' �1P P ir � At • QP O / N Ghgy r v �oRi� �• O �. e-g9G J� ALF RO 6� J� D •NT $tt Z 15 i \ y �F2 C Q2 h"?,,0(.5 4i-e. O 0 0�>, D -o'9YER 1 M0 P CtAA� l I �® lE m �'/ op F Tti• c tc. enm 06¢ 'V,' •� 4L p mNJ t \ \ I \ x A o I C1J4 >5°V�`i \p� Q Poi o E Eo' ELL �_ i 5S , x t / PSE n� o Fty ry°f"'4,-.74/".'C-.7\.0. Q� ` 5{ Q'''e v /'� < GLAtP E 0tiQ� P mEPL bp�NTi ' Ey NToe �4y Z p�p�2 ; �2 PJ PJE 4Ni FS J aF 1 �`0' ? E� S U. ���N �o N� '�� :' ' y f f� PL�PcP` adi bi, 1 9 -,-,„4. .4. ��m Legend EVA o PRS �oR ES �' " A V cn I 3 �� 5� ov F ,.. 94Fg4. 0 �,ti - `�� o • ' © GE ,� K �,'"" 1 Thruway Toll Booths 9 M 0� SS s 9 x I 00 z�, me N fy ��,` Z 0 Tow. I C°° mq !p ,�`ROT li a Ir. o°�' �� 0 1 Thruway Ramp #17 Fona CoUe e j x E '� o - S .1 ` '� �� �„ r PJ tiG �� 1 v a�� i°�% ' p 9 tE MacLeay Apartments < `� - •RTLANDT 51 f F T '41M EStoE�;t uJA z. ,N, • 0 CT Y�ERCE P°RIMA' T ruwa ,•°5 9� ® William Flower Park rs`� pAR� 0 C >t• • '�c. ,� R° �¢P Vie orr • or o o p Portman Road/Plain Ave Residences % �o t COR LANOT l ¢ 0° �� ;170o, 0° IMP p O 1. 0 Ri N4O r gp � s 1aE ��E4 PPLO mss o• e ��`� E¢�°° �o ® Henry Barnard Elementary School R°g 5`pE o goo ro cvs n� PJE SL°OOM Q sT AVE OOtEJAR° L P4 ���FI�P �' �oR ` A pP TG S �/ 0 Washington Square Area gRaOK a < E�1 E PJ 8 w SPE { Q. %o AJ Q s 11 9 0 Larchmont Station • x y ..,,,,o+, <' Jti • s 0 Z a m 4>&,_ P °° � O Palmer Avenue, Mamaroneck EPPLoOOP '� pEAN ©. Beechmont Woods Area 7:i ' • `"T `��alli � , L� - • ' \ O9 Rochelle Heights Area cus ELTON ,PCp + ��p o c TERR .w� Ape p Potter Avenue Bridge Q Q sFRpFN o.)`4• 0 `" Esq Z Zi 4 3141 a Redevelopment Area AVE o P 3 -� . !I'' 1°.k‘k:'‘ L0 pts •/GGONvRD4L e "Near Views" in the Stud Area rr6\v.t.tx4 ° Z eE PG e - -� Y4. �/� Pad �� /�1 � `' r9 oR \-)712-f a �.� a'�QJ� - • • View Corridors N Figure 3.6-1 : Viewshed and View Corridor Analysis Map W E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: 1 Inch = 800 Feet S Base Map: NYSDOT Planimetric Map, Mount Vernon, 1990 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845)265-4400 Fax(845) 264-4418 File 9916 Fig 3.6-1 VSAM TMA 08/10/00 Redevelopment Area f - 0 I I .. . ...,b A •r__.. L.-s,.:: ,,...z:... , v_ ,e.. ,. :. ..,- 1s r' -, ,t•*7 q1 _ .Y r ,z • ,................_ . J t .!_ - _r. ",. ..' _itli d, ar.N. • '� a � Ili ''t �..; •,i ' d t C ,.•:',.1$ • 7 .�� �. '."5.1,.. –z1 in.ewwn"'•.. — __...___�–.,.....�. ,–. ,a. .._:._.. --.......e.•�-•.,=vim_.=�sw—a� 4.._ >-- —_+.x` ... . v, I 4 Panoramic View Looking North Across the New England Thruway kRedevelopment Area I a2: yy ._. •� . 11 vtOriod - J. , . .-.:.+ :,.W Ma A "i � ' y V w „, �1r Air, iii* �,'- moi• - .r 1P. � i"' - •v --__ . -- - • w _ f/t j g• R • ` - } Panoramic View Looking West from the New England Thruway Exit 17 Ramp Figure 3.6-2: Existing New England Thruway Views Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York 9916 Fig NETV TMA 08/08/00 Source: TMA Site Visit 3/6/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516 (845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 265-4418 i i •n i' f , i ,t, :,........" • I L,%It.A.4 .//,' ' ' 'Fk' I, / , , ilt:,:: : ;A7 ,,); : f'-.',.\- . 2.. t _. r' .. .•► ` -,,'�' ' g + ,\. 1',..v.- �`-Yw � msrs $ e ? A• a w s Y Lwr-`. � . AOar ■■ • N ,#f. N"• YYk., h -` ' '� w� I s ' ' f � Fr a V�11 -hr `s+ 'j ' ,'yR k r Yz Figure 3.6-3: Existing View from MacLeay Apartments Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: TMA Site Visit 3/10/00 File 9916 Fig MAP TMA 08/08/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516 (845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 265-4418 v t t•, Redevelopment Area iii...idLik." ,:. ..,j;,, 0-..,-, , . 11 ,`-ll'i :1'"!,•' lierAel.cal' ' -'' :.4 :'.I.A...e., );, ,kr• I' , tit ra 5 .7x7 , �1. ��,�� r Nr : �I S>` 9, / e s s s ,4. . '— , • — 2.j...-- ..tio: - „, 4,_ , ii 41 ...„.„,., ....., „..„ . , . . .. ,, ._ _ , ,_. .. . . . .. .t. ,. _ ... __,.. . , .., ________ ,,,,,. .... ....._ . •. , ..,.... dn. - _ ...,..._.-_-,-.. ' n £! . yry *" • r.r* _ - -y,Ziri i"" F'Tl':o-e^ 4,�ti �+. -S: + . 1 ' : '' - '''' ... Looking Southeast = - ot Redevelopment Area y 2 ;: t t .,v i, 1 A 5 E` T w —1L. -'- 3dr.7 '31- e►�-„ yc ra �, h .5' 1 +moi T.- Looking Southwest Figure 3.6-4a: Existing Panoramic View from William Flower Park Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: TMA Site Visit 3/10/00 File 9916 Fig WFPV TMA 08/08/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516 (845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 265-4418 . J*As ,! '":,yc�• ,•,,iy ..~• 1. r� • ‘4110, . 1 ,0,t- . h.„ , , _ ______ „„.„ .... • •-li •p: , , 1,1' '/ i' s - -,,.... .- Atud,,„,.. 777 i • -I. ' -',.::, '; lifil 1 , ',., • : -"" •///iO JO M / y •,• ^. • - wJ.f '4 ..t iw1-�1._ — , '— �i/j»tt Nay 'I ,� / i ,,�, a ,� 1....._....- . � � v .,. ' r t s` d` ..1!--"71.7 ,tMN (,7 - J y ;,,,,,•„ N 1,,,,2•••1613x.: ' r . 7` ."gt ' 7;4 • „ tl NPM xa..a � -_ - � _ tor t q• 4, t lib; may" 4^*'lY1.n )N �.�Y.`4 2 a S -...moi ...1 !. { �� . Looking East 4 + ' w t > .1 111 �.,•`, ,, . G 'I'w eg — • •rpt .' r . • ogav•' - �' .. , ' I ; . • i»• e saw P-, . '!�• � 163 ,..r is r`y •• ' s�r Irt. , '' , p •-� ,� ` in 11.7 t • ., . t it"= 11 I eft•---,72:antitt: i�1s# 1!.. ' • ,. 4"t E21 f1 ? >,1 ti t ti lri i C .,tf yr'114 011,04 vdtlry . ., 1t,, jy a ot 44� l Looking West Figure 3.6-4b: Existing Views of Fifth Avenue Corridor II Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York File 9916 Fig 3.6-4b TMA 08/11/00 Source: TMA Site Visit 5/99 Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516 (845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 265-4418 1) aX �r !, gym, :: ' a F a A r '` j w` : . ini ID ..,, — , . k. , ...... ....„ . . '-rte , # W,. � - t m .. : '' i -!:;;4:',.« :- ':4'74,,•''.1:4 „,,-','.' ' .. lit .7",s'''4",,,A •,,;1„,4.•!.. •' ""' II Figure 3.6-5: Existing View Looking Southeast From William Flower Park Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: Not to Scale MCG Architecture 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004,Tel, (212)425-0744, Fax: (212)425-0744 Job# 00.300.01 -04/18/00 Visual Character September 14, 2000 From Palmer Avenue in New Rochelle on the south side of the New England Thruway, the views of the Redevelopment Area are constrained by the intervening New England Thruway Exit Ramp and tollbooths, and by the existing buildings on the north side of Palmer Avenue. Public views are limited to narrow vistas between buildings on Palmer Avenue in the vicinity of Harding Drive to Harrison Drive. The vegetation along the rear property lines of these buildings, the presence of the railroad with its overhead power lines and support structures, the solid concrete barriers in the center of the Thruway, as well as the activity in the Thruway corridor itself, constrain the visual exposure. It is likely that there are some views from windows on upper floors, buffered by the intervening features mentioned. From Potter Avenue and other local streets to the west, potential mid-range views are blocked by intervening buildings, topography and trees. Potential view points were also analyzed by identifying higher topographical elevations in the surrounding areas where there might be long-range views down onto the Redevelopment Area. Two such areas were analyzed, one in the vicinity of Mountain Avenue and Maywood Road to the north of the Redevelopment Area (locally known as Beechmont Woods), and one in the vicinity of Cortlandt Avenue west of the Redevelopment Area (locally known as Rochelle Heights). (Circled numbers 8 and 9 on Figure 3.6-1 identify these locations.) Each of these areas was field surveyed and no view of the Redevelopment Area was discernible from street level. Again, it is possible that some intermittent views are afforded from upper stories of homes in these areas. These potential long-range views would reveal the Redevelopment Area from a distance of 2,000 feet or more and in a context which encompasses the surrounding urban landscape. Visual Study Area Characteristics In terms of the visual setting, the Redevelopment Area is located in a neighborhood of mixed density low rise urban development. This is a fully built environment, with the notable natural features being scattered shade trees and rock outcroppings, and the gently rolling topography to the north and west. The Redevelopment Area represents a clear example of discontinuity with respect to its architectural character and physical condition compared to other nearby neighborhoods. Within the regional context, the character of the Redevelopment Area is notably more rundown than other nearby neighborhoods in Larchmont, Mamaroneck and New Rochelle. Land Uses and Physical Appearance of Buildings Residential structures are intermixed with commercial buildings, and many structures originally built as residences are now in commercial use. The various architectural styles include two small churches and small to moderate sized single family residences intermingled with small to moderate scale commercial buildings which include highly visible outside storage. None of the buildings have been identified as architecturally or historically significant. While development is generally one to 2% stories in scale, roof lines vary from pitched roofs characteristic of residential development to flat commercial building roofs. Architectural character is inconsistent and often adjacent building styles clash. The buildings are set on small lots, with shallow front yards and separated by narrow side yards, driveways or parking areas. 3.6-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Visual Character September 14, 2000 Outside the primary structures, the few residential lots are typically fenced lawn and ornamental plantings. Many of the commercial activities have unscreened and unsightly outside storage of vehicles including derelict vehicles, freight containers, or construction equipment and materials enclosed in chain link fencing. The visual character of uses and buildings in the Visual Study Area is depicted in Figures 3.6-9 through 3.6-11, as illustrated along Plain Avenue (shown in Figures 3.6-9a, b and c), Pleasant Street (Figure 3.6-10), and Fifth Avenue (Figures 3.6-11a, b and c). Several of these photographs were used by the City Department of Development in an April 2000 presentation of the draft Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan to members of the City Council to visually depict current blighting and substandard conditions in the proposed Urban Renewal Area. Some of the relevant conditions are listed directly on the Figures. The incompatible nature of some adjoining uses is also presented in the Figures. Specific land uses in the Redevelopment Area and adjacent properties, which make up the visual character of the neighborhood, include the following: William Flower Park, assisted housing in three seven-story buildings, auto repair activities, a party supply rental business, a millwork company, bus parking, a bus maintenance facility, the New England Thruway, an electrical contractor's office, a restaurant, former offices of a fence manufacturer, an electronic equipment warehouse, a metal parts processing plant, single family residences, and vacant buildings. Residential structures are concentrated in two areas of the Redevelopment Area -- along the eastern end of Plain Avenue, and along the southern side of Pleasant Street abutting the Thruway. Of the 179 tax parcels within the Redevelopment Area, 58 currently do not support a structure, although several are being used for outside storage of vehicles, equipment, construction materials, or junk. Many of the vacant parcels and open storage uses are located along Fifth Avenue, a street linkage which provides visibility. The locations of these uses are shown in Figure 2-9, Land Uses in Primary Study Area, and various figures in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy. With regard to the views of the Redevelopment Area from the public spaces on the north side of Fifth Avenue, the following information is generated from the various figures in Chapter 3.1. Forty-nine (49) percent of the Fifth Avenue frontage currently consists of open parking and industrial storage lots; 20 percent consists of industrial buildings; 12 percent consists of retail, personal service or office uses; 12 percent is vacant; and seven (7) percent is in residential use. View Corridors As described above, the existing local street pattern generally provides limited opportunities for public visual access to the Redevelopment Area. There are two street corridors, which allow direct and close up views of the Redevelopment Area: Fifth Avenue and the New England Thruway. In addition, views from William Flower Park are unobstructed. These view corridors are not considered to be unique nor critical, in that they do not provide visual experiences that are unique to the New Rochelle area. They do, however, provide the widest visual exposure to the Redevelopment Area for the greatest number of potential viewers. 3.6-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS 1 I mow,_ lit... ``..— '-- �". it f , `4N..S l q:fir . `3r - i4 n t lit } �y !� y/ e: } - a i WON, F F s I. r r , : w.. Figure 3.6-6: Existing View Looking Southwest From Fifth Avenue Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York MCG Architecture 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004, Tel: (212)425-0744, Fax: (212)425-0744 Job# 00.300.01 -04/18/00 Scale: Not to Scale 1111 . , , .. , .. __________ .....„ _ 4. „,,,:,, ,'-'-'..-70,,,,, • - '',''-; 4—, ..,,-t, l''.''';'1,70" � „w--- i- - . :1.-..”- , '-"'-Z4,‘, - ' ' -; 4.7.' -•- - "..4441P1''';4'..'.-::::: ' I .,_,,,,.,i,-- ^ "' „Qtr , . . .-40. a � 7w �w»L Y -.,1-. N. iitt . .. wred s {WP YY !e t ."°` www �=AS w a '� _ # � .„ .w 100. vt. ter,. 9-�.,"'�...•• ' Figure 3.6-7: ExistingView Lookin Northwest From New En land Thruway Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York MCG Architecture 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004,Tel: (212)425-0744, Fax: (212)425-0744 Job# 00.300.01 04/18/00 Scale: Not to Scale I , ! - . ., , .i,„. ._,. , . . , r . .... ..,, ....,. 1 ‘, : . 1 , . V% .r F 00 t4:'i''''r - •p t is .tA 00 r 4. X 3' -...._. wr . t rt. I ..... .... ,�,,. — y...117::::. . V c yam.. .n..M+„ -. .-� n yr iriett.itt; A u ''ii Figure 3.6-8: Existing View Looking East from Portman Road Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project ICity of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: TMA Site Visit 5/99 File 9916 Fig 3.6-8 TMA 08/11/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516 (845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 265-4418 ......_.... • I VC`44 ' • --,--44,,,,,,_ ,.* i ,i . ....... 1 '' • * - •,4 ',...,- . -----''''-••44.\\\\ • , -, if 4 ''• "t/i \ ' hi4. •t` 1 0 1, I . . , . . .- , _. i . 0 ' , - ;rm. , 9 ., , .. 1 '4 . - i T,4 Ii.- „ 1,- — • vt4 # . • -..41410 .. • •• - : 464 WI. 4 ii- --'; \"• N‘sj . •A '.. ..- .. .. . , . tt •,• (1 ' i. {r, , ..„, - ,tro• , . 71\ kk ' 's.N... N.,...,.....____ ,. . . 6.. -4/11/ • ..,.. _. ...,•.: ... .... .. . „,.. • _... . _ ...... • Blockn s Ots of irregular shape and — __ ___. ......... ,_ ---- ...„......... ....... insufficient size.for effective develo • ment. ve-- .. • Obsolete laVouts. ., , ... ,s •• .... ........ , • Stagnant and unproductive condit a Figure 3.6-9a: Existing Visual Character - Plain Avenue Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: New Rochelle Department of Development, 2000 File 9916 Fig 3.6-9a vcpa TMA 08/08/00 4110iiik, -, Al "lift '10r404.., -47 1 I °mow Mil�.r.. .• . 4,, 1 .1,1/0 11111111111111110 IIIII el i.wa3IIIIIIMIR � 3 • i :•-- If I r • •'' ' • - • o a a e �� w .r ,iii • tI k: : ,� - I contain buildings t "fair physical �� : a. k' On1 _j�, 114 wltich detract4frt a overall character of the , 1 de . _ ,, .., Figure 3.6-9b: Existing Visual Character - Plain Avenue Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: New Rochelle Department of Development, 2000 File 9916 Fig 3.6-9b vcpa TMA 08/08/00 1 f�.�-. I ff / ..'. -' ' :'.."------:--.: . - . Z4ts,„ ..:.N." 1. ...,' ,Iv ," y �. _ - ', � / .��'', '--! j� ' t ; W. I dy —l4" : *„. 1;.1r • 4.41 810 09 r i !-�+�..A. .. r �IILYV. f •, t "--1 i'"� - •• -- ° .. JL am•• y w s ifki)1 r _,",„ `t I jl _-. -- . I ,� -te .�.s-^�••�.Jf� i t a. ^_L \,, 3 '�'7.:. Rail rte. i` li• r - e, ocks and f RI Ildal� spa � � d 9 � .� -7- iil tfficlent Si of •` M''. ' eih a fes:Js Figure 3.6-9c: Existing Visual Character - Plain Avenue Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: TMA Site Visit, 2000 File 9916 Fig 3.6-9c vcpa TMA 08/08/00 .....-.-"'"*""j".4 -,. \ -41111111111111.1111111111117ti +. # `r . c a lb i -- \ i' ,. - �+`e1M1 - e 4 4.'" ....we ' a 1 y ' y I `.. ni ti a • -� � �� -M Zvi'. i so + l w t c ir - .tatio *Ill .,._ ilikl,:.\;J\ i , } L , . . . • ...... 1 a, II 44;//ti t .. .,, . . . -- -- * - - ' - - • n d era' :;;,:3 o I, 0+..16'+r _k a.s C... ` ae. tylia i Li ndii�h 1• •. 71► V their con I 0 ;: by � 0*; rapt the overall land pattern and detract from the character of the neighborhood. -• Incompatibility of existing mixture of residential and industrial property. • Inadequacy of the streets. Figure 3.6-10: Existing Visual Character - Pleasant Street Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: TMA Site Visit, 2000 File 9916 Fig 3.6-10 vcps TMA 08/08/00 In' .....limuins, --"•••.......... '''''.•-.. ..." .,, —1 i i 36''''•-ii....,.„............................................................._ •-,,,, '......:: --.., . , . ., 7,..: 416...„ ,,- •:15. 1 is . 1.47:4111t, — , ---„,......... --,..-.-„,......4.skr, . , dr : ,,,,4401.0 , ....orso•rwriMMINNIM."1111111111111111". •'• • le• `......shor..,.......... _ • • - it* 40.,• ,-- 1. '.4. illb I ' 401 ir e # "*".. 14,- • s, - Vth II tit ' " 1 ' — ,,...,. , $# 1 k • X , ...,'. ---- ------- , . .... ...,. ... .,.... _ ' • Propertks 1 in bill 1 i . ated as being .. in "poor" or "deteriorated.04, physical condition. • ..,.. • Properties with more than one principal building --- that exhibit conflicting land uses. • Non-conforming uses. 411111•01.!.'- .... .. _,..._ Figure 3.6-11a: Existing Visual Character - Fifth Avenue Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: New Rochelle Department of Development, 2000 File 9916 Fig 3.6-8a vc TMA 08/08/00 • 7:_.-V •:.*-",'..t-Ikti,?1,-;" ..-*""'7 - - -- - ---, - """,, _,c ,.i.',71- .-.4.`"-':Ar-%„-, ,s, „. `• -.....,,„.4.46. • r 8 ...., ...' 32-38 ... .. " -... 1 - hilk.„ - . - • ........ ENNA a.m. -•*..,,,,,,, Kr ,Alilli IMIll ^ ' e 41 ' . . • -- • .• Vig'1.%414, ,'• .P. : •4* O i . 4At, ill ,_4 _ lir -— -- • ? , .. eggillia. 1' w - - - - 1.....•- --- , Properties that contain buildings rated as bei ; - - - - ,. ...... ___ in "1116r" or "deteriorated physical condition. - - - --.- - ' -- ' -- ' „„„ -- ....„ Blocks and lots of irregular shape and . - 4 . Insuffitient size for effective development ..,. , . Olvsolete layouts. „. Figure 3.6-11b: Existing Visual Character - Fifth Avenue Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: New Rochelle Department of Development, 2000 File 9916 Fig 3.6-8b vc TMA 08/08/00 MINION••••• •.• ___ _____ __ __, ______ _____ ____ _ +.,..„,,..................._____ sowommstiliwo \ . -AV 1 1,.• ‘'1 . A, 'At .• •. . ,• • .'',.. ' ,4..4 t -es.„ • •;• .. • , " ...... '''• . — s • ' 4', •• --.., ,•NA / ,44S;, ‘A`..,' A A, .n , _ we-- , *:.4.1... -. . ", - . '. • • , AA , ; -, c",. . - • . . .‘. 1. . • ,.• , , ,•,, .,. . • . : . 'V 7:..tf If• • • V‘'::" . I . • N 4.y• ::'...e 1 V.' . - 1•T . 't• .. , ;01.. ..... gin • . t - loft 'P . A ',, *1 • "VA..•.,14.': , lk .its..0.-.LE. 4. ...„.....„ ..-,. _ . ,, . '„Normerilllaillj • --- . 9 -" — — S. illtri .Rji 40 aP '" z - 4111 Mt. " . ' •—IP 11 . 'r I . ,.. ANABN40111t• 14111111, M —re. .,...,,Nit.....,:- — ..... ''',. "7'14•Hiliatire011614100r4 e .. - • Properties with more than one principal • I that exhibit conflicting land uses. ......, — •r land use , ,...,------ a • . t of vacant land. Figure 3.6-11c: Existing Visual Character - Fifth Avenue Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: New Rochelle Department of Development, 2000 File 9916 Fig 3.6-8c vc TMA 08/08/00 Visual Character September 14, 2000 Visual Relationships Between the Redevelopment Area and the Surrounding Areas The visual character of the Redevelopment Area generally blends with that of the immediate neighboring urban area. The visual relationships experienced within the various streets of the Redevelopment Area itself, or between the proposed Redevelopment Area and the surrounding area, generally lack distinguishing points of interest, architectural landmarks, or other visual curiosities. Topography and the urban setting play a part in the definition of visual character around the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Area and the lands to the north, east and south, are generally situated at the same topographic elevation, where the buildings block potential long range views and thereby limit visual exposure to features in the immediate area of the viewer's position. However, there are distinct visual features, which characterize the Redevelopment Area differently from adjoining areas. The park setting to the north, which visually carries onto the MacLeay Apartment property, provides extensive open green space for recreational use in contrast to the development of Retail Center Project site. This distinction is evident in the panoramic photographs in Figures 3.6-3 and 3.6-4a. Properties immediately east of the proposed Retail Center Project site on the east side of Valley Place located in the Town of Mamaroneck, share similar uses and appearances to those in the Redevelopment Area. However, properties further to the east, which include the Thruway Authority maintenance yard and a variety of retail and residential uses along Fifth Avenue (which share similar activities to those in the Redevelopment Area), have a distinctively more organized and cleaner appearance. Outside yards are generally better maintained and screened without the appearance from the road of clutter, which is typical within the Redevelopment Area. The facilities in this area appear to have more on-site parking, therefore less parking on the streets. Properties immediately west of the Redevelopment Area to Potter Avenue, which support predominantly commercial uses, have an appearance similar to those in the Redevelopment Area, with little setbacks of buildings or fenced storage yards from the road. Properties along Potter Avenue and west of it, however, have a different appearance attributable to the abrupt change in topography. To the south, the Thruway corridor creates a major physical and visual separation between properties to its north and south. The Thruway carries a visual character distinct from any other activity in the area immediately south of the proposed Retail Center Project site, particularly with the expansive toll booth complex, Thruway yard, on and off ramps, and railroad. Properties south of the Thruway corridor support well maintained, orderly residential and retail/office uses which are developed with lawns and streetscape treatment clearly unlike properties in the Redevelopment Area. The uses in this area have more on-site parking facilities, in addition to delineated street parking. As further described below, the generally rundown appearance of the Redevelopment Area distinguishes its visual character from the surrounding area. 3.6-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Visual Character September 14, 2000 Critical Features and "Links" The public park use and the grounds of the public housing development immediately to the north of the Redevelopment Area potentially provide the greatest visual exposures (visual sensitivity) to a large number of stationary viewers. Stationary viewers experience greater exposure to views than do people in motion, such as in moving vehicles. Similarly, people engaged in passive activities experience greater visual exposure to their surroundings than do people distracted by their activities. The users of the Park and adjacent housing site are generally involved in recreational or passive activities unlike the commercial activities in the Redevelopment Area. Likewise, six residences located on the west side of the Redevelopment Area (three on Plain Avenue and three on Portman Road) are also considered sensitive visual receptors. No other critical visual features, or "links" between features, were identified in the field survey of the Visual Study Area which would potentially expose sensitive visual receptors to conflicting uses. Exterior Lighting Existing lighting in the Redevelopment Area provides nighttime illumination typical of an older urban area where light levels are generally lower than modern urban settings. Fifth Avenue is lit by a line of street lights along the south side of the street as well as from play field floodlighting in William Flower Park. Thruway floodlighting at the tollbooths illuminate the entire south side of the Redevelopment Area. In addition, the two existing billboards on the south side of the Redevelopment Area are brightly lit and add to the ambient lighting. All local streets are lit by street lights, as is the public housing property to the north of the Redevelopment Area. Various parking areas and commercial lots in the Redevelopment Area are lit with floodlights, as well as the Thruway Authority maintenance lot to the east of the Redevelopment Area. Existing lighting creates a pattern of urban illumination generally following the east-west streets (Fifth Avenue, Plain Avenue and Pleasant Street), which have street lights generally spaced 100 to 120 feet apart. This spacing produces bright areas under the lights and relatively dark areas between lights. Portman Road and Biehn Street also have similar spaced street lights, while Valley Place has no consistent lighting pattern, its street lights being located only at the intersections of the east-west streets approximately 275 feet apart. In total, some 41 street lights exist in and at the perimeter of the Redevelopment Area. Additional illumination coming from various buildings and area lights provides infill lighting but does not noticeably add to the street illumination. Use and Type of Materials, Bulk and Scale The structures in the Secondary Study Area range from one to seven stories in height. The construction is of mixed materials, but generally it is wood frame for homes, and combinations of masonry, wood and steel in commercial structures, multistory residential buildings and public facilities. The architectural character of these buildings varies widely, as further described below, while the bulk and scale of buildings generally range from small to moderate sizes, closely situated on small lots and creating an urban setting. 3.6-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Visual Character September 14, 2000 The structures in the Redevelopment Area are mostly one to two and one half stories in height. The construction is of mixed materials, but generally it is wood frame with typical residential materials for homes, and combinations of masonry, wood and steel in commercial structures and public facilities such as the New England Thruway Authority maintenance buildings east of the Redevelopment Area on Fifth Avenue, and the toll plaza on the Thruway itself. Views of the Redevelopment Area Figures 3.6-2, 3.6-3, and 3.6-4a provide current panoramic views of the Redevelopment Area as seen from the New England Thruway to the south, MacLeay Apartments to the north, and William Flower Park to the north, respectively. Figure 3.6-4b illustrates the general character of the Fifth Avenue corridor adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. Figures 3.6-5, 3.6-6, and 3.6-7 provide additional existing views from William Flower Park, Fifth Avenue at Valley Place, and the New England Thruway, respectively. Traffic, Air Quality, Noise and Other Factors Affecting Visual Character Most of the nonresidential uses occur on lots with little or no off-street parking. As a result, streets and front yards are often used for vehicle parking or repair. This, in conjunction with the large amount of deliveries to the area establishments and the large number of transportation-related uses, causes congestion along area roadways. These activities, which contribute to traffic congestion, air quality and noise, directly influence the visual character of the Redevelopment Area and its environs. An assortment of overhead utility lines along the south side of Fifth Avenue and a lack of street trees denigrate the visual character of this corridor. There are no other apparent physical factors, which would affect visual character. Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Visual Character The visual character of the Redevelopment Area and immediately adjacent developed areas reflects older, mixed use development. The slow transition from residential to commercial uses that are predominantly auto repair-related has provided little incentive for significant investment in the existing building stock. The small lot sizes have further constrained the commercial uses to make significant economic investment. Therefore, the appearance of the Redevelopment Area is generally run down, typical of disinvestment. In addition to the older buildings, public investments have languished as well. Streets, curbs, sidewalks, and streetscape amenities such as street trees and turf, have all deteriorated over the years due to little capital improvement resources. There are few street trees, and those that can be found are generally in poor health. 3.6.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions In the absence of urban renewal, the future of the Redevelopment Area with respect to visual conditions would be expected to remain substantially unchanged from the land use development pattern and visual character that currently exist. There is little evidence that upgrading of commercial buildings and properties or acquisition of adjoining lots for the purpose of expansion has occurred in recent years and many discussions with existing owners in the proposed Redevelopment Area have generally not revealed plans to do so. There is no existing urban fabric that would lend itself to a cohesive landscape or architectural design in this 3.6-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Visual Character September 14, 2000 neighborhood and thus, efforts to establish a more attractive urban character in the future without government incentives is expected to be very low. It is also unlikely that existing residences, which are nonconforming uses under current zoning, would experience much new investment as the housing is generally occupied by long time residents and remains relatively inexpensive and of questionable market value due to its location within a dominantly commercial setting. Existing zoning allows mixed commercial and light manufacturing uses, not residences. The existing residential uses would remain interspersed within this mixed use area until displaced by commercial uses. Given the area's established use patterns, its juxtaposition to the New England Thruway, and its M-1 zoning designation, it is likely that the area would continue to support an increasing mix of automotive repair, vehicle storage, and open contractor-type uses and its visual character would remain relatively unchanged without the Retail Center Project. 3.6.3 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions Construction of the Retail Center Project would result in a significant change in the visual environment of this neighborhood. Existing mixed use buildings, outside storage yards, extensive areas of chain link fencing, and large areas allocated to vehicular storage would be replaced by a modern, single use retail building with ancillary parking and circulation, and associated landscaping. The anticipated result would be a different visual environment with new building and new streetscape initiatives. The Retail Center Project would command a prominent position in the neighborhood, both as viewed from the Thruway and as experienced from the Fifth Avenue street corridor. The proposed Retail Center Project would replace mixed development with a single highly visible presence. Relationships Between Proposed Retail Center Project Site and Surrounding Area The proposed Retail Center Project would introduce a single 218,000 square foot (footprint) building, 36 feet in height, with a flat roof, in an area dominated by buildings which are generally between 1,000 and 5,000 square feet in footprint with varied pitched and flat roofs, 20 to 30 feet in height. The Retail Center Project would include exterior parking surfaces on three sides of the building ranging from about 147,250 square feet on the south side to about 37,800 square feet on the east side, in an area now containing numerous small off-street parking and vehicle storage areas, extensive on-street parking, and congested conditions. Approximately 50 percent (722 feet) of the street frontage of the Redevelopment Area (1,461 feet) would be occupied by the building, the balance would be entrance drives and landscaped parking areas. The proposed uniform building color (blue with yellow accents) and boxy mass would introduce a significant contrast to the existing variety of colors, textures and styles of buildings in the Secondary Study Area. These relationships, while in sharp contrast to existing conditions, are not considered adverse visual effects as they are characteristic of modern urban architecture which, when placed immediately adjacent to a major regional vehicular corridor (and view corridor), provide a landmark quality, which at present does not exist. The mass of the proposed building would occupy the Fifth Avenue view corridor to a greater extent than the existing variety of building facades due to its length and color, and would provide a more unified 3.6-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Visual Character September 14, 2000 street scene than now exists. In terms of visual character, the proposed development would replace the incongruous variety of existing buildings and uses with a single architectural element and activity associated with a single use. Figures 2-5, 2-6, 2-7 and 2-8 depict proposed views of the building facade, as seen from the north, east, south, and west, respectively. Whether viewed from any side, the building design incorporates a single architectural theme in its shape, color, and texture, with contrasting color accents in signage and entrance area treatments. Figures 2-10a and 2-10b depict the architectural details on the North and West, and South and East building elevations, respectively. As can be seen in Figures 2-5 and 2-6, people at nearby viewpoints on local streets north and east and at the adjacent park to the north would see the continuous roof line and building facade with little exposure to parking and circulation areas on the proposed Retail Center Project site. The majority of the parking would not be visible from these nearby viewpoints as about 60 percent of the proposed parking spaces would be located on the lower level of the two-level parking structure. Most of the remaining parking would also not be readily visible from any single viewpoint on local streets north and east or in the park to the north as it would be hidden behind the building itself. The closest users of the William Flower Park (i.e., those sitting in bleachers) would be situated at least 85 feet from the Fifth Avenue facade of the proposed Retail Center Project structure. Residents of the MacLeay Apartments would be 350 feet or more from the northern facade of the proposed Retail Center Project structure. Existing residential and commercial structures to the east of the proposed building along the east side of Valley Place in Mamaroneck would all be greater than 170 feet from the eastern facade of the proposed Retail Center Project structure. These views would significantly change from the existing views, as can be seen in comparing Figures 3.6-5 to 2-5, and Figures 3.6-6 to 2-6. As viewed from the Thruway (see Figure 2-7), the continuous building facade would be visible, accompanied by the prominent building entrance area. The surface parking in front of the building would also appear at approximately eye height as viewed from vehicles on the Thruway, buffered by landscape plantings along the length of the Retail Center Project. The nearest potential stationary viewers to the south of the Redevelopment Area (south of the Thruway) would be located approximately 900 feet away from the proposed Retail Center Project structure and almost 700 feet away from the main parking deck area. As indicated above, views toward the Redevelopment Area are constrained by the vegetation along the rear property lines of these buildings, the presence of the railroad with its overhead power lines and support structures, the solid concrete barriers in the center of the Thruway, as well as the activity in the Thruway corridor itself. The edge of pavement for the New England Thruway would be situated approximately 280 feet from the Retail Center Project structure and more than 70 feet from the parking deck. Viewers from the Thruway corridor would experience a direct view of the front of the proposed building, the parking deck, and landscape treatment along the highway frontage. (Compare Figure 3.6-7 to 2-7.) 3.6-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Visual Character September 14, 2000 West of the Redevelopment Area, one commercial and three residential structures located on the south side of Plain Avenue would be 65 feet from the boundary of the uncovered parking area on the west side of the proposed retail structure. The nearest of these structures to the Retail Center Project structure, which houses the DERF Corporation, would be more than 100 feet from the Retail Center Project's loading area. The three residential structures on Plain Avenue are situated some 10 to 20 feet in elevation above the Retail Center Project site and would have direct views of the west side parking area, the loading dock area, and the building itself. These residences would be located 200 to 300 feet from the loading area. These views would change from the existing views of on- and off-street parking, a loading area and the tops of various commercial buildings to similar views of the proposed Retail Center Project. Properties with structures housing the existing pizza restaurant on the corner of Fifth Avenue and Portman Road and the existing two-family residence on Portman Road abut the western boundary of the Redevelopment Area. The rear of these structures would be located over 400 feet from the loading bays and the western facade of the proposed Retail Center Project structure. Views from these locations would change from the existing two-story commercial building to the proposed landscaped at-grade parking area and building beyond. Three residences located on the west side of Portman Road facing Plain Avenue would also view the proposed Retail Center Project site from a distance of approximately 660 feet. Existing views of the various buildings and on-street parking on Plain Avenue would be replaced with views of a portion of the proposed building including the loading dock and parking deck and the landscaped at-grade parking adjacent to Plain Avenue from this view point. Figures 3.6-8 and 2-8 depict the existing and proposed conditions, respectively. Light and Air As the proposed Retail Center Project would occupy an area which is now developed with buildings 2 to 21/2 stories in height, no significant change from existing conditions is expected with regard to exposure to sunlight for surrounding properties. For this assessment, a screening analysis was undertaken to determine whether an adverse shadow impact would be expected to result from the Retail Center Project. The New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Manual, 1993 defines adverse shadow impact as a circumstance in which a built structure blocks direct sunlight from falling on the land surface located in a publicly accessible open space, historic resource, or important natural feature and adversely effects its use or its vegetation. Shadows occurring within an hour and a half of sunrise or sunset are not considered significant and are not considered here. (All calculations are based on solar orientation at approximately 41° latitude.) Shadows on city streets and sidewalks or other buildings are not considered significant. For structures less than 50 feet in height, no assessment of shadows is generally necessary, but since the proposed Retail Center Project site is adjacent to a public park used for recreation and covered with turf, the screening analysis was conducted. William Flower Park is considered the only sensitive receptor in the Visual Study Area with regard to shadows. The longest possible shadow that any structure will cast during the year will occur on December 21 within an hour and a half of sunrise or sunset. At this time, the longest shadow will be 4.27 times the height of the structure. With the proposed building height of 36 feet, the maximum shadow would extend to 154 feet beyond the north and west faces of the building. (As the 3.6-10 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Visual Character September 14,2000 topography of the adjacent Park is generally level with the Retail Center Project site, no adjusting factor is used in this calculation.) The shadow would extend approximately 90 feet onto the lawn of the Park property. Since this would be a wintertime condition when the Park would experience the least amount of public use, and the turf would be dormant, a secondary screen was conducted for shadows occurring in the months of March through September. The longest shadow during the period of March 21 through September 21 would be 3.30 times the building height, or 119 feet beyond the north and west faces of the proposed building. Such a shadow would extend across Fifth Avenue to approximately 7 feet inside the Park property, and would occur at approximately 7:30 AM. By 7:50 AM, the shadow would have moved off of the Park. Based on this assessment, there would be no adverse shadow impact from the Retail Center Project on any sun-sensitive receptor in the within the Visual Study Area. The proposed development would fully comply with §331-53F.(1)(c)[2] of the City of New Rochelle Zoning Ordinance which limits shadow coverage at noon to "no more than 75 percent of the usable open space on December 22 and 50 percent thereof on June 22". No measurable change in visual character as it relates to air circulation or "airiness" is expected from this proposal; the low profile of the building would preserve the exposure to the open sky now experienced from the Fifth Avenue corridor. From other streets at the eastern and western perimeters of the Redevelopment Area, and from the Thruway, the Retail Center Project is not expected to change the "airiness" of the neighborhoods to any measurable extent. Night Lighting A hierarchy of exterior lighting is proposed for the Retail Center Project. This hierarchy would include: pole mounted street and sidewalk lighting along Fifth Avenue, area lighting to provide general illumination over all of the parking and loading areas; entrance area lighting, and building illumination on the south facade. The proposed exterior lighting would create illumination unlike the pattern of lighting which currently exists in the Redevelopment Area. Lighting would be concentrated on the parking, loading, and entrance areas of the development which occupy the west, south and east sides of the Retail Center Project site. Areas illuminated by typical street light intensities (1.5 foot-candles or greater from pole-mounted lights) would comprise open pavement areas (approximately 1.9, 3.9 and 1.3 acres in size, respectively) as opposed to 40 to 60 foot wide street corridors as presently exist. The central portions of these pavement areas would receive greater illumination due to the grid pattern of pole spacing as opposed to the linear pattern of existing street lights. By contrast, the proposed Retail Center building footprint, covering some 5.0 acres (33 percent) of the site, would be devoid of exterior illumination as opposed to the existing buildings which are generally between 1,000 and 5,000 square feet in footprint. Development of the Retail Center Project would remove 30 of some 41 existing street lights in the Redevelopment Area. Existing street lights on Biehn Street and Fifth Avenue adjacent to the Redevelopment Area would be replaced with new 250 watt metal hallide (WMH) pole mounted lights. Street lighting levels on Portman Road, the west end of Plain Avenue, and Valley Place (where existing street lights would remain) would remain generally unchanged, with minor light spill over (on the order of 0.2 foot-candle) from the adjoining parking and circulation areas proposed. Pole lighting on the Redevelopment Area site would be proposed in 3.6-11 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Visual Character September 14, 2000 a grid pattern (400 WMH) at a spacing of 100 to 120 feet in the at-grade parking areas on the east and west sides of the building, somewhat increasing the level of illumination from existing levels as described above. Pole lighting of the main parking deck on the south side of the proposed building would be located at 80 foot spacing around the perimeter (400 WMH) and 130 foot spaced double luminaries (double 400 WMH) in the interior of the deck, producing light levels significantly brighter than existing conditions in the Redevelopment Area. Lighting of the ground level parking and entrance areas would be largely contained within the structure, with minor light spill over to adjoining areas (less than 1.0 foot-candle). Building mounted IKEA signs would be internally lit, not unlike existing signs, and not measurably contributing to ambient light levels. Security lighting levels proposed around the building during nighttime hours when the store would be closed (approximately one-third of the total number of light fixtures lit) are expected to provide an overall level of illumination which would be similar to the ambient light levels existing. The change in lighting levels over much of the Retail Center Project site would be directly evident from viewpoints in the immediate vicinity. Residences located immediately west of the Redevelopment Area (on Plain Avenue and Portman Road) would experience direct exposure to night lighting from the proposed parking and loading areas. A residence located opposite the site on the east side of Valley Place would also experience direct exposure from the eastern at-grade parking area. These easterly and westerly views would be softened somewhat by evergreen plantings proposed along the perimeter of the parking and circulation areas. The MacLeay Apartments located northeast of the Redevelopment Area would also experience increased night lighting of the proposed eastern parking area and entrance drive, though this effect would be ameliorated by distance to the viewer, some 350 feet or more. The front entrance area of the proposed Retail Center Project facing the Thruway would provide the most prominent nighttime exposure. The proposed parking deck and entrance area however, as a result of existing floodlighting of the Thruway tollbooth area, would appear in relative similarity to its surroundings as viewed from the Thruway and locations south of the Thruway. A change in ambient nighttime illumination when the store is open with full lighting is not expected to be evident from the extended surrounding area (generally up to one-half mile radius from the Redevelopment Area) as the nighttime "glow" of the existing Thruway toll plaza floodlights would be brighter than the proposed Retail Center Project development. Existing ball field floodlights in William Flower Park would further minimize the change in ambient lighting evident from the proposed Retail Center Project. 3.6.4 Conclusions The signature modern architecture proposed for the Redevelopment Area would replace an incongruous variety of existing buildings, fencing, outside storage and other uses with a single architectural element and activity associated with a single use. This visual change to the neighborhood would be characterized, especially along Fifth Avenue, by new construction of a single building structure at a consistent setback from the street, with new street trees, evergreen trees and deciduous and evergreen shrubs, and elimination of the existing conglomeration of fenced yards, open storage of vehicles and construction materials. (See Figure 2-4b, Site Plan-Ground Level, and Figure 2-12, Landscape Plan.) The articulated Fifth 3.6-12 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Visual Character September 14, 2000 Avenue facade would introduce a consistent architectural feature to this visual corridor. The proposed plantings would soften the impact of the new structure and parking areas, would provide a consistent streetscape along Fifth Avenue, and would appropriately screen or accent portions of the development as viewed from surrounding locations. Coordinated lighting would improve nighttime safety in the Redevelopment Area. Disparate sources, intensities and types of lighting that now exist would be replaced with planned and balanced illumination specifically designed to provide aesthetically pleasing as well as safe levels of lighting for a commercial use. The proposed development would conform with §331-53D.(6) of the City of New Rochelle Zoning Ordinance regarding lighting of off-street parking areas. Lighting fixtures would be selected and oriented so that off-site light spillage would be limited. Changes in nighttime exposure from residential properties in the immediate vicinity would be softened somewhat by evergreen plantings proposed along the perimeter of the parking and circulation areas. The effect of the existing floodlighting at the Thruway toll plaza as well as the ball fields at William Flower Park would further reduce the impact of night lighting in the Visual Study Area. 3.6-13 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Historic and Archeological Resources September 14,2000 3.7 Historic and Archeological Resources 3.7.1 Existing Conditions Archeological Resources Based on City of New Rochelle Building Department and Assessor's Office records, as well as historical records, the area within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area has evolved from a primarily residential area to one dominated by industrial activities and outside storage. Most of the existing and former residential structures in the area were constructed in the early 1900's. Commercial and light industrial uses, many occupying residential structures, have increased steadily since the 1950's. A preliminary survey of the area within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area was conducted by Ernest Wiegand, Consultant in Archeology, to determine the extent of ground disturbance that the Redevelopment Area and its environs have undergone since the area was initially developed. The survey included a site inspection, a review of the geotechnical reports prepared by Whitestone Associates, and a review of historical maps of the Redevelopment Area and its environs. The geotechnical reports are found in Appendix K of this document. The Historic and Archaeological Report is included in Appendix I. Cartographic evidence indicates that the area within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area was not developed until after 1908. In some of the maps, Pine Brook is depicted as cutting through the Redevelopment Area. The Sidney and Neff map of 1851 in Appendix I depicted several houses to the west and north of the Redevelopment Area. The 1900 Bromley and Bromley map included in Appendix I shows the area within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area as open with an unidentified brook (Pine Brook) flowing southeast through the area. The Interstate Map Company Street Map of New Rochelle, circa 1900, depicts the area within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area as still undeveloped, and Pine Brook is shown passing through the western part of the Redevelopment Area. To the south of the Redevelopment Area, several roads which were depicted on the 1900 Bromley and Bromley map are not shown on the Interstate Map of circa 1900. In the 1908 E. Belcher Hyde Atlas, the area within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area is still depicted as open. The confluence of the Pine Brook and Premium River is shown just west of the New Rochelle-Mamaroneck municipal boundary, with Pine Brook flowing somewhat north of the position shown on the circa 1900 Interstate Map. By 1910, the Redevelopment Area is depicted as a new residential subdivision, Fifth Avenue Park, in the Bromley Atlas of Westchester County. Fifth Avenue is shown as well as Plain Avenue, Biehn Street, and Valley Place, crossing the Redevelopment Area. There are nine building lots with structures shown. The 1929 Atlas of Westchester County shows many more lots with residential structures. Pine Brook is shown as rerouted and flowing out of the Redevelopment Area and into Mamaroneck, probably within a pipe. The route of the diverted Pine Brook is also shown on the 1931, 1951, 1990, and 1996 Sanborn Insurance Maps. At the present time Pine Brook drainage is piped through William Flower Park and runs eastward along Fifth Avenue in a box culvert. The Sanborn Maps show that the residential development began to shift to commercial properties 3.7-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Historic and Archeological Resources September 14, 2000 after the 1950's. Several of the residential properties were either removed or incorporated into the commercial development. The geotechnical reports indicate that most of the area within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area was filled. In one boring location, near the center of Plain Avenue, organic silt was found immediately below the fill at a depth of 5 to 6.5 feet. The map evidence indicates that Pine Brook flowed close to this location prior to its diversion between 1908-1910. The boring records indicate that loose sands and some silt typify the soils found under the surface and/or filled areas. Topsoil may have been removed prior to filling during the initial development of the Redevelopment Area, as evidenced by the absence of buried topsoil horizons. In summary, there were no structures in the area within or adjacent to the Redevelopment Area prior to its development sometime between 1908 and 1910. Pine Brook was diverted during that time and piped. The soil borings indicate that almost the entire Redevelopment Area was then filled, possibly after the topsoil horizon was removed. Housing construction followed. Based on this assessment, the consulting archeologist concluded that it is highly unlikely that potentially significant cultural resources of the historic period exist within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. He further found that the possibility for the presence of potentially significant prehistoric cultural resources is also unlikely given the level of disturbance that occurred during the preparation of the area within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area for initial development in the early 20th century. No further archeological and historical investigations in the Redevelopment Area or its environs are recommended. Based upon a review of the information provided above, it is OPRHP's opinion that the proposed Retail Center Project would have no impact upon cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion in the State and National registers of Historic Places. Correspondence from OPHRP is found in Appendix C. Historic Resources The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) was similarly contacted to request existing documentation of historical resources within the Redevelopment Area. According the OPRHP, there are no properties within or adjacent to the Redevelopment Area that are listed on or that have been determined eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. To assist OPRHP in the review of properties within the Redevelopment Area, photographs and a key map of the photographs were provided for all of the structures fifty years and older. These structures are listed in Table 3.7-1. 3.7-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Historic and Archeological Resources September 14, 2000 Table 3.7-1 Redevelopment Area Structures 50 Years and Older Tax Id # Address Type Building Land Year (SF) (ac) Built 894-59 7 Biehn Street 1 Family Residence 1206 0.06 1922 894-60 6 Biehn Street 3 Family Residence 2280 0.11 1921 898-07-10 479 Fifth Avenue gas station 3213 0.20 1930 898-12 491 Fifth Avenue 2 Family Residence 916 0.06 1929 898-13 493 Fifth Avenue Convert Residence 1948 0.06 1905 898-14-17 499 Fifth Avenue Warehouse, Distribution, Storage 3940 0.24 1930 898-31-35 525 Fifth Avenue 1 Family Residence 860 0.29 1922 898-36 535 Fifth Avenue 1 Family Residence 890 0.06 1932 898-37-39 535 1/2 Fifth Avenue Convert Residence 845 0.14 1925 898-40 539 Fifth Avenue 3 Family Residence 934 0.09 1931 898-41 541 Fifth Avenue 1 Family Residence 880 0.06 1929 898-47-56 567 Fifth Avenue Warehouse, Distribution, Storage 6479 0.62 1936 898-63-68 116 Plain Avenue 2 Family Residence 1435 0.37 1914 898-75-76 98 Plain Avenue 1 Family Residence 789 0.11 1922 898-77-78 94 Plain Avenue 1 Family Residence 1998 0.11 1926 898-79-80 88 Plain Avenue 1 Family Residence 995 0.11 1922 898-81-82 84 Plain Avenue 1 Family Residence 1284 0.11 1923 898-87 74 Plain Avenue 2 Family Residence 953 0.06 1914 898-90 68 Plain Avenue 1 Family Residence 1045 0.06 1900 898-93 60 Plain Avenue 1 Family Residence 1584 0.10 1929 898-95-96 56 Plain Avenue Church 875 0.07 1929 903-11-12 50 Pleasant Street 3 Family Residence 3300 0.11 1931 903-15-16 44 Pleasant Street Warehouse, Distribution, Storage 1652 0.23 1914 903-17-18 40-42 Pleasant Street Warehouse, Distribution, Storage 4992 0.23 1914 903-24-25 28 Pleasant Street 1 Family Residence 653 0.11 1923 903-30-31 8 Pleasant Street 1 Family Residence 1560 0.11 1922 903-48 71 Plain Avenue 2 Family Residence 1580 0.08 1914 903-57-59 91 Plain Avenue 2 Family Residence 3093 0.17 1927 903-60-62 95 Plain Avenue Converted Residence 1155 0.17 1938 905-33 23A Pleasant Street Warehouse, Distribution, Storage 728 0.02 1915 905-34 23B Pleasant Street 1 Family Residence 1045 0.02 1915 905-35-36 25 Pleasant Street 2 Family Residence 1518 0.03 1923 905-37-38 29 Pleasant Street 1 Family Residence 731 0.03 1911 905-39-40 31 Pleasant Street 1 Family Residence 1071 0.03 1912 905-41-42 37 Pleasant Street 1 Family Residence 925 0.04 1911 905-43-45 41 Pleasant Street 1 Family Residence 1234 0.07 1924 905-46-47 45 Pleasant Street 2 Family Residence 1421 0.05 1914 905-48-49 49 Pleasant Street 1 Family Residence 988 0.06 1915 905-50-51 53 Pleasant Street Warehouse, Distribution, Storage 1209 0.08 1930 905-55-56 59 Pleasant Street 1 Family Residence 1400 0.08 1932 905-57-58 69 Pleasant Street 2 Family Residence 2461 0.08 1928 905-59 71 Pleasant Street 1 Family Residence 773 0.02 1922 3.7-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Historic and Archeological Resources September 14, 2000 Based upon a review of the information provided above, OPRHP rendered an opinion that there are no buildings in the Redevelopment Area that are eligible for listing in the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Therefore, OPRHP has no concerns regarding historic resources in the Redevelopment Area. Correspondence with OPHRP is found in Appendix C. 3.7.2 Future Conditions with the Proposed Actions Construction of the proposed Retail Center Project in the proposed 14.9-acre Redevelopment Area would require the removal of 66 structures. Of the 66 structures, 33 are commercial or mixed commercial structures, two are churches, and the reminder are residential structures. In addition, Pleasant Street and Biehn Streets would be eliminated and demapped. Plain Avenue would be demapped between Biehn Street and Valley Place. There are no cultural resources in within or adjacent to the Redevelopment Area that are on or eligible for listing in the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Given the level of disturbance that occurred during the preparation of the area within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area in the early 20th century, there would be no potentially significant prehistoric cultural resources impacted. 3.7-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions Definition of Study Areas and Approach Demographic and socioeconomic conditions have been reviewed in this Chapter for the Redevelopment Area (the area to be directly affected by the proposed acquisition and development activities). Information is provided for the existing population and households residing in the Redevelopment Area. Because certain data are published by the Census Bureau at the block group level, rather than the block level, certain attributes of the Redevelopment Area population (such as household income levels in 1990) can only be described for that larger block group area. Because the block group represents a much larger area than the Redevelopment Area, it incorporates areas with different characteristics. Information relative to existing Redevelopment Area businesses is presented in section 3.8.2. Historical changes in the commercial retailing environment in New Rochelle are described in section 3.8.3. For the market analysis and evaluation of the potential for adverse effects on existing retail commercial centers (included as sections 3.8.4 and 3.8.5, respectively), two trade areas are considered -- a five-mile area and 15-mile area. The five-mile area includes the Cities of New Rochelle and Mount Vernon, the Towns of Pelham, Mamaroneck and Eastchester in their entirety, and portions of Scarsdale, Harrison, the Town of Rye and the Cities of Rye, and Yonkers. Northeastern portions of the New York City borough of the Bronx are also included. The five mile study area was evaluated for potential sensitivity to the loss of a major store or anchor (and resulting potential change in character) because of competition engendered by the proposed Retail Center. The area within 15 miles of the proposed Retail Center is considered in the analysis of potential demand for furniture and home furnishings to be the area from which most shoppers traveling to the proposed Retail Center would be drawn. This area includes all of the five-mile area, all of southern and much of central Westchester County, portions of Fairfield County in Connecticut, Rockland County in New York and Bergen and Hudson Counties in New Jersey. All of Bronx County, and portions of Manhattan (New York County), and Queens are also within 15 miles of the proposed Retail Center project site. Changes in the fiscal environment are then discussed. This includes background information on property taxes generated by land uses within the Redevelopment Area, a projection of future property and sales tax revenues, and costs associated with the proposed Retail Center Other information presented herein includes pertinent details related to existing jobs within the redevelopment Area, and the proposed jobs associated with operation of the proposed Retail Center, and their corresponding fiscal effects. 3.8-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 3.8.1 Demographic and Socioeconomic Background City of New Rochelle Changes in Population The population of New Rochelle as a whole decreased by approximately 7.8 percent from its historic peak of 76,812 in 1960 to 70,794 in 1980. In 1980, New Rochelle's population represented approximately 8.2 percent of Westchester County's population. By 1990, the population of New Rochelle had continued to decline to 67,265, a decrease of approximately 5.0 percent from 1980. New Rochelle's 1990 population represented approximately 7.7 percent of the total population in Westchester County that year. Comparatively, the population in the Town of Mamaroneck (which includes the Village of Larchmont and part of the Village of Mamaroneck) also declined by 4.5 percent during the 1980-1990 period from 29,017 to 27,706. Likewise, the Town of Pelham (which includes the Villages of Pelham and Pelham Manor) declined by 8.3 percent, from 12,978 to 11,903, during the same period. The City of Mount Vernon's population increased slightly by approximately 0.7 percent from a 1980 population of 66,713 to a 1990 population of 67,153. The population of the South County area of Westchester County decreased by approximately 1.9 percent between 1980 and 1990 from 632,056 to 620,265 persons. The population of the Central County area of Westchester County increased by approximately 1.5 percent between 1980 and 1990 from 210,131 to 213,474 persons. Population for the City of New Rochelle is projected to increase slightly to approximately 70,000 in the year 2000, and then decrease to 67,500 in the year 2010. As a whole, Westchester County's population is projected to increase to 891,000 in the year 2000, and decrease to 882,000 in the year 2010. Table 3.8-1 summarizes and compares the population and projected populations of the City of New Rochelle, the South and Central County areas, and Westchester County as a whole. 3.8-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-1 Population for New Rochelle, South&Central County Areas, and Westchester County, 1980-1998 Year New % South % Central % Westchester Rochelle Change County Change County Change County Change 1980 70,794 -- 429,919 -- 210,131 -- 866,599 -- 1990 67,265 -5.0 414,943 -1.9 213,474 1.5 874,866 1.0 1998 67,225 -0.06 418,020 0.7 211,710 -0.9 897,920 2.6 (estimate) SOURCE: Westchester County Department of Planning - Databook, 1998, US Census. In July of 1995, the Westchester County Department of Planning projected an increase in County population to 891,000 in the year 2000. As noted in Table 3.8-1 above, recent estimates indicate that the County's population may have exceeded this projection as of midyear 1998. Racial Composition As shown in Table 3.8-2, the racial composition of New Rochelle's population is similar to the racial composition of Westchester County as a whole. However, by comparison, the populations of the Towns of Mamaroneck and Pelham are considerably more homogenous with a predominately white population, while the population of the City of Mount Vernon is much more diverse, with a majority black population. Table 3.8-2 1990 Percentages of Population by Race and Hispanic Origin in New Rochelle, Surrounding Municipalities, and Westchester County Description New Rochelle Mamaroneck Pelham Mount Westchester Vernon County White 76.0% 91.2 % 90.6 % 39.8 % 79.4% Black 18.0% 3.5% 5.2 % 55.3 % 13.7 Asian & Pacific Islander 2.9 % 3.6% 3.5 % 1.8 % 3.7 Other Races 3.0% 1.7% 0.7 % 3.1 % 3.2 Hispanic** 10.8 % 7.3% 3.6% 7.8 % 9.8 % **Hispanic population may be of any race SOURCE:Westchester County Department of Planning -Databook, 1996 Income Characteristics The 1980 and 1990 median income levels of households in New Rochelle, as well as the surrounding municipalities and Westchester County are presented in Table 3.8-3. As shown, the median household income levels for New Rochelle were lower in both 1980 and 1990 than the county as a whole and then each of the surrounding municipalities with the exception of Mount Vernon. Between 1980 and 1990, the percent increase in household median income for New Rochelle was lower than all of the surrounding municipalities, except for the Village of Mamaroneck. The overall increases in median household incomes noted during the 1980 to 3.8-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 1990 period are partially attributable to inflation, and partially attributable to an influx of higher-income residents during this period. Table 3.8-3 Median Household Income in New Rochelle, Surrounding Municipalities, and Westchester County, 1980-1990 1980 1990 Percent Geography Median Median Change Household Household City of New Rochelle $20,906 $43,482 108.0 Town of Mamaroneck $33,828 $77,926 130.4 Village of Mamaroneck $23,349 $47,159 102.0 Village of Larchmont $32,520 $77,649 138.8 Village of Pelham $24,888 $56,720 127.9 Village of Pelham Manor $35,428 $78769 122.3 City of Mount Vernon $15,993 $34,850 117.9 Westchester County $22,727 $48,405 113.0 SOURCE: Westchester County Department of Planning - Databook, 1996; & Data Sheet, June 1985 Households and Housing The average number of persons per household in New Rochelle decreased to 2.6 in 1990 from an average of 2.7 in 1980. The Westchester County 1990 average was also 2.6 persons per household, which dropped from a 1980 average of 2.8. As shown in Table 3.8-4 southern Westchester municipalities experienced modest increases in the number of housing units during the 1980 to 1990 period compared to the percentage increase that the County as a whole experienced during the same period. Table 3.8-4 Total Housing Units --Southern Westchester Municipalities and Westchester County Geography 1980 1990 % Change City of New Rochelle 26,225 26,404 0.7 Town of Mamaroneck* 13,178 13,602 3.2 Town of Pelham** 4,317 4,379 1.4 City of Mount Vernon 26,189 26,228 0 Westchester County 316,658 336,727 6.3 * Includes Villages of Mamaroneck and Larchmont ** Includes Villages of Pelham and Pelham Manor SOURCE:Westchester County Planning Department- Databook, 1996. 3.8-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14,2000 Redevelopment Area Population Characteristics Wherever possible, census data have been gathered at the census block level. Data available at this level include total population, population below and over the age of 18 years, and population by race and Hispanic origin. For other relevant demographic and socioeconomic parameters such as household income and housing characteristics, data incorporating the Redevelopment Area are only available at the block group level (which aggregates block information) in order to assure the privacy of individual residents. Consequently, some of the population data is presented for this larger block group area, reflecting the inclusion of nearby sections of New Rochelle, which have different characteristics than the Redevelopment Area. For the 1990 Census, the portion of the Redevelopment Area north of Plain Avenue was within census tract 65, block group 1. The remainder of the Redevelopment Area was within census tract 65, block group 2. Figure 3.8-1 shows the Redevelopment Area in relation to Tract 65, block groups 1 and 2. As can be seen in Figure 3.8-1, both block groups incorporate large sections of the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the west, north and northwest of the Redevelopment Area. In terms of Census blocks, the block formed by Portman Road, Fifth Avenue, Valley Place and Plain Avenue has been considered to be block 107 since the 1970 Census. In 1960, this block was designated as block 22. The block formed by Biehn Street, Plain Avenue, Valley Place and Pleasant Street has been designated as block 201 since the 1970 Census; in 1960, this block was designated as block 44. The remainder of the Redevelopment Area has been part of block 202 since the 1970 Census; in 1960, this block was designated as two blocks -- 67 and 68. Block 202 encompasses the remaining portions of the neighborhood west of Valley Place, south of Pleasant Street, north of the Thruway, and east of Portman Road. Southwesterly portions of block 202 abut the east side of Potter Avenue. 3.8-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-5 Redevelopment Area: Historical Population Comparison Total Population Geography 1990 1980 1970 1960 Tract 65. Block Group 1 1,170 1,270 1,557 Tract 65, Block Group 2 236 257 457 Redevelopment Area Blocks Block 107(part of BG 1) 94 81 130 219 Block 201 (part of BG 2) 45 75 96 112 Block 202 (part of BG 2) 67 68 95 139 Redevelopment Area and Environs**(3 Blocks) 206 224 321 470 % of 1960 Population 44% 48% 68% 100% Source: US Census Bureau `Block groups did not exist for the 1960 Census. *Redevelopment Area comprises most of block 107, all of block 201 and a portion of block 202. Figure 3.8-1 shows the Redevelopment Area in relation to Tract 65, block groups 1 and 2. As can be seen in Figure 3.8-1, both block groups ncorporate large sections of the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the west, north and northwest of the Redevelop- ment Area. n 1960, block 107 = block 22; block 201 =44; block 202 = 67&68; block 106 =23; and block 203 =41. As can be seen in Table 3.8-5 above, by 1990, population in the Redevelopment Area was less than half of the level which was noted thirty years earlier in the 1960 Census. Since 1990, a number of additional residential structures have either been razed or converted to nonresidential use within the Redevelopment Area. Thus, in conjunction with demographic changes, the overall number of persons residing within the Redevelopment Area is expected to exhibit a further decline when the results of the 2000 Census are published. Table 3.8-6 summarizes selected demographic characteristics for these two block groups including: total 1990 population, percent of population that is nonwhite, percent of population that is Hispanic, percent of population over the age of 65, and the percent of population under the age 18, and compares these to those for the County as a whole. Table 3.8-6 Characteristics of Westchester County &Redevelopment Area Population Geography %Non-White %Hispanic % 65 and Over % Under 18 Tract 65, BG 1 57.7 8.5 7.4 32.2 Tract 65, BG 2 78 10.2 15.2 21.1 Redevelopment Area Blocks 59.8 22.3 NA 25.3 Westchester County 20.2 11.6 14.4 21.7 SOURCE: 1990 US Census,Westchester County Department of Planning Estimates (July 1, 1996). Figure 3.8-1 shows the Redevelopment Area in relation to Tract 65, block groups 1 and 2. As can be seen in Figure 3.8-1, both block groups incorporate large sections of the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the west, north and northwest of the Redevelopment Area. 3.8-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS ii;a 49'1'- i7.' Z.- 5g1AR �v9>• g `• T3•9 j..-• G 707 2Dl cam, - ':.... W 03 <^ n �‘¢¢ 4.0 Iqwo aO �• .. e9 4.' 0 7Wa aa -� 106 ;'} E 10►q' pOa QO z i` veCA. ., !� 02 ./.„Vl k:ga>• :' o• 70. 1 .•••• '. • S 0J � .', 20 ,``'•4ceWOOD a a i Rc 0 Svs WcFqn G .-. °;�'•:. _,. ..e .° 09 : co 644 „ w Psyii 0. tRF 9to lip gJ , . x t" „`: Da •v$ Ri8o C • ii0t� s^tcyF 2` • O ,it. > 1RCM v AK.' o ,'- ,„<!-, ' 01 115 aRt 701 Z ' s* dqC `i.c S b'• -;I a F ° F o % dG114 " 212 e.s•• sE-cti 606 • ael. �o" roe 9 '(u► '.1-0213"%'%;),10 `• l R 603 S13 4.J1 01 113• •2•c'. • o 60l�E - �* g ir ` 4E Vo ly`s\ c,- sc_ `• C.Ji ` c • Ay` io o v i a_. Io( . A7O � IID PaS 'fVOyCo0 \-‘ ,:•‘,41,..• t412 °-44.� : !�� At c...,4t,,, ° so kt- C,w T� AP. 4 i Ili , ' f 40Z 51159 .1. "4 ,{. •' o • 1. - ! � C O, aI ,, o. e y x G s 1 ^Asa°� °or 206 1'� . OS� S. c-,,„. ",,-;,:>:..:::.• P�x6 • `C,y••. R ELHMQ p•� 30E EC* 79 fl .. v! • J *b �. '7:4'* P 7 a. 1+t�� Q4 ..•� 111• Redevelopment s,% ,,,`e� 31: zi-j i;l ( C ' CITY \\ Area PA.* sf�o? NT • � • �; PARK \ IF/ _ � c r e605 �4 311 ~ 312 , •+ .Z�4pl \ ... I I O. \ q1� �a,SO . 6°. T n •w cQ t? A6( `I 41f1 702 �* Gr. I.rSty. .,-sd7 a dtripU- .`,:*612 `r. "= Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Occupational Incomes Table 3.8-7 summarizes the average weekly and yearly wages / salary for New York State employees covered by unemployment insurance for 1997, the latest year for which data have been compiled. As specific data relative to the Redevelopment Area businesses is unavailable, this data provides background relative to the current average compensation level in various industries, some of which are present in the Redevelopment Area. Table 3.8-7 Wage&Salary Summary: 1997 Industry Average Weekly Average Yearly Wage/Salary Wage/Salary Agriculture & Mining $546.47 $28,416 Construction $785.97 $40,870 Manufacturing $1,369.81 $71,230 Transportation & $852.15 $44,312 Public Utilities Wholesale Trade $1,025.02 $53,301 Retail Trade $387.11 $20,130 Finance, Insurance $1,005.74 $52,298 & Real Estate Services $690.62 $35,912 Public Administration $753.74 $39,194 All Industries $767.33 $39,901 Source: NYS Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Market Information While the average wages / salary of those in retail trade is generally lower compared to other industries, it should be noted that the retailing industry employs many persons on a seasonal and part-time basis. Inclusion of this data lowers the yearly average for this category presented in Table 3.8-7. Income Characteristics Table 3.8-8 summarizes income characteristics of block groups 1 and 2 of tract 65, and compares these to New Rochelle and Westchester County as a whole. 3.8-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-8 Westchester County & Redevelopment Area Households and Families: Income Characteristics (1990 US Census) Geography Median Annual Median Annual Per Capita Income Household Income Family Income Tract 65, BG 1 $32,344 $37,679 $11,970 Tract 65, BG 2 $40,000 $58,621 $12,743 New Rochelle $43,482 $55,258 $23,745 Westchester County $48,405 $58,862 $25,584 SOURCE: Westchester County Department of Planning - Databook, 1996. Income data from 1990 Census from information collected relative to 1989 income. Figure 3.8-1 shows the Redevelopment Area in relation to Tract 65, block groups 1 and 2. As can be seen in Figure 3.8-1 both block groups incorporate large sections of the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the west, north and northwest of the Redevelopment Area. Table 3.8-9 provides a distribution of household income for the block groups in which the Redevelopment Area is situated, and compares this distribution to that for the City and the County as a whole. Table 3.8-9 Westchester County & Redevelopment Area Households and Families: Income Distribution(1990 US Census) #of Under $15,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 Over Geography to Households $14,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $150,000 $149,999 Tract 65, BG 1 299 19.7% 10.4% 32.4% 25.1% 12.4% 0.0% Tract 65, BG 2 85 28.2% 21.2% 16.5% 34.1% 0.0% 0.0% New Rochelle 25,317 17.2% 11.5% 27.5% 28.2% 8.2% 7.5% Westchester 320,030 14.4% 10.3% 26.7% 30.9% 9.8% 8.0/o° County SOURCE: Westchester County Department of Planning -Databook, 1996. Income data from 1990 Census from information collected relative to 1989 income. Figure 3.8-1 shows the Redevelopment Area in relation to Tract 65, block groups 1 and 2. As can be seen in Figure 3.8-1 both block groups incorporate large sections of the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the west, north and northwest of the Redevelopment Area. Generally, the Redevelopment Area exhibits certain characteristics that are common to older urban areas. These include a concentration of persons with low to moderate incomes, and a high proportion of children. Approximately 8.7 percent of the total population of the two block groups is age 65 or older; 30.3 percent of the population is under age 18. Median income levels in the Redevelopment Area are significantly lower than in the City of New Rochelle and County of Westchester. In 1990 the average per capita income in the Redevelop- ment Area ranged between $11,970 and $12,743 while in the City it was $23,745 and in the County it was $25,584. 3.8-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Housing Characteristics The 1990 Census revealed a total of 57 housing units in blocks 107, 201 and 202. Because of continued conversion activities (from residential to nonresidential), the findings of the 2000 Census are expected to indicate a lower number of housing units in these three census blocks. As noted earlier in Table 3.8-5, the Redevelopment Area comprises most of block 107, all of block 201 and a portion of block 202. As shown in Table 3.8-10, most housing in census tract 65 was built prior to 1949. This is true of all housing in block group 2. In block group 1, significant amounts of housing were also constructed between 1950 and 1969. Table 3.8-10 Redevelopment Area:Age of Housing (1990) Census Tract, Built 1980 Built 1970 to Built 1960 Built 1950 Built 1949 Total Block Group to 1990 1979 to 1969 to 1959 and Earlier 65, BG1 0 3 21 41 116 181 65, BG2 0 0 0 0 51 51 I SOURCE:Westchester County Department of Planning, US Census. Figure 3.8-1 shows the Redevelopment Area in relation to Tract 65, block groups 1 and 2. As can be seen in Figure 3.8-1 both block groups incorporate large sections of the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the west, north and northwest of the Redevelopment Area. Table 3.8-11 summarizes the distribution of home values observed in the Redevelopment Area during the 1990 Census. Table 3.8-11 Redevelopment Area: Home Ownership Values(1990) Census Tract, Median Unit Value: Unit Value: Unit Value: Unit Value: Unit Value: Unit Value: Block Group Home Price $100,000 to $150,000 to $200,000 to $300,000 to $400,000 to >$500,000 $149,999 $199,999 $299,999 $399,999 $499,999 65, BG 1 $233,333 12 22 39 13 5 9 65, BG 2 $210,000 3 5 10 5 0 0 SOURCE:Westchester County Department of Planning, US Census. Figure 3.8-1 shows the Redevelopment Area in relation to Tract 65, block groups 1 and 2. As can be seen in Figure 3.8-1 both block groups incorporate large sections of the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the west, north and northwest of the Redevelopment Area. For comparison, according to data compiled by the NYS Department of Real Property Services as part of its "Real Property Transfer Report", the median sale price of a single-family home in New Rochelle was $275,000 in 1993, which declined to $260,000 in 1996. Overall, according to data compiled by the Westchester County Board of Realtors, the median price of single-family homes remained fairly stable in Westchester over the 1990 to 1997 period, ranging from $289,000 in 1990 to a low of$277,750 in 1994 to $300,000 in 1997. 3.8-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 The median rental price level and the range of prices observed for rental housing in the Redevelopment Area during the 1990 Census is summarized in Table 3.8-12. Table 3.8-12 Redevelopment Area: Monthly Rental Unit Prices (1990) Median Census Tract, $300 to $400 to $500 to $600 to $700 to $750 to Block Group Rental $399 $499 $599 $699 $749 $999 '$1,000 Price 65, BG 1 $623 23 26 24 26 25 42 15 65, BG 2 $600 3 4 5 6 3 9 1 SOURCE: Westchester County Department of Planning, US Census. Figure 3.8-1 shows the Redevelopment Area in relation to Tract 65, block groups 1 and 2. As can be seen in Figure 3.8-1 both block groups incorporate large sections of the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the west, north and northwest of the Redevelopment Area. In 1990, census tract 65 included a total of 89 vacant housing units. Of this number 67 were located in block group 1, while 22 were distributed fairly evenly throughout the remaining block groups. Overall, the vacancy rate within the entire tract in 1990 was 5.8 percent; within block group 1 the rate was 15.7 percent. This compares to a vacancy rate of five percent in the County as a whole in 1990. 3.8.2 Existing Redevelopment Area Businesses Table 3.8-13, on the following page, outlines the existing business names, addresses, types of operation and number of employees at businesses that are currently operating within the Redevelopment Area. 3.8.3 Current Commercial Activity: New Rochelle and Westchester According to information provided in Retail Trade In Westchester County prepared by the Westchester County Department of Planning, Westchester ranked fourth in overall dollar sales volume and number of stores among the 62 counties in New York State, according to recent Censuses of Retail Trade. In 1992, Westchester had 6,133 retail stores with sales of almost $7.5 billion, and its retail establishments employed more than 60,000 persons which accounted for more than 16 percent of Westchester's jobs. New Rochelle's local retail and service sectors amount to a comparatively small portion of the County's overall economic activity, contributing only approximately 5.5 percent of the County's sales at retail establishments, and 3.4 percent of sales at all types of establishments. Table 3.8-14 summarizes sales in the City of New Rochelle and Westchester County as a whole in 1992. 3.8-10 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-13: Existing Businesses Business Name Address Operation Employees CC Vending Inc. 8 Valley full-line vending sales 10 Derf Radio& Electronics Corp..I 22 Plain electronic parts&equipment 25 (at location) National Varistor (on-site portion)** Ortho Rite Products 55 Plain manufacturing of foot products 25 McMahon's Farm Inc. 30 Pleasant gourmet food distributor 8 Montesano Brothers 76-78 Plain site development contractor 25-35 Southern New York Bus Sales Inc. 44 Plain ; vehicle sales 12 6 Pleasant Telefuture Communications 10 Pleasant telecommunications 20-25 Marble America 517 Fifth fabricate&install marble& 8 granite Mercury Mason Corp.. 525 Fifth masonry contractor 2 North Star Contracting Corp.. 567 Fifth construction contractor 9(at location) Wilco 95 Plain fuel oil delivery 20 Safeway Towing 5 Pleasant towing company; mechanic& 8 body shop Rudy's Autobody 23A Pleasant auto body shop 1 Streatham Service Station (tenant)& 40-42 Pleasant auto body; &roofing, company 2 (auto body); Wodraska (owner) 15 (roofing) Van Waters & Rogers Inc. 8 Valley industrial chemical distributor 1 Anthony's Truck Repair 51 Plain truck repair 5 Wykagyl Bus Service 549 Fifth school bus operator 25 Gerard Daniel (on-site portion)*** 5-32 Plain metal and wire product 35(at location) manufacturer Fradan Manufacturing Corp.. 499 Fifth manufacture power equipment 10 Ardee Electrical Contractors/EXP 53 Pleasant electrical contractor 8 Industries, Inc. Richie Bros (formerly Parlato 56 Pleasant HVAC contractor 5 to 10 Heating &Air Cond.) Elcan Industries Inc. 59 Plain manufacture&sales of parts 8 Jentile Inc. 65 Plain tile, marble work 22 Captech Inc. 10 Pleasant service and support of ticket 8 vending machines Vernon Devices 111 Plain manufacturer of cutting tools 10 Westchester Wood&Microworks * 521 Fifth unknown unknown Renzo Auto Spring Service* 11-15 Pleasant auto service unknown Javor Painting&Decorating* 64 Plain painting&decorating unknown JKA Industries, Inc. * 499 Fifth industrial machinery unknown Total Performance Auto * 479 Fifth gasoline service station/repairs unknown Unknown lessee * 505 Fifth new car storage 0 Grocery store * 493 Fifth grocery store unknown Westchester Interior Construction * 24 Pleasant interiors; manufactures and unknown warehouses cabinets Data sources: 1) Cushman &Wakefield 2) Claritas Business Facts Report(February 8, 2000). * Information not provided or available for these eight businesses.. **Derf off-site portion (37 Plain)= 10,000 sf. ***Daniel off-site portion (5 Plain) = 19,291 sf. All Daniel properties have been purchased by Ikea. Daniel will relocate out of the New Rochelle area whether or not the proposed redevelopment project occurs. Note (1): 55 Pleasant assumed to be vacant. Note (2): Preliminary subtotal of number of employees=327 to 347. Note(3):The following businesses may have operated within the Redevelopment Area in the recent past. There are no current listings or references to Mountaintop Cabinet Mfg. Corp.. (24 Pleasant); Absolute Fuel Oil (567 Fifth). 3.8-11 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-14: New Rochelle Business Activity Compared to Westchester County (1992) New Rochelle Westchester Establishments Sales (000) Establishments Sales (000) Retail 422 $416,000 6,133 $7,441,000 Service 647 $283,000 9,386 $5,876,000 Wholesale 170 $711,000 2,135 $27,026,000 TOTAL 1,239 $1,410,000 1 17,654 $40,343,000 Several decades ago New Rochelle was the preferred destination for many Westchester and Bronx residents for comparison shopping. Between the late 1970s and mid 1980s, the depart- ment stores which anchored New Rochelle's downtown area vacated the area. In the early 1990s, Macy's, the last department store vacated the New Rochelle Mall. Nowadays, with the exception of a few retailers such as Talner's (jewelry), IB Cohen (clothing) and REI (outdoor outfitters, which recently announced that it is closing its doors in New Rochelle), most retail use in downtown New Rochelle serves a local clientele. The recent opening of New Roc City at the old New Rochelle Mall has begun to attract visitors to downtown New Rochelle for entertainment, food and drink, and limited retail (Modell's). It remains to be seen whether this development will attract a clientele to the remainder of the downtown area for comparison retail opportunities. In recent years, much of New Rochelle's remaining retail activity has centered on new and used vehicle sales. In 1987, automobiles accounted for 45 percent of all retail sales in New Rochelle. In contrast, at that time furniture and home furnishings stores accounted for only four percent -- or $21,306,480 -- of all retail sales in the City. By 1992, total retail sales in the City had declined by 22 percent to $416,000,000. In the same time period, furniture and home furnishings sales had declined 42 percent and, by 1992, accounted for only three percent -- or $12,472,170 -- of total retail sales in the City. 3.8.4 Market Analysis Overall Analytical Approach The examination of the potential for adverse effects on the existing furniture and home furnishings market is twofold. The examination begins with a market analysis which gauges the aggregate demand for furniture and home furnishings in the marketplace. The market analysis concentrates on the five- and 15-mile trade areas, as outlined in the Final Scoping Document. The second portion of the review is a commercial character assessment (Section 3.8.5). The first step of the market analysis describes the furniture and home furnishings retail market in terms of numbers of establishments, annual sales, annual payroll (in $), and number of paid employees. This information, which was collected in the 1997 Census of Retail Trade, is presented for the three counties from which the majority of future shoppers are expected to be drawn, and for the municipalities within the five-mile trade area (which are studied for 3.8-12 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 commercial character effects in greater detail). For comparative purposes, data for New York City as a whole, and New York State are also presented. The second step of the market analysis identifies and describes existing retail centers and furni- ture and home furnishings retailers within both the five-mile and 15-mile area surrounding the Redevelopment Area. This information was primarily gathered by field surveys in the autumn of 1999, and winter and spring of 2000. Information garnered during the field survey was confirmed by review of data provided by Claritas National Decision Systems, Inc., and review of Bell Atlantic Yellow Page listings, Yellow Book Internet resources, and newspaper, magazine and mailer advertising. Next, consumer expenditure patterns for retail goods including furniture, home furnishings and housewares are described, relying on data presented in the Consumer Expenditure Survey prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the US Department of Labor. Recent and anticipated changes in the retailing marketplace in Westchester County are then described. Information is presented relative to new retail development in the market area, while the entry of new or additional furniture and home furnishings retailers into the competitive marketplace is highlighted. Other changes in the retail commercial real estate marketplace (such as vacancies in a particular size or configuration), which would be of interest are also discussed. As part of the final step in the market analysis, the future number of households and the corresponding aggregate household income within the five- and 15-mile trade areas are projected. For each of the two trade areas studied, a portion of aggregate household income is allocated to retail expenditures. A portion of these retail expenditures is then allocated to furniture, home furnishings and housewares (based on the consumer expenditure pattern information provided by the Consumer Expenditure Survey.) This "predicted" amount is then compared to the current sales of furniture and home furnishings at existing retail establishments within the five- and 15-mile trade areas. Redevelopment Area The Redevelopment Area is located within the heavily urbanized Interstate 95 corridor of southeastern Westchester County. The Redevelopment Area is surrounded by an urban mixture of land uses that includes retail, commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential activity. US Route 1, also known as the Boston Post Road in this region, parallels the Long Island Sound shoreline from New York City to the southwest to the Connecticut border in the northeast approximately one- half mile south of the Redevelopment Area. The New Haven division of the Metro North commuter train line, and accompanying Amtrak regional rail lines are also located within one-half mile of the proposed Retail Center Project site. Figure 3.8-2 on the following page shows the five, 10, 15 and 20-mile radial trade areas surrounding the Redevelopment Area. As described above, retail establishments within the five-mile ring were reviewed for potential adverse effects on commercial character from potential induced vacancies as a result of the Proposed Actions. This section provides the market demand analysis for both the five-mile and the 15-mile rings. 3.8-13 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-16, summarizes the number of establishments, annual sales, annual payroll and number of employees for furniture and home furnishings stores in the geographic area from which most of the potential shoppers at the proposed Retail Center are expected to be drawn. This information is given for the three counties comprising the majority of the 15-mile trade area, and for the municipalities in Westchester County which include retail centers whose commercial character could potentially be affected by the proposed Retail Center. It is noted that portions of some of these municipalities are outside the five-mile trade area. For comparative purposes, data for New York City, and New York State as a whole, are also presented in Table 3.8-16. As shown in Table 3.8-15, in 1997 New Rochelle was home to a total of 13 furniture / home furnishings establishments with total annual sales of just under $9.5 million and 76 employees. Table 3.8-15: Trade Area Retail Establishments 1997 Data Summary County/Municipality Furniture& Home Furnishings Stores** Establishments Annual Sales Annual Payroll Paid Employees * Westchester County 242 $287,490,000 $35,805,000 1,540 Fairfield County 324 $347,812,000 $48,735,000 2,114 Bronx County 130 $87,971,000 $12,897,000 575 TOTALS 696 $723,273,000 $97,437,000 4,229 Five Mile Trade Area*** Bronxville 1 ND ND ND a Eastchester TOV 7 ND ND ND b Greenburgh TOV 30 $62,725,000 $7,122,000 320 Harrison 3 $1,840,000 $276,000 9 Larchmont 4 $1,192,000 $190,000 7 Mamaroneck 15 $13,936,000 $1,662,000 56 Mamaroneck TOV 4 $3,711,000 $348,000 13 Mount Vernon 9 $3,500,000 $677,000 38 New Rochelle 13 $9,481,000 $1,159,000 76 Pelham 1 ND ND ND a Pelham Manor 3 $5,344,000 $526,000 26 Port Chester 7 $2,803,000 $420,000 18 Rye 4 $2,216,000 $268,000 13 Rye Brook 0 $0 $0 0 Scarsdale 3 $2,117,000 $309,000 15 Tuckahoe 1 ND ND ND a White Plains 24 $52,431,000 $6,225,000 268 Yonkers 35 $53,428,000 $5,988,000 246 TOTALS 164 $214,724,000 $25,170,000 1,105 New York City(all) 1,139 $1,344,415,000 $183,304,000 7,605 New York State 2,797 $3,394,465,000 $443,225,000 21,827 *Paid employees for pay period including March 12 **Does not include floor covering stores and window treatment stores. *** Includes all municipalities which are wholly or partially within five-mile trade area. TOV=Town outside village(s) ND=Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies a=0 to 19 employees; b=20 to 99 employees SOURCE: US Census Bureau, Census of Retail Trade (1997) 3.8-14 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS 20 MI Rockland _,,,,/-,.._._ ,___r 4,0 15 MI Weeklies / , _ 1 . 1/4 . Stamfari / No '.. , . ' j ' 111>1I Page- - i ir 5 MI aterson ,., " iik(r4 / / /Jell rilkal• ' lot ( 1111111111 , • riIr cli „gilt lool �Ilf Legend Pae - C iy,-, / • IKEA New Rochelle ' • IKEA Elizabeth ms �' Essex • i� • f '. IKEA Hicksville �I . ' ' 5-10-15-20 Miles East Ora 4 I I�� 'll•I III Is Places 50- 500T Irving ; Hudson 11& . . r't a0 .r• • Places 500T+ New /' --•• Am / j ` 4i Levittown U.S. Interstates,1:2M Union t` E Counties, 1:400T Union AOS:" fl New York tl 0 2 4 6 8 Elizabeth "t- e t/ w"°• ,\ -�— e2 N Saw:1•=6.97'Mos i 7 '''-----_. Ba Urin 4//, i� --limb' d d li: \4,. ' _ N Figure 3.8-2: Trade Areas Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project, W E City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: DSR Marketing System, Inc. S Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 265-4418 File 9916 3.8-1 TMA 07/25/00 Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Tables 3.8-16 through 3.8-18 at the end of this chapter, list furniture and home furnishings retailers in the various segments of the five-mile market study area. Tables 3.8-19 and 3.8-20 (also at the end of this chapter) list this information for communities that are generally within 15 miles of the Redevelopment Area. These tables more fully illustrate the primary comparison retailing destinations (for furniture and home furnishings) utilized by most households within southern and central Westchester County, Bronx County, and Fairfield County in Connecticut. Several establishments are also dispersed throughout New Rochelle's business district. Consumer Expenditures on Furniture, Home Furnishings and Housewares According to the Consumer Expenditure Survey performed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the US Department of Labor, households typically spend approximately 30 percent of annual net income on retail goods and services. Of this proportion, in the northeastern United States during 1997-1998, households spent approximately 13.6 percent (or 4.1 percent of the household's net income) on "household furnishings and equipment." Furniture, household textiles, floor coverings, small appliances, and housewares accounted for slightly under half (44.4 percent) of all of "household furnishings and equipment" expenditures in the northeast during 1997-1998. Major appliances accounted for another 10.7 percent, while "miscellaneous household equipment" accounted for the remainder of these expenditures, or 44.9 percent. An additional $124 was spent annually by the typical household on gifts which were composed of one of the above household furnishings and equipment categories. Calculations of the overall demand for furniture and home furnishings within the five-mile and 15-mile trade areas is provided later in this chapter (Section 3.8.8 Future Conditions with the Proposed Project). 3.8.5 Commercial Character Assessment Methodology of Review The commercial character assessment forms the second part of the examination of the poten- tial for adverse effects on the existing furniture and home furnishings market. As outlined in the Final Scoping Document, the commercial character assessment focuses on commercial concentrations within the five-mile trade area which have the potential to be adversely affected by the construction of a new retail center within the Redevelopment Area. As a starting point, local, intermediate and major centers (as identified by the Westchester County Planning Department in Patterns for Westchester) within five miles of the Redevelopment Area, were visited and retailing conditions in each reviewed. As shown on Figure 3.8-3, these 14 centers include: • major centers of downtown New Rochelle, and Mount Vernon • intermediate Cross County center nearby local centers of Larchmont, and Larchmont Station 3.8-15 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 • local centers associated with the villages of Mamaroneck, Harrison, Scarsdale, Tuckahoe, Bronxville, Pelham and Pelham Manor • local centers associated with Crestwood (part of Tuckahoe) and Route 22 in the Town of Eastchester Each of these centers was surveyed, and information collected on existing furniture and home furnishings retailers. Individual stores in these centers were identified as part of the market demand analysis presented earlier in this chapter, and are presented in Table 3.8-16 through 3.8-20 (provided at the end of this chapter). In addition to noting the location, type and target niche (quality) of a retailer, the function, if any, of the furniture / home furnishings retailer in the center was noted, as were other attributes of the center or agglomeration. These features included vacancy and appearance; evidence of recent investment; evidence of disinvestment, deferred maintenance, under utilization of retail spaces; proximate land uses; constraints on existing commercial activity or growth; proximity of similar retailing opportunities; the nature of the center (i.e., sale of convenience goods and personal services, comparison goods, apparel and related, discount merchandise, etc.); the presence of large department or variety stores, or other anchors; and proximity to transportation options. Retailing conditions at freestanding retailing establishments and within planned shopping centers along major area thoroughfares were also reviewed. Figure 3.8-4 shows Major Retail Facilities throughout the five-mile trade area as identified by the Westchester County Planning Department in 1996 as part of its review of major retail facilities throughout the entire County. With the exception of New Roc City (which replaces the New Rochelle Mall), the change in location (and name) for the Price Club in New Rochelle, and the change in name for some shopping centers because of the demise of certain retailers (such as Caldor's), information in Figure 3.8-4 remains current. After identifying potentially sensitive commercial concentrations, the extent to which the products and services provided by the Applicant compare to current offerings in the furniture / home furnishings market is discussed. Existing Conditions Except for the intermediate-level Cross County Center and the agglomeration of retailing use along Route 22 in the Town of Eastchester, retail uses in the identified centers are located in downtown areas where other uses, including institutional and municipal uses, are also usually present. Commuter railroad transportation facilities are also usually present in these downtown areas. Retail facilities within neighborhood, community, regional and large regional shopping centers are highlighted in the legend, page 2 of 2, Figure 3.8-4. Also highlighted are freestanding retail facilities (often referred to as "big box retailers") comprising more than 100,000 square feet in floor area. As outlined in the legend, in terms of planned shopping centers and large retail stores, within five miles of the Redevelopment Area, there are: • 844,000 square feet of retail use in neighborhood centers • 871,000 square feet in community shopping centers • 1,392,000 square feet in regional centers 3.8-16 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS P U r NAM - - - ( ) - 0BatdwinPlace X7 - \ ' NORTH SALEM �' o�ak"b©`( Linco/ndele0 'RQ r Lake )OPurdys �1�f +Mohegan t SOMERS 1--~`�—�1 ` ,- olden$ i } L Bridge \ 0 EE Kr . 4 /"N• LEWISBORO \2 61hitehall 1_.,,,r YQRKTOWN� ! Corners..., )---- ? Cross 0 n rr I� Yorktown - "Cross South �, va an ��� CORTLANDT Het9hl �I !►Cafonah - -� \n "� 1 G r� 7Q `.r �'Montrose \ .a 0 Cortlandt '-i Bedford \ ,....i {{ , •Has \ • 1 ` , _ BEDFORD POUND RIDGE\ \ • ^H dsor, �%, \ \ 1 \0Yrsta /igscon OMVillage /� ) ,,r-- ..., scons�e il,wood `.__�„.A” _,_- cornersi++ '- L NEW CASTLE N i''� -r' `9 I .11i\ OSStNINGT-. ) -i 1 7. k-- .Chappaqua ' V yG O I),, /� v G O likul ,i r `_�� / Banksville G •' 8d anw ` ,fileasantvifte NORTH CASTLE 14 Armonk j^/ .Thomwood\ `- r CENTERS ___ OHawthome ) .' NorUrarrom i ,MOUNT PLEASANT 0 Hamlet ocantico Hills / • Local ~r- ''"_'----__ vahalta01J 1-----/I__ _ ( L� Intermediate T own, 27 m ! 4isferdP 71.47Ciiil 1 �:J i Y ?iveor i - \\ Major ! n 1 rGREENBURGH • HARRISON tRye Irvington J BrooJ\ r "- WHITE PLAINS`. I ,'-\ CORRIDORS /> eay t + We ;Port , Fe - ] r Chester h__ Rte® j Principal Corridors man* /. RSOALE ._.!'-L..:7,_ Transportation )Ht., .......--- - r`I r , • SDevelopment f / \ ,4H arrrson. RYE ~� Scenic esr» L_ ;y R ; :: Five-Mile Trade Area • �' '• ' Within Westchester County 7 dress ``r h r NECfF iy ONKE'- y \ B'' v'Ler ;0tROCHELLE . .. �,Redevelopment //�,/j; - ,' o0 Area r•� COU Cros�(VVER�! ' :r h Ont �0 ita YO9''Cr1 P• ... s i OCG • Ty o Centers and Corridors SCALE IN MILES N Fig 3.8-3: Westchester County; Centers and Corridors W E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York s Source: Westchester County Department of Planning 1996 File 9916 Fig 3.8-2 TMA 07/25/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 265-4418 • I \ � / NOR ' CASTLE,\, -/G Briarcliff /_ /C Manor . aantv,1]¢ N ' ' �67 \. nnvood Armonk • ``J^� • z •sar /'Gt al),`!awlhorne. ! A I • ___ MOUN �`LEASANT/ .� •,..'I y I Pi;P 73 ./. I • ivy ° 7 . i ' .t' ' — . TAPPAN.,E BRIDGE s :•'fa �. /1 I Q� �� ? GREENWICH • T. ,wn - 87 � , foFd III ..s r ,1 l ` � ;:rii , L' s isQ ki V / saver I RE :URGH im‘b\_:...,_ , HA. . ON in n a;) ) ; 210 ;� ,� ij14 Na ,, 41114f - • a L I, ,- tik ,70 • /,,\Ill, 1 ,.i.n 1/73. r / ' a 2T. i , s // IsJ' `� /r / < ,1 ; 1 ,kL15j �f e t • � • • / Y • RS % NLS W ( r : / c0 r—•_ RU[�„ELLE; 'i ? J ';3 / • •' '" , t? I ° Lam rrof Five-Mile x MO O ., 0, eaI>v,1 . � Trade Area / ys 1 026 032 • ri \D This map shows the location of shopping centers / J _ ', r .having a tout of 30,000 roes square feet or more. �\ ' 1 V Viso feasted are Inge fna•etandrtg angle retea'a- r / , r ! :. ! 0�. mote such as big bore's department stores having 0 { f r y�T' more than 100.000 roes square feet. This map does ti .,� not show downtown shopping areas Mich are distinct p ,:, Ii„ , iron,the rata centers shown. ! - Square footage!tures have been rounded'o the �/ Square bots ranges reflect BRONX nearest thousand.i/ f' - Q- industry'radiants clad by the Urban Land Institute l i NU),International Council of Shopping Centers 0 (ICBG)sour a National Research Bureau. Data sources:1995 SAoppvtg Center Diecfory, "�i National Research Bureau:and-esearch by the i Westchester CountyDepartment of Ra Dsparen nr i Scale in Miles r v—� , N Figure 3.8-4: Major Retail Facilities in Westchester County Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project W E City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: Westchester County Department of Planning 1996 S Page 1 of 2 File 9916 Fig 3.8-3 TMA 07/25/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516 (845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 265-4418 o NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTERS(30,000-100,000 Gross Sq.Ft.) Map#Name Sq.Feet Municipality 1 A&P/Millwood Plaza 34,000 New Caste 2 Archway 35,000 Greenburgh 3 Ardsley Plaza 32,000 Ardsley 4 Baldwin Place 60,000 Somers 5 Bit of Rights.. 30,000 Eastchester 6 Bridge Plaza 30,000 Tarrytown 7 Central Frit Hill ..... .... ... ..54,000 Yonkers 8 Chilmark 80,000 Briarcliff Manor 9 Cross-River 72;000 Lewisboro 10 Crossroads Plaza 36,000 Peekskill 11 Eastcnester Man _.62,000 Eastchester Total Neighborhood 12 Ferndale ............ ._ ... . 50,000 Mamaroneck Town) g '3 Golden Horseshoe 54,300 New Rochelle Shopping Centers: 14 Golden's Bridge Center 40,000 Lewisbcro 15 Grand Union 30,000 Eastchester 844,000 Sq. Ft. 16 Greenburgh 95,000 Greenburgh 17 Greenville 41,000 Greenburgh 18 Greenway ShopRite Plaza 70,000 Yonkers 19 Hampton Oaks 43,000 Peekskill 20 Hartsdale 65,000 Greenburgh 21 Hartsdale Ventures 38,000 Greenburgh 22 High Ridge Plaza.... .. . .......95,000 1onkers 23 Hunting Ridge Mall 54,000 Bedford 24 Jacobs Hill Plaza 30,000 Corttandt 25 Larchmant P-aza 35,000 Larchrnonr 26 McLean Avenue Plaza 51,000 Yonkers 27 Mount Kisco Square 35,000 Mount Kisco 28 Municipal Place 30,000 Croton-on-Hudson 29 North Ridge 50,000 New Rochelle 30 North White Plains 50,000 North Castle 31 Oakridge 52,000 Lewisboro 32 Pathmark 75,000 Mount Vernon 33 Pathmark Supercenter 59,000 Port Chester 34 ()Laker Hoge ... ...54.000 New Romeffe 35 River Plaza 34,000 Tarrytown 36 Rockhill Plaza 32.000 Greenburgh 37 Scarsdale Ridge 35,000 Greenburgh 38 Shop Rite 98,000 Bedford 39 Shop Rite Plaza 75,000 Croton-on-Hudson 40 Staple's Plaza 40,000 Mamaroneck{rawni 41 Staples 38,000 Yonkers 42 Tanglewood 45,000 Yonkers 43 Town Center at Somers 91,000 Somers 44 Trinity Corners 51,000 Pound Ridge 45 Universal .. 64,000 Eastchester 46 Waldbaums 58.000 Yonkers 47 Washington Park Plaza 55,000 Rye Brook 48 Welcher Avenue 48,000 Peekskill 49 Yorktown Plaza 42,000 Yorktown • COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTERS(100,000 -300,000 Gross Sq.Ft.) 50 Arcadian Gardens 135,000 Ossining(Village) 51 Beach 177,000 Peekskill 52 Caldor 122,000 Bedford Total Community 53 Calder 230,000 PvrllamManor Shopping Centers: 54 Caldor 140,000 Contemn pp g 55 Central Plaza 150,000 Yonkers 871,000 Sq. Ft. 56 Cross County Square .... .250,000 Yonkers 57 Crossroads Plaza 300,000 Greenburgh 58 Datewood 187,000 Greenburgh 59 Loehmanns Plaza 120,000 Greenburgh 60 Lord&Taylor 241.000 Eastchester 61 Master's 160,000 Greenburgh 62 Midway 300,000 Greenburgh 63 Mount Kisco Outlet Center....250,000 Mount Kisco 64 Rosehill 111,000 Mount Pleasant 65 Rye Ridge 110,000 Rye Brook 66 Shrub Oak 100,000 Yorktown 67 Town Center 105,000 Mount Pleasant 68 Triangle 200,000 Yorktown 69 White Plains Mall 170,000 White Plains 70 Yorktown Green 160,000 Yorktown A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS(300,000-700,000 Gross Sq.Ft.) Total Regional 77 Brad19es 500,000 Yonkers Shopping Centers: 72 Caldor 570,000 Port Chester 73 Caldor 548,000 Yonkers 1,392,000 Sq. Ft. 74 Jefferson Valley Mall 644,000 Yorktown 75 The Pavilion.. 345,000 White Plains 16 Vernon Hits.-. ._................. 344,000 Eastcnester Total Large Regional 77 Westchester Mall 387,000 Cortlandt (404,235 sq ft expansion approved 1295 for total of 791,535 sq.ft.) Shopping Centers: A LARGE REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS(Over 700,000 Gross Sq.Ft.) 1,190,000 Sq. Ft. 78 Cross County 1.190,000 Yonkers 79 Galleria Malt 833.000 White Plains + New Roc City: (Approx 80 New Rochelle Matt 725.000 New Rochelle 'mnlr Ocseti 11195.'adevsinpnvsnl pesdnxl) 500,000 Sq. Ft) 81 The Westchester 1,000,000 White Plains Q BIG BOX I SINGLE RETAIL FACILITIES(Over 100,000 Square Feet) = 1,690,000 82 BJ's Warehouse Club 110,000 Yorktown 83 Bloomingdales 252,000 White Plains Total Free Standing 84 Building Design Center 150,000 Yorktown 85 l-IomeDepol 106,000 NewRoche5e Retail Facilities 86 Macys 328,000 White Plains 87 Pnce Club..........................,,,110,000 New Rochelle (> 100,000 Sq. Ft.): 88 Saks 120,000 White Plains 89 Sam's Club 110,000 Greenburgh 216,000 Sq. Ft. 90 Sears 270,000 White Plains Figure 3.8-4: Major Retail Facilities in Westchester County Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Source: Westchester County Department of Planning File 9916 Fig 3.8-3 MRF-2 TMA 07/25/00 Page 2 of 2 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 265-4418 Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 • 1,690,000 square feet in large regional centers • 216,000 square feet in free standing retail facilities (of over 100,000 sf in size) In total, in 1996, retail use in shopping centers within five miles of the Redevelopment Area amounted to 5.013 million square feet. Not included in this amount is retail use within the downtown areas of Mount Vernon, Scarsdale, Tuckahoe (and Crestwood), Bronxville, Pelham, Pelham Manor, Larchmont, Mamaroneck and Harrison. Except for the newly completed New Roc City entertainment center, retail use in downtown New Rochelle was also not included in the County estimates. As outlined in Tables 3.8-17 through 3.8-21 the number of establishments in these centers, particularly the local centers, which retail furniture or home furnishings is limited. Of this limited number, some are antiques and collectable dealers, art galleries, or provide design services. Retailing Vacancy Little vacancy was noted during the review of retailing conditions in the five-mile study area. Except for persistent patterns of underutilization in the smaller 1,000 to 2,000 square foot size category in marginal retailing locations such as the Village of Tuckahoe, and in downtown New Rochelle (reflective of the changed conditions described earlier in this chapter) and Mount Vernon, little vacancy was noted in the study area. Except for some older downtown locations, the retailing real estate climate in Westchester County is characterized by brisk transaction. Desirably located and sized properties do not remain vacant for long. With the possible exception of Maurice Villency and Roche Bobois along Route 22 in the Town of Eastchester, and the variety of furniture and home furnishings establishments along Central Avenue (Route 100) in Yonkers extending north to White Plains (which tends to attract shoppers seeking diverse offerings for comparison), in no instance did a furniture or home furnishings store provide an anchoring function for a planned shopping center, a strip retail environment or a downtown retailing center. 3.8.6 Fiscal Environment Property Taxes Background-- Changes in New Rochelle's Taxable Assessed Valuation In 1989, the taxable assessed value of real property within the City totaled $396,793,778. By 1998, after nine years of successive reductions, this amount had fallen to $319,316,786, a decline of 20 percent. Much of the decline in value can be traced to commercial properties in and near downtown New Rochelle becoming vacant, underutilized and obsolete, and certiorari (assessment challenges) actions. Over the same period, the City's budgeted appropriations (General Operating Fund) increased from $54,313,584 to $70,027,369, an increase of 22.5 percent. 3.8-17 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Current Redevelopment Area Assessments and Taxes The Redevelopment Area currently has a total assessed valuation of $1,520,050. Of this amount, $1,450,000 is taxable. Several of the taxable residential properties have partial veterans' or senior citizens' exemptions, and several of the commercial properties have abatements in place, although these abatements are expected to expire prior to implementation of the proposed Retail Center Project. A summary of the taxes currently levied on existing Redevelopment Area real property is provided in Table 3.8-25 later in this chapter. Sales Taxes Background As described elsewhere in this report, 20 to 30 years ago, New Rochelle was a vibrant retailing center with numerous department stores located in its downtown area. After the closure of these stores, the proportion of the City's budget derived from sales tax revenues declined steadily until the early 1990s, when sales tax revenues comprised only 13 percent of the City's General Fund revenues. As outlined in Retail Trade in Westchester County 1987 - 1992 prepared by the Westchester County Department of Planning (July 1995), "[a]mong the cities of New York State,...New Rochelle fell to fifteenth from its previous rank of eighth in 1987." According to data presented in this report, between 1987 and 1992, New Rochelle lost 50 retail establishments. Sales in New Rochelle during the 1987 to 1992 period declined from $532,662,000 to $415,739,000, almost 22 percent without considering the effect of inflation. In recent years, the City's efforts to attract retailing uses have begun to pay off as sales tax receipts increased to almost $20 million in 1999. They are forecast to increase further as other retail developments are completed. With sales tax receipts of just under $20 million in 1999, the overall amount of retail sales in the City subject to tax are now approaching $800 million. Sales Tax Allocation Revenues derived from the 8.25 percent sales tax in the City are allocated as follows: • 4 percent to New York State (48.4%) • 2.50 percent to the City (30.3%) • 1.50 percent to Westchester County (18.1%) • 0.25 percent to the MTA (3.2%) Existing Sales Tax Receipts --Area Businesses Because of their size, detailed information on the current level of annual revenues or sales by area businesses is not available. As such, the proportion of existing commercial activity subject to sales tax is unknown. 3.8-18 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Existing Income Tax Payments--Area Workers As noted earlier, it is estimated that between 327 and 347 employees are currently employed at existing businesses within the Redevelopment Area. Of this number, 35 jobs associated with the Gerard Daniel Company are being relocated out of state. As noted in Table 3.8-9 presented earlier in this chapter, in 1997, depending on industry, weekly wages and salaries varied between $387.11 in retail trade, and $1,369.81 in manufacturing. The average weekly wage of all industries at that time was $767.33. Assuming the remaining number of employees (292), and an average weekly wage or salary (or net business income for business owners) of $750 per week, the total gross income paid to existing workers would equal $11,388,000 annually. Assuming average deductions of four percent (New York State) and 12 percent (Federal), income tax receipts would equal $455,520 (New York State), and $1,366,560 (Federal). 3.8.7 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions Demographics and Socioeconomics As discussed in Chapter 3.1, Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, in light of its M-1 zoning, the Redevelopment Area has been experiencing a transition to nonresidential use over the past 50 years. This change in use is reflected in the 56 percent decline in population witnessed between 1960 and 1990, as outlined earlier in this chapter in Table 3.8-5. In the future without the Proposed Actions, individual lots in the Redevelopment Area would be expected to continue to undergo piecemeal redevelopment as has been the pattern to date. As lots are converted from residential use, the overall population level of the neighborhood would be expected to dwindle. Based on conversations with area Realtors, the likelihood that existing residences would be purchased for residential occupancy is low. Redevelopment Area Businesses As noted above, the Redevelopment Area has been experiencing a transition to nonresidential use. Based on property ownership records, many of the remaining residences are now owned by existing commercial users operating within the area. In the future without the Proposed Actions, individual lots in the Redevelopment Area would be expected to continue to undergo piecemeal redevelopment as has been the pattern to date. Based on uses currently and historically occupying the area, an increase in auto repair, vehicle and bus storage, and open storage of materials and equipment would be expected. Given the area's established ownership patterns, its relative isolation, its proximity to the New England Thruway and its M-1 zoning designation, it is likely that the area will continue to support an increasing mix of automotive repair, vehicle storage, and open contractor's uses. Because of certain activities such as spray painting, the storage of petroleum and other toxic and hazardous materials, and other factors such as vehicle emissions, and congestion, and activities outside of the normal business day, these uses are often considered objectionable in residential and other areas. For these reasons, such uses are often attracted to areas similar 3.8-19 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 to the Redevelopment Area because of their relative isolation, decreasing complement of residents, and availability of relatively inexpensive real property to accommodate incremental growth. With minimal reinvestment in the area, property tax revenues will remain unchanged, or potentially decline as blighting influences continue to affect the neighborhood. Commercial Activity and Fiscal Conditions Commercial activity in New Rochelle has been on the rebound in the last several years with the recent opening of New Roc City, an entertainment-oriented venue in downtown New Rochelle. Merchandise sales, and concomitant sales tax proceeds, have also increased significantly with the opening in the last several years of Home Depot, Costco and the Palmer Avenue commercial development. Enough time has not yet elapsed to determine whether the New Roc City development will hasten the revitalization of downtown New Rochelle as a regional commercial destination. It is clear that the investment in downtown New Rochelle has continued -- with Avalon Bay Communities now building a large residential development. Secondary effects of these developments, which may include a resurgence of downtown New Rochelle as an office and/or residential area, remain to be seen. Other land use changes in the City currently being contemplated include renewal of a portion of the West New Rochelle neighborhood with town homes and a senior citizen assisted living development, and disposition of the City Yard property and the adjacent vacant Ford dealership and former Tuck Tape properties along the Boston Post Road in the Echo Bay area. Given the success of each of these investments, changes in the City's property tax assessment base will be likely to stabilize, after several years of erosion. This, in conjunction with the potential growth in sales tax revenues to the City, would tend to stabilize the City's fiscal status. Sales tax receipts for 2000 are projected to reach $21 million (City of New Rochelle adopted 2000 Budget). Sales taxes now comprise 29 percent of the City's General Fund revenues compared to 13 percent at the beginning of the 1990s. As outlined below, a total of 387,000 square feet of retail space is currently proposed in the five-mile area surrounding the proposed Redevelopment Area which is reviewed herein with regard to potential effects on commercial character. These changes were also considered in the market analysis completed for the 15-mile area surrounding the Redevelopment Area, and include the following: New Rochelle • Expo Design Center (Home Depot) 102,000 sf 3.8-20 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 111111 Mount Vernon • G&S Investors Redevelopment 285,000 sf including: - 135,000 sf Target discount variety store - 50,000 sf Best Buys electronics store - 100,000 sf others The following summarizes changes in the retailing environment in lower Westchester County for the 15-mile area surrounding the proposed Redevelopment Area. These changes would occur in any event. In early 2000, Kohl's, a variety store primarily specializing in apparel, opened two stores at sites that formerly housed Caldor's outlets in southern and central Westchester. Caldor's was a chain of discount variety stores which ceased operations in 1999. Stores were opened by Kohl's at locations on Central Avenue in the city of Yonkers, and along US Route 1 near Interstate 287 in the village of Port Chester. In addition, Linens and Things is expected to replace Pergament Home Centers as the co-anchor of the shopping center in Port Chester (along US Route 1) in which Kohl's recently opened its store. Several large retailers recently opened their doors along Interstate 87 (the NYS Thruway) in the City of Yonkers. These include Home Depot, Costco discount membership warehouse club, • and Stew Leonard's, a large food market. Development and redevelopment projects, which are expected to involve retailing uses, are proposed in the City of White Plains. These include redevelopment of the vacant Macy's property with a mix of retailing and cinema space, potential redevelopment of the former A&P supermarket site with a primarily residential use, and construction of a new supermarket at the intersection of Westchester Avenue and Bloomingdale Road. A large redevelopment project is nearing groundbreaking in downtown Port Chester. Retail space in this project includes a 67,000 square foot supermarket, a 142,000 square foot wholesale membership warehouse club and approximately 151,000 additional square feet of retail floor area in six differently sized retail buildings. Manhattan-based Laytner's Linens and Home is expected to open its first Westchester store at the Vernon Hill Shopping Center in Eastchester (along Route 22) within the next year. This store is expected to comprise approximately 10,000 square feet. Woolworth Corporation recently vacated its two variety stores at the Cross County Shopping Center in Yonkers. One of these spaces has already been leased to a low-end discount outlet, and the other is currently being prepared for reuse. The A&P Food Company, owner of A&P, Food Emporium, and Waldbaum's supermarkets, is currently reevaluating and closing or consolidating selected store locations. As stores are closed, larger retailing spaces become available for reuse. Given the current trends towards 3.8-21 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 consolidation in supermarket retailing, these locations are not likely to attract another supermarket use. Employment Without the Proposed Actions, employment levels within the Redevelopment Area would be expected to change little, with one exception. The Gerard Daniel Company has indicated that it intended to move its operations, along with its 35 jobs, out of state regardless of whether the Proposed Actions were implemented or not. As described elsewhere in this report, the sale of the physical assets of the Gerard Daniel Company to the Applicant has already occurred. Private Acquisition of Project Area Properties The Applicant has voluntarily, at its own risk acquired property within and outside the proposed Redevelopment Area. This is being done to facilitate future relocation and eventual redevelopment in the event that the Project is approved. The Applicant understands the risk of such strategy. In the event that the Retail Center Project is not approved, in whole or part, the Applicant would develop and/or sell its properties in accordance with the applicable zoning and other requirements existing as of that date. As part of its agreements with sellers of property, the Applicant has included provisions allowing the continued occupancy of all acquired spaces by the current occupants pending action on the Proposed Actions by the City Council. Unless initiated by the occupant, no relocation activities will take place until approvals are imminent or received. In the event the Proposed Actions are not implemented, final disposition of the privately acquired properties could occur in several ways. Individual parcels could be sold to parties (including their recent sellers) with or without existing improvements. Alternatively, parcels could be assembled together to form larger, more marketable site(s), which could be sold to other party(ies) with or without improvements for use in a manner consistent with the applicable zoning standards. Finally, the Applicant may retain all or a portion of the parcels for its own use in a manner, which complies with the City of New Rochelle Zoning Code. If properties are acquired in a piecemeal fashion, which does not permit their assemblage into a large, marketable site for retail or industrial use, potential impacts would be minimal and would be limited to potential changes in occupancy that may accompany the resale of the properties. If properties are acquired in a fashion, which permits assemblage into a large, marketable site for large-scale retail or industrial use, potential impacts could be similar to those outlined herein for the Proposed Action, or outlined in chapter 4.0 Alternatives for an industrial park, or assembled industrial use. 3.8-22 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 3.8.8 Future Conditions with the Proposed Actions Displacement of Business and Individuals Residential and Church Displacement All existing uses within the Primary Study Area would be removed by the proposed Retail Center Project. Initial surveys indicate that the Primary Study Area contains between 30 to 35 households, and two churches. As described in Chapter 3.1, Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, the existing neighborhood has been undergoing a transition from predominantly residential to predominantly nonresidential use for the past 50 years. Residential uses have been nonconforming uses since the zoning was changed to M-1 in the 1950s. One reflection of this change has also been that the majority of housing units that remain in the neighborhood are now rented rather than owned. The proposed Retail Center Project would remove this neighborhood. The displacement of all residential tenants and church users from the Redevelopment Area could potentially have a significant adverse impact on individuals depending upon the resolution of their relocation needs and personal circumstances. Existing Redevelopment Area businesses would either relocate, close their operations, or pursue alternative business opportunities. It is the Applicant's goal to acquire and relocate all businesses and residences without the use of eminent domain. Significant progress has already occurred in this regard. In the event that eminent domain is used, it is anticipated that relocation assistance would be provided by the City of New Rochelle's Office of Relocation to the legal residential tenants and businesses that would be displaced by the Proposed Actions. Residential relocation services would include housing referrals, counseling services and potential relocation payments in accordance with state law. A more detailed draft Relocation Plan is provided in Appendix P. Subject to New York State guidelines and legal limits, benefits for displaced businesses may include relocation assistance to find new space, and financial assistance for reasonable moving expenses. Prior to eminent domain proceedings, the Applicant, in consultation with the City's legal staff, would prepare a detailed fact sheet for distribution to all potentially involved parties that outlines legal and financial rights, compensation procedures, implementation schedule, and all parties' respective rights and responsibilities. This pamphlet would also outline employment and training opportunities for displaced workers including opportunities for employment within the Redevelopment Area. The City has already distributed letters to all residences and businesses in the Redevelopment Area summarizing the relevant procedures and timetables related to the Proposed Actions, and their general rights and protections. Commercial Displacement All existing uses within the Primary Study Area would be removed by the proposed Retail Center Project. Initial surveys indicate that the Primary Study Area contains 33 commercial or mixed commercial structures. Businesses responding to queries made by telephone and during in-person interviews regarding the number of persons employed by each commercial establishment within the Redevelopment Area have indicated that between 327 and 347 3.8-23 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 persons are currently employed by Redevelopment Area businesses. Of this number, 35 persons are already proposed to be relocated out of state, in accordance with a privately negotiated purchase agreement. Eight businesses did not respond to requests for information. Future employees within the Redevelopment Area are expected to be drawn from the local community, and may include people that presently work in the Redevelopment Area. The displacement of all businesses from the Redevelopment Area could potentially have a signifi- cant adverse impact on such businesses depending upon the resolution of their relocation needs and business circumstances. Applicant's Voluntary Acquisition and Relocation The Applicant has taken a proactive role in the private, voluntary acquisition of properties, which may be used for the relocation of existing businesses within the Redevelopment Area. The Applicant's goal is to acquire all properties privately and relocate existing households and businesses on a gradual, voluntary basis. As discussed earlier, many of these properties are being acquired at the Applicant's risk prior to its receipt of any approvals. Because of the greater difficulty in securing appropriate nonresidential space, the Applicant is concentrating attention on identifying potential commercial relocation sites, rather than housing units at this time. To date, negotiations with existing businesses have been able to secure a total of approxi- mately 19,300 square feet of off-site space for relocation opportunities at this time. The Appli- cant is negotiating with the owners of the Tuck Tape site (among others) which, if acquired, would provide another 13,000 to 19,000 square feet of light industrial space and/or outdoor storage. Additional amounts of vacant nonresidential space have been identified in New Rochelle and its neighboring southern Westchester municipalities. Post-Approval Residential and Church Relocation Residential Relocation Resources As noted earlier, there are an estimated 30 to 35 households within the Redevelopment Area, which would require replacement housing. To the extent that dwellings are available within housing administered by the New Rochelle Housing Authority or otherwise assisted by the City of New Rochelle, these units may be offered to residential displacees. Additional residential rental units are currently available in New Rochelle, and neighboring and nearby communities from the residential rental market. 3.8-24 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-21 summarizes the average advertised rents for selected southern Westchester municipalities for 1999. Table 3.8-21 Average Advertised Rents in 1999 by Municipality & # of Bedrooms Community Number of Bedrooms 0 1 2 3 Ardsley $800 $950 $1,308 ND Bronxville $895 $936 $988 $1,138 Dobbs Ferry S1,083 $1,258 $1,192 $1,275 Eastchester $995 $1,000 $1,250 $1,400 Elmsford $963 $1,076 $1,163 $1,250 Greenburgh $900 $1,038 $1,200 $1,400 Hartsdale $825 $1,050 ND ND Harrison $952 $1,063 $1,256 $1,500 Irvington ND $950 $1,063 $1,174 Larchmont $725 $1,116 $1,139 $1,350 Mamaroneck $800 $980 $1,250 $1,550 Mt. Vernon $850 $975 $1,069 $1,269 New Rochelle $942 $1,031 $1,075 $1,266 Pelham ND $1,175 $1,350 ND Port Chester $800 $850 $955 $1,113 Rye City ND $1,125 $1,275 $1,550 Tarrytown $950 $1,123 $1,175 $1,375 Tuckahoe $900 $1,042 $1,293 $1,550 White Plains $1,019 $1,033 $1,273 $1,558 Yonkers $955 $980 $1,053 $1,175 County $885 $1,024 $1,190 $1,363 Average ND = No data available. Source: Westchester Residential Opportunities, Inc. Post-Approval Commercial Relocation Applicant Developed Relocation Space As noted earlier, the Applicant is endeavoring to secure space in the immediate neighborhood to accommodate the relocation of on-site businesses, and if not within the immediate neighborhood, in the City of New Rochelle. The Applicant controls all of the holdings of the Gerard Daniel Company on Plain Avenue. Approximately 19,300 square feet of commercial floor area on the south side of Plain Avenue would be available for relocation. Additional relocation space is available at the nearby Humane Society property (10,000 square feet) on Sharot Street, approximately two blocks west of the Redevelopment Area, and at the vacant Tuck Tape property (19,500 square feet) near US Route 1 (East Main Street) in the Echo Bay area of the City. 3.8-25 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Gerard Daniel Company Holdings As noted elsewhere, these properties have already been purchased by the Applicant. The Gerard Daniel Company had already decided to relocate out of New York State prior to the purchase. The use of the existing building on the south side of Plain Avenue for relocation would allow businesses currently operating within the proposed Redevelopment Area to remain within the neighborhood. This would allow relocation activities to be accomplished quickly, minimizing potential disruption to business operations. Few, if any, environmental effects would be expected from the re-occupancy of these existing nonresidential structures. The reuse of these structures would prevent their removal from the tax rolls, allowing this property to continue to be used as an employment and revenue resource for the City. No new building construction would be necessary eliminating additional construction impacts. Remodeling of interior spaces would be likely, requiring a degree of limited activity, including additional truck traffic for a limited time, and construction employment. Likewise, impacts of siting light industrial operations at currently vacant sites within the City or elsewhere would be reduced or eliminated to the extent existing businesses within the Redevelopment Area are relocated at this property. Humane Society The potential relocation of businesses into existing vacant portions of the Humane Society building on Sharot Street (approximately 10,000 square feet is vacant and available for lease) would offer many of the same benefits as the Gerard Daniel Company holdings, with similar effects as discussed above. This location is not contemplated as a potential relocation site at this time; however, it was studied to preserve it as an option. Former Tuck Tape Property Like the Redevelopment Area, the Tuck Tape property is zoned M-1. It previously supported approximately 19,500 square feet of light industrial and office space. This property comprises approximately 3.1 acres. Devoting less of this property to buildings would free up additional land area for open storage uses. With the exception of the largest building (approximately 13,750 square feet), it is likely that five of the existing structures on this property would be demolished if the property is used for relocation. A likely scenario for use of this property would be to accommodate companies requiring a mix of open storage (for vehicle and/or heavy equipment storage), and related office space. Between 20 and 25 of the businesses operating within the Redevelopment Area could be accommodated at this property. In this scenario, it is likely that the overall intensity of use (i_e., amount of building floor area) at this property would roughly approximate its historic level of use. 3.8-26 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 411 Potential environmental effects from the relocation of Redevelopment Area businesses to this property would primarily result from the reintroduction of traffic to and from the site. Based on information presented in Table 3.9-9 of Chapter 3.9 Transportation and Traffic, an estimated total of 135 weekday PM peak hour trip-ends are generated by the nonresidential uses currently located within the Redevelopment Area. If it is assumed that between 20 and 25 percent of these trips would be relocated to this property, between 27 and 34 weekday PM peak hour trips would be generated to and from this site. The reuse of this site would increase its taxable value to levels previously seen when the property was occupied by an operating nonresidential user. Like the potential relocation sites discussed above, this would allow this property to continue to be used as an employment and revenue resource for the City. Some new construction may be necessary at this site, although, as described above, the existing 13,750 square foot office structure is likely to be retained and renovated to accommodate relocation. Relocation to Other Areas In addition to the above-mentioned locations, IKEA will consider the purchase of other nonresidential properties in New Rochelle as part of its negotiation for acquisition of Redevelopment Area properties. • IKEA would expand its investigations into neighboring communities if acquisition efforts for sites within New Rochelle prove unsuccessful. To the extent that relocation to sites within New Rochelle occurs, the tax and employment benefits associated with each relocated business would remain in New Rochelle. To the extent that businesses are relocated outside of New Rochelle, the potential exists for the tax and employment benefits to the City associated with each to be lost. City Relocation Agency To the extent the Applicant does not acquire all of the relevant properties voluntarily, the City of New Rochelle's Department of Development would administer eminent domain procedures and relocation assistance. Subject to state law, benefits for displaced businesses would include relocation assistance to find new space, and relocation financial assistance. As described earlier, additional resources are available at County and the State levels. The City Relocation Agency would assist business relocatees in accessing these programs. A summary description of such programs is provided at the end of this chapter and in Appendix M. Relocation Procedures As noted above, a more detailed draft Relocation Plan is provided in Appendix M. The Appli- cant would fund all City relocation assistance, unless the funds are provided by a specific governmental program. To the extent that the City's powers of eminent domain are invoked, financial assistance would be provided in accordance with New York State law and applicable 411 guidelines. 3.8-27 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 The following relocation procedures would be established: Surveys: Upon approval of the Retail Center Project, the buildings to be acquired would be inventoried. Each identified household would be surveyed to determine its size, income, current housing costs, its replacement housing needs and preferences. The surveys will provide the basis for estimates of overall household composition and needed housing resources. Similar interviews would be conducted at Redevelopment Area businesses to ascertain space needs, location preferences, traffic patterns, market requirements, number of employees, etc. Relocation Interviewing, Counseling and Consultation: After acquisition negotiations have been initiated, each household and business would be provided information explaining the relocation process. An appointment would then be made for an interview with each displacee. At this inter- view, detailed information would be obtained on each displacee. If a residential displacee is interested in and appears eligible for housing assistance or for public housing, he or she would be assisted in filling out the appropriate application. Each displacee would receive an explanation of how relocation payments are made. Timing restrictions on moving would also be addressed. All options would be presented to the house- hold or business for moving so that rational decisions may be made about eventual displace- ment. Both residential and business displacees would be informed about the landlord/tenant relation- ship which would result if the displacee is still in possession at the time that title is transferred. The Relocation Agency would assist businesses in order to minimize hardship, cost, inconvenience and loss of production. Commercial proprietors would be asked to prepare, with assistance as necessary, an outline of the type and size of facility needed. This information would be circulated to the Chamber of Commerce, local Realtor's groups and others who may be helpful in locating suitable replacement accommodations. Housing Inspection and Referrals: Both the residential displacee and the relocation assistance agent would work together towards identifying replacement housing. If a vacant residential unit is identified, the unit would be inspected by Relocation Agency personnel. A referral would be made only after the unit is found to be decent, safe and sanitary. Relocation Costs and Revenues: All applicable and reasonable costs of relocation incurred by the City under state law, except administrative costs as discussed above, would be reimbursed by the Applicant. Job Retention and Economic Development Policies A variety of programs are available to small and medium-sized businesses in New York State. These include programs providing direct financial assistance, and assistance with infrastructure research and development, business and training. Tax incentives are also available. Many of these programs are administered by the Empire State Development Corporation (formerly known as the Urban Development Corporation), an agency of the New York State government. Information generally describing these resources is provided in Appendix M. 3.8-28 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Assistance designed specifically for job and business retention includes: • REDPP Business Development Loan Program • Expansion, Retention and Attraction Assistance Program • REDPP Infrastructure Development Program • Industrial Infrastructure Development Program • Site and Building Selection Assistance Assistance also currently available includes sales tax exemptions, linked deposit programs (to reduce the costs of conventional financing for eligible businesses), the Power for Jobs program (energy assistance) and other discounts for energy such as the Business Retention Incentive, direct assistance to technology-related companies, and management assistance. Other assistance available at the County and City levels may include: • Industrial Development Agency (IDA) bonds -- triple tax exempt financing for business (primarily manufacturers) • Revolving loans • Tax exemptions for property taxes, mortgage recording taxes, and sales taxes on the purchase of building materials, and capital equipment • Low-cost public electricity • Transportation services -- Westchester County's Department of Transportation will work with any business on a complete range of financial incentives and flexible scheduling services that will assist the business in employee commutation issues. • Work force skills training Job retention and economic development activities undertaken by a municipality may also be funded by the federal Community Development Block Grant program. Potential for Displacement / Secondary Land Use Study Area As discussed in detail in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, to the extent the proposed Retail Center Project is successful and attracts interest in the area as a retail commercial destination, the proposed Retail Center Project may induce additional development. As noted in Chapter 3.1, the areas most likely to experience redevelopment or displacement pressures are areas to the west of the Redevelopment Area in New Rochelle, and nearby areas in the Town of Mamaroneck, which are zoned to support nonresidential uses including retail commercial use. These areas include the SB Service Business-zoned lands between the proposed Redevelopment Area and Madison Avenue, and areas south of the Interchange 17 ramps to the Thruway which are zoned B-MUB Business-Mixed Use Business, B Business and LI Light Industrial. If entirely redeveloped, these areas could support up to 200,000 square feet of retail space. Other areas within the Secondary Study Area support well established single-family and multiple-family residential neighborhoods, which do not lend themselves to redevelopment or conversion. Except for the areas nearest Interstate 95, these areas generally do not have the access and visibility that retail users seek. 3.8-29 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Effects on Area Home Values and Affordable Housing Apart from the displacement of existing housing resources within the Redevelopment Area, the likelihood that the proposed redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area would affect area home values or affordable housing opportunities is limited to the following instances. When construction is complete and the proposed Retail Center is operational, the nearest homes would be in the following areas: 1. one two-family residence at 3 Portman Road on the site's western boundary 2. three homes on the west side of Portman Road 3. three residences along the south side of Plain Avenue opposite the Redevelopment Area 4. two residences opposite the Redevelopment Area's eastern boundary along Valley Place 5. the MacLeay Apartment Complex on the north side of Fifth Avenue (multiple-family complex) Given the proposed removal of the relatively few remaining residential uses within the Redevelopment Area, the proposed reinvestment in retail use, and the preponderance of nonresidential uses in the area west of the Redevelopment Area (up to and including Potter Avenue), the likelihood of conversion of the eight single-family residences and one two-family residence to nonresidential use would increase. The multiple family use of the MacLeay Apartment complex, north of the Redevelopment Area, is not likely to experience redevelopment pressure as a result of the proposed redevelopment activities. This complex is owned and administered by the New Rochelle Neighborhood Revitalization Corporation, a not-for-profit agency, which receives public funding, whose goals include the provision of affordable housing opportunities. This property is zoned for residential use. Residential property values in other parts of the Secondary Study Area are not expected to be substantially affected by implementation of the Proposed Actions. Market Analysis Five-Mile Trade Area Demand Analysis According to information developed by Urban Decision Systems (now Claritas National Decision Systems), in 1996, there were 227,002 households within five miles of the proposed Redevelopment Area. This number was expected to decline slightly to 219,703 by 2001. Almost all of these households are located in the Westchester County portion of this trade area. In 1996, the total income of all households within five miles of the Redevelopment Area was estimated by Urban Decision Systems to be $13,196,670,000. Total household income was projected to rise to $15,780,820,000 by 2001. This information is included in Appendix N. Assuming 70 percent of this total household income is "net income" (Le., after tax income), and, as outlined above, 30 percent of this "net" amount is available (for the purchase of retail goods and services), a total of $3,313,972,200 would be currently available for purchases of goods and services at retail by households within five miles of the Redevelopment Area. Based on the household expenditure patterns described earlier in this chapter, households within the five-mile trade area would be expected to spend on the order of $450 million on "household furnishings 3.8-30 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14,2000 and equipment" annually. Of this amount, just under $50 million would be spent on major home appliances such as refrigerators, washer/dryers and dishwashers. The remainder of these sales -- comprised of furniture, household textiles, floor coverings, small appliances, housewares, miscellaneous household equipment, and gifts -- would amount to slightly more than $400 million annually. As outlined in Table 3.8-18 provided earlier, in 1997 all establishments selling furniture and home furnishings in municipalities located wholly or partially within a five mile radius of the Redevelopment Area had sales of $214,724,000. It should be noted that this amount includes sales at such establishments in all of the major shopping areas of southern and central Westchester County (Le., the Interstate 287 corridor, the City of White Plains, Central Avenue and Cross County center). In fact, if the sales of all furniture and home furnishings establishments in both Westchester and Bronx counties in 1997 were assumed (i.e., $287,490,000 + $87,971,000 = $375,461,000), the amount of sales of such items would still be below the amount predicted to be purchased by residents within the five-mile trade area. This analysis suggests that dollars currently available for the purchase of furniture, household furnishings, home appliances, household equipment, and housewares are being spent at establishments outside of the five-mile trade area, or are not being spent on these items. 15-Mile Trade Area Demand Analysis According to information developed by Urban Decision Systems (now Claritas National Decision Systems), in 1996, there were 2,241,874 households within 15 miles of the proposed Redevelopment Area. This number was expected to decline slightly to 2,223,131 by 2001. In addition to Westchester County, these households are located in New York City and in the nearby portions of Rockland County (New York) and Fairfield County (Connecticut). A portion of these households are also located in Bergen and Hudson Counties in New Jersey. In 1996, the total income of all households within 15 miles of the Redevelopment Area was estimated by Urban Decision Systems to be $138,861,460,000. Total household income was projected to rise to $170,192,190,000 by 2001. This information is included in Appendix N. As discussed in the demand analysis for the five-mile trade area above, assuming 70 percent of this total household income is "net income" (ice after tax income), and 30 percent of this "net" amount is available (for the purchase of retail goods and services), a total of $35,740,359,900 would be available for purchases of goods and services at retail by households within 15 miles of the Redevelopment Area. Based on the expenditure patterns described above, households within the 15-mile trade area would be expected to spend on the order of $4.9 billion on "household furnishings and equipment" annually. Of this amount, approximately $525 million would be spent on major home appliances such as refrigerators, washer/dryers and dishwashers. The remainder of these sales -- comprised of furniture, household textiles, floor coverings, small appliances, housewares, miscellaneous household equipment, and gifts -- would amount to $4.375 billion annually. Again, as outlined in Table 3.8-15 provided earlier, in 1997 establishments selling furniture and home furnishings in all of Fairfield, Westchester and Bronx counties had sales of $723,273,000. If the sales of all furniture and home furnishings establishments in the balance of New York City (less the Bronx) is added, total sales in 1997 amounted to $1.98 billion. 3.8-31 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Some of the discrepancy between the predicted amount of furniture and home furnishings sales can be explained by several factors: 1) sales at large retailing centers used by many New York City residents in northern New Jersey, or Nassau County, Long Island are not included; and, 2) catalog sales, or sales via the Internet are not included. The large gap between the predicted amount of furniture and home furnishings sales to households within the 15-mile trade area, and the sales levels observed at all Westchester, Fairfield and New York City furniture and home furnishings retailers suggests that, like the five-mile trade area demand analysis, dollars currently available for the purchase of furniture, household furnishings, home appliances, household equipment, and housewares are either not being spent within the market area, or are not being spent on these items. The Applicant's store, with projected annual sales of $115 million when fully operating, is expected to capture a significant share of dollars which currently leave the region or are not spent money, as well as increase competition among Westchester and other trade area retailers. This increase in sales represents a 15.8 percent increase compared to annual sales at furniture and home furnishings establishments in Westchester, Fairfield and Bronx counties in 1997. Potential for Impacts on Existing Commercial Character The Applicant is known for its contemporarily designed, packaged, do-it-yourself offerings. An IKEA retailing facility may affect existing furniture stores and larger home furnishing stores, particularly those with similar styles, and a similar assemble-it-yourself product line. It is noted that the market for IKEA products tends to be younger single persons, newly formed families, and individuals and families shopping for juvenile furniture, or furniture for transitional situations, such as student housing. To a much lesser extent, an IKEA may also affect the overall market for kitchen and bath remodeling. With regard to home furnishings, IKEA tends to market these as accessories. For example, IKEA sells only a selection of curtain window treatments, lighting, and area rugs to shoppers. IKEA would not be expected to compete directly with retailers specializing in these items. Nor does IKEA directly compete with home furnishings stores which offer customized products, installation and repair services and/or the individualized level of customer service expected in the sale of custom goods and services. As summarized earlier in this chapter, the purpose of this impact assessment is to determine whether the proposed Retail Center Project (IKEA) would significantly affect the character of existing business concentrations, principally retail centers, within the study area. The potential for impacts at these locations is based on a number of factors: Whether or not the relevant establishments are located in any one commercial concentration; the size, health, and setting of the commercial districts in which they are located, and their proximity to the proposed project site. Each area reviewed in the assessment for potential impacts on commercial character is discussed below: 3.8-32 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Central Business Districts The downtown retail districts examined for this assessment cover a wide range in terms of size, function and character. New Rochelle's downtown business district, in particular, typifies many of the local and national trends in the evolving nature of retail; namely, the shift of regional shopping to shopping centers and malls outside of central business districts. The retail character retained by the New Rochelle district has become primarily community-oriented with smaller stores providing smaller scale services and convenience goods, and fewer comparison goods. There are three factors that would tend to minimize the potential adverse socioeconomic impacts of the proposed project. First, as is evident from the survey, relevant stores are not concentrated in downtown areas of the centers reviewed, and none were found to be pivotal anchors for these downtown areas, although they do contribute to the local retail mix and help to define community character. Second, the market for furniture and home furnishings is a very niche-oriented one. Some retailers specialize in providing customized design, selection, installation or repair services, while others specialize in custom manufacture, and others (such as kitchen and bath design) manufacture one component of the furnishing and assist in the purchase of the remainder. Retailers of goods run the gamut from the small novelty boutique to the antiques and collectables merchants, to the specialty store and midsize chain store to the large linen / home furnishings emporia such as Bed, Bath and Beyond. Most stores selling furniture specialize in providing goods of selected style (Maurice Villency, Thomasville, Ethan Allen), or which are manufactured in a certain way (Castro Convertible, Room Plus) or with a certain material (Jennifer Leather, Gothic Cabinet Craft). Third, as distance from the proposed Redevelopment Area increases, the likelihood for significant competition, and hence the potential for adverse effects on commercial character decreases. New Rochelle: Although some furniture and home furnishings stores are located in New Rochelle's business district, these stores generally serve a more local clientele, or offer a different quality of merchandise than IKEA, and none are pivotal anchors of the downtown area. As such, adverse effects on commercial character are not expected from construction of an IKEA within the Redevelopment Area. Mount Vernon: Although some furniture and home furnishings stores are located in Mount Vernon's business district, these stores generally serve a more local clientele, or offer a different quality of merchandise than IKEA, and none are pivotal anchors of the downtown area. As such, adverse effects on commercial character are not expected from construction of an IKEA within the Redevelopment Area. Mamaroneck, Larchmont, Eastchester, Scarsdale, Rye: These generally affluent communities were observed to have busy and healthy business districts with a number of relevant establishments, none of which were pivotal anchors of any business district. The agglomeration of retail uses in Eastchester along Route 22 has two upscale furniture and home 3.8-33 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 furnishings retailers presently, with another large home furnishings retailer expected to locate in this area over the next year. As with other business districts, relevant establishments were generally smaller and specialty shops catering to a small, community-based market. As a result, these stores, and the overall business district, are unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposed IKEA. Bronxville, Crestwood, Harrison: These generally affluent communities were also observed to have busy and healthy CBDs with very few relevant establishments, none of which were pivotal anchors of the CBD. As with the other CBDs, the relevant establishments that were observed were generally smaller and specialty shops catering to a small, community-based market. As a result, these stores and the overall CBDs are unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposed IKEA. Pelham and Tuckahoe: These communities were observed to have fairly small business districts comprised of small-scale community-oriented businesses. This includes the few relevant establishments (none of which were observed as pivotal anchors) that were observed to be small and serving a very localized market area. Thus, these communities would be unlikely to experience adverse socioeconomic impacts on their CBD retail districts as a result of the proposed IKEA. Retail Strips and Shopping Centers Yonkers: As noted earlier, Central Park Avenue (Route 100) including the Cross County Center and related retail contains numerous furniture and home furnishings establishments. The results of the analysis indicate that the proposed IKEA would not significantly impact the viability or character of local business districts or existing retail strips and shopping centers. Only a small proportion of the retail establishments in the study area were identified as stores that carry all or part of the IKEA primary product line. With the exception of a department store, which carries some similar home furnishings goods, none were determined to be traditional anchors of the retail areas in which they are located. The one identified anchor store is not situated within a central business district or in a neighborhood location. Instead, it is located in a large freestanding shopping center situated on the heavily trafficked 1-95 highway corridor (Bay Plaza in Bronx County). This shopping center is not connected to nor does it enhance any surrounding residential neighborhoods, as is the case with traditional downtown shopping districts. As noted above, there is one appreciable concentration of furniture and home furnishings establishments along Route 22 in the Town of Eastchester. Roche-Bobois, and Maurice Villency, located near one another along Route 22, are furniture stores serving a more affluent market with more upscale, stylized merchandise as compared to an IKEA. These will be joined by a 10,000 square foot Laytners Linens and Home within the next year. Given the very different target markets of these retailers, it is not likely that an adverse effect on business would occur which could potentially result in the closure of either one. Thus, the potential for an adverse effect to be felt along this retail strip is low. 3.8-34 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14,2000 • Effects on Employment Short-Term Construction Employment Based on labor hour estimates for retail projects included in the Development Impact Assessment Handbook published by the Urban Land Institute (1994), the Retail Center Project is expected to generate approximately 400 person-years of construction employment over the construction period. For the proposed Retail Center Project, demolition of existing structures, relocation of on-site utilities and site preparation would be more intensive than is experienced on a typical construction project that would involve new construction on vacant property. As such, this projection of construction employment is conservative. It is anticipated that most of the construction and construction-related workers at the site will come from New Rochelle and surrounding areas. These workers are expected to have a positive impact on sales at existing local businesses. In addition to direct employment, total employment resulting from construction expenditure on the Retail Center Project would include the creation of jobs in business establishments providing goods and services to the Retail Center Project contractors. A secondary effect multiplier of 1.5 has been used (each new construction employee job would generate 0.5 additional jobs.) Based on the above, the Retail Center Project is expected to generate an additional 200 person-years of employment within Westchester County and other Long Island Sound communities. These jobs would primarily be created in the off-site construction, manufacturing, and trade and transport sectors of the regional economy. Adding these indirect job creation figures would bring the total direct and indirect generated jobs resulting from this construction project to a total of approximately 600 person-years of employment. Long-Term Employment It is estimated that 327 persons are currently employed within the Redevelopment Area. Of this number, 35 are proposed to be relocated out of state (Gerard Daniel Company). In order to provide a convenient comparison of the jobs at existing establishments and those to be created at a proposed Retail Center within the Redevelopment Area, Table 3.8-22 on the following page summarizes the types of jobs currently available at existing Redevelopment Area businesses. i 3.8-35 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Based on existing operations at other IKEA stores, the Applicant expects to hire approximately 350 workers. These would include approximately 180 part-time and 170 full-time workers. Job classifications are described below: • Salaried Managers 25 • Part-time Sales 110 • Full-time Sales 115 • Part-time Warehouse 50 • Full-time Warehouse 20 • Part-time Administrative 20 • Full-time Administrative 10 Total: 350 These jobs would represent a sizable increase in the City's retail employment base, which in the 1997 Census of Retail Trade totaled 2,581 workers. The majority of the new jobs are expected to be filled by residents of New Rochelle and surrounding areas. Also, as part of the relocation process, information relative to new jobs available at the proposed Retail Center will be made available to displaced workers, and area residents. 3.8-36 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-22 Distribution of Jobs at Existing Businesses Business Name Employ. Job types CC Vending Inc. 10 7 sales positions; 3 administrative Derf Radio& Electronics Corp. 25 Ortho Rite Products 25 20 laborers/technicians; 5 administrative McMahon's Farm Inc. 8 2 executives, 2 administrative 4 drivers Montesano Brothers 25 12 laborers and drivers; 2 mechanics;4 engineers; 2 coordinators; 2 administrative, 1 flag person&others Southern New York Bus Sales Inc. 12 Telefuture Communications 20 4 owner/managers; 7 supervisors; 3 administrative; 6 field techs Marble America 8 3 administrative; 5 fabricators/installers Mercury Mason Corp. 2 2 laborers North Star Contracting Corp. 9 Wilco 20 5 administrative; 6 mechanics; 9 drivers Safeway Towing 8 3 drivers; 3 auto body; 1 mechanic; 1 secretary Rudy's Auto body 1 Owner/manager Streatham Service Station &Wodraska 2(Streatham) 2 mechanics (Streatham) Roofing 15(roofing) Van Waters& Rogers Inc. 1 1 manager Anthony's Truck Repair 5 1 administrative assistant,4 mechanics Wykagyl Bus Service 25 23 drivers; 2 administrative Fradan Manufacturing Corp. 10 2 engineers; 1 administrative; 2 salespersons; 5 laborers Ardee Electrical Contractors/EXP 8 6 electricians; 2 administrative Industries, Inc. Richie Bros(formerly Parlato Heating& 5 all laborers. This location used for sheet metal work. Air Cond.) HQ is in Mamaroneck. Elcan Industries Inc. 8 4 light manufacturing;4 clerical Jentile Inc. 22 Captech Inc. 8 2 managers; 2 clerical; 4 technicians Vernon Devices 10 3 administrative; 7 technicians Total Jobs 292 Total Executive/Management-Level 31 Total Administrative 39 Total Sales 9 Total Laborers/Technicians 70 Total Mechanics 23 Total Other 40 Unclassified 100 Relocating out of state 35 (Gerard Daniel Company) Note: Eight(8) businesses did not respond to information requests. The Gerard Daniel Company had planned to relocate operations out of state prior to the proposed action. Data sources: 1) Cushman&Wakefield from telephone surveys, and reverse directories. 3.8-37 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-23 below summarizes hourly wage / salary information for selected classes of admin- istrative, sales workers, stock workers and management personnel in the Hudson Valley and New York City. This information provides background relative to the different types of jobs, and compensation levels associated with operation of a retailer in the NYC metropolitan area. Infor- mation specific to the Applicant is provided in Table 3.8-24. Table 3.8-23 Hourly Wage & Salary Information: Selected Classes of Personnel (1997) Job Title Hudson Valley New York City Median Mean Median Mean Driver/Sales Workers $10.19 $10.84 $10.17 $10.96 First-Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors- $16.09 $19.01 $19.45 $24.29 Sales and Related Workers Order Fillers,Wholesale and Retail Sales $9.77 $10.08 $9.42 $9.85 Sales and Related Workers,All Other $12.60 $15.48 $13.49 $15.60 Salespersons, Retail $7.55 $9.42 $7.59 $9.63 Stock Clerks, Sales Floor $7.39 $8.45 $6.82 $7.92 First-Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors- $16.47 $17.82 $17.87 $19.33 Clerical and Administrative Support Workers First-Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors- $16.09 $19.01 $19.45 $24.29 Sales and Related Workers Clerical and Administrative Support Workers, All Other $14.59 $14.63 $11.54 $12.48 Stock Clerks- Stockroom, Warehouse or Storage Yard $9.69 $10.50 $9.51 $10.03 Source: NYS Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Market Information Additional economic activity is likely to be induced from the wage and salary income received by those employed at the proposed Retail Center. According to information presented in the Development Impact Assessment Handbook (Urban Land Institute, 1994), typically a development project involving jobs would induce an additional increment of up to 0.75 jobs for each job created. Based on this, a conservative multiplier of 1.5 has been selected. This means that for every two new jobs at the proposed Retail Center, one additional job would be created in the surrounding region. Applying this multiplier to the number of primary employee jobs is projected to result in 175 additional jobs in the surrounding region upon the completion of the Retail Center. Based on sales of $115 million in its first full year of operation, it is likely that additional jobs would be created elsewhere in the larger region, and in other areas outside of the NYC metropolitan area. As noted earlier, of the 350 persons who would be employed at the proposed Retail Center upon completion, 115 would be full-time sales positions, while 110 would be part-time sales positions. The remaining 125 positions would consist of 25 salaried management-level workers, 20 full-time and 50 part-time warehouse workers, and 10 full-time and 20 part-time administrative workers. Management level and administrative positions include those in customer service and cash management, food service, human resources, operations and visual merchandising. 3.8-38 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14,2000 Table 3.8-24 summarizes the projected aggregate annual incomes of each of the groups of full-time and part-time workers at the proposed Retail Center. Annual salaries are based on information provided by the Applicant. Table 3.8-24 Projected Aggregate Earned Income/Future Workers Position #of Positions Annual Salary 52-Week Total Salaried Managers/ Full-time 35 $40,000(average) $1,400,000 Administrative Full-time Sales 115 $25,000 (average) $2,875,000 Full-time Warehouse 20 $25,000 (average) $500,000 Part-time Sales 110 $17,000 (average) $1,870,000 Part-time Warehouse 50 $12,000 (average) $600,000 Part-time Administrative 20 $20,000 (average) $400,000 Total $7,645,000 Source: IKEA Assuming average state and federal deductions of 4 percent and 12 percent (based on gross income) respectively, the proposed Retail Center Project could generate up to $305,800 in income tax revenue to the state and up to $917,400 in tax revenues to the federal government. As noted earlier, employees at existing Redevelopment Area businesses are estimated to pay $455,520 (New York State), and $1,366,560 (Federal) in income taxes. All full-time employees are covered by health and dental insurance. Half of the premiums for part-time employees is covered by IKEA. Employee benefits also include life insurance the availability of supplemental and dependent insurance coverage for dependents, 401(k) plan participation, two to three weeks of paid vacation, paid sick and personal time, and holidays, a 15 percent employee discount, an employee charge program, educational assistance, and flexible spending accounts for medical and dependent care. Short-term and long-term disability benefits are also provided for all full-time employees; IKEA pays 25 percent of the premiums for long-term disability insurance. Fiscal Environment Property Taxes Future Redevelopment Area Assessment and Property Tax Revenue Projection Based on input from the City Assessor, the projected Redevelopment Area assessment was developed. The future land value is based on the values at the Palmer Center shopping center located at Palmer Avenue and Potter Avenue on the south side of Interstate 95. Thus, based on its current assessment of approximately $54,500 per acre, the future land value of the Redevelopment Area was computed to be $893,800. The projected assessment on the future improvements is based on a projected construction value (without land) of $37,500,000 as provided by the Applicant. This amount includes construction of store, parking structure, site improvements, and off-site costs (assumed to be interior fixtures). 3.8-39 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 The current equalization rate of 6.57 percent was then used to compute a projected assessment on the proposed improvements of $2,463,750 (approximately $8 per square foot). Based on conversations with the City Assessor, future assessments on the proposed improvements would be somewhat higher than the value projected using the current equalization rate (which has dropped significantly during the past year). The future assessed value would be expected to be closer to a rate of $12 per square foot of improvement. Thus, the projection using the equalization rate formed a lower bound for projected property taxes, while the $12 per square foot value formed the upper bound. Based on $12 per square foot of improvement, the future assessed value (for improvements) of$3,696,000. With a future assessed value, including land, projected to range between $3,357,550 and $4,589,800, the proposed Retail Center Project would increase the assessed value of the Redevelopment Area by a factor of two to three, significantly enhancing the tax base of the City of New Rochelle. Table 3.8-25 summarizes and compares the current property taxes generated by taxable properties within the Redevelopment Area to the range of future property taxes, and a midpoint between the upper and lower bound projections, projected to be generated by the proposed Retail Center Project. Table 3.8-25 Current and Projected Property Taxes -- Redevelopment Area TAXING AUTHORITY TAX RATE* CURRENT LOWER BOUND UPPER BOUND MIDPOINT OF TAXES($) PROJECTION ($) PROJECTION ($) PROJECTIONS ($) Westchester County $61.81 $88,282 $207,530 $283,696 $245,613 County Sewer District(New $16.21 $23,149 $54,426 $74,401 $64,414 Rochelle) City of New Rochelle $99.40 $141,224 $333,740 $456,226 $394,983 New Rochelle School District $304.83 $431,114 $1,023,482 $1,399,109 $1,211,296 TOTAL $683,769 $1,619,178 $2,213,432 $1,916,306 *Tax Rate per$1,000 of Assessed Valuation,2000 tax rates. Source:Tim Miller Associates, Inc. The Applicant -- IKEA -- has not received and has committed to not requesting any form of financial assistance from the City. This includes real property tax abatement (in which New Rochelle no longer participates), underwriting or guaranteeing of bonds or construction loans, reduced interest rates on such moneys, public participation in infrastructure investments, elimination of sales tax on construction materials, or access to low-cost energy. Sales Taxes Projected Sales Taxes The Applicant projects that, in 2003, the first full year of operation, the proposed Retail Center Project is projected to generate approximately $115 million in annual taxable sales. Based on current levels of economic activity, it is noted that this amount may be conservative. IKEA projects that most of these sales would be new sales that either would not have otherwise taken place, or would have taken place at a location outside of New York State (i.e., Elizabeth, New 3.8-40 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14,2000 Jersey or elsewhere). For example, market studies completed for IKEA by DSR Marketing Systems Inc. indicate that approximately 20 percent of the future sales at the proposed Retail Center would come from the Elizabeth store. It is noted that the Hicksville, New York IKEA location primarily attracts business from Long Island and portions of New York City. This analysis assumes, in a best-case scenario, that 80 percent of the sales are "new" sales (to New York State), and that the overall tax rate remains at 8.25 percent. Thus, it is projected that in 2003, a total of $3.68 million in sales tax revenue would go to New York State (4 percent sales tax rate), $1.38 million to Westchester County (1.5 percent rate), $2.3 million to the City of New Rochelle (2.5 percent rate), and $230,000 to the Metropolitan Transit Authority (0.25 percent). If a lower amount of "new" sales is assumed (i.e., a greater amount of sales at IKEA's New Rochelle store come from existing furniture and home furnishings retailers rather than another IKEA), revenues to New York State and Westchester County could be lower than projected above. Tax Revenue Summary Table 3.8-26 summarizes the projected sales tax revenues associated with the proposed Retail Center Project for New York State, Westchester County, the City of New Rochelle and the New Rochelle School District. Table 3.8-26 Tax Revenue Summary Revenue Source New York State Westchester County New Rochelle School District Property Tax - 0 - $245,613 $394,983 $1,211,296 Sales Tax $3,680,000 $1,380,000 $2,300,000 -0 - TOTAL $3,680,000 $1,625,613 $2,694,983 $1,211,296 Source: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. Projected Costs In order to calculate non-residentially-induced costs to the City of New Rochelle, a proportional valuation method has been used, as developed by Rutgers University's Center for Urban Policy Research. The basic assumption of this method is that municipal costs increase with the intensity of land use (i.e., that costs are least for vacant land, somewhat higher for single-family residential use, and highest for the mulitple-family, and commercial and industrial uses. Change in real property value is assumed as a substitute for change in intensity of land use. Further research has revealed that as nonresidential real property value departs significantly from the average value of all properties (i.e., is significantly greater), the direct proportional relationship must be refined to avoid either overstating or understating costs. 3.8-41 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Calculations First, the proportion of nonresidential to total real property assessments is determined or estimated. The City budget is multiplied by this fraction to obtain a rough estimate of municipal expenditures associated with nonresidential land use in the City. In New Rochelle, approximately 31 percent of the City's taxable assessed valuation is comprised of nonresidential uses (i.e., general commercial; automotive commercial; general office; mixed use; heavy commercial; and industrial). The City's 1999 budgeted appropriations for its General Operating Fund totaled $71,554,016. Based on the 31 percent figure noted above (for nonresidential uses), $22,181,745 of this is attributable to nonresidential uses. Since the average value of a nonresidential parcel is 1.54 times the average value of all taxable parcels in the City, a refinement coefficient of 1.3 is used. Thus, the amount of the municipal appropriation attributable to nonresidential uses totals $28,836,268. To obtain a projection of the municipal costs associated with the proposed nonresidential development, it is necessary to multiply the nonresidential municipal expenditures (in this case, $28,836,268) by the proportion the new facility value is of the City's total nonresidential real property value and, once again, by a refinement coefficient. For new facilities, a refinement is made when its value exceeds approximately two times the average nonresidential assessment. In this case, the proposed improvements (and land) are projected to have a construction value of approximately $38.4 million. As described above, 31 percent of New Rochelle's assessed valuation has been assumed to be nonresidential. The total taxable assessed valuation in the City is currently $302,849,375; the nonresidential component is therefore $97,255,502. Applying the current equalization rate of 6.57 percent yields an estimate of the full market valuation. Thus, the full valuation of the nonresidential uses in the City are calculated for purposes of this analysis to be $1,480,296,834. The proposed Retail Center Project would increase the City's nonresidential valuation by approximately $38.4 million, or 2.5 percent. Through application of the appropriate refinement coefficient (in this instance, since the new facility's assessed value is expected to be approximately 120 times the average value of nonresidential parcels in the City, a coefficient of 0.1 has been selected), the annual costs to the City of the Retail Center Project are projected to total approximately $80,000. Some direct costs which would not otherwise be borne by the City of New Rochelle are associated with the construction of the large-scale Retail Center within the Redevelopment Area. These direct costs include maintenance of additional width of roadway along the length of Fifth Avenue from Portman Road to Valley Place, and operation and maintenance of traffic signals proposed at Fifth Avenue and Valley Place, Garden Street and Cedar Street at 1-95 Interchange 16, and Beechmont Drive and Southbound Pinebrook Boulevard. According to Site Work & Landscape Cost Data: 1998 (17th edition), published by R.S. Means Company, depending on the manner in which it is mixed, the costs of cold laid asphalt pavement range between $5.70 and $7.94 per square yard (if laid by a government agency), and $6.65 and $8.80 (if laid under a private sector contract). 3.8-42 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 These ranges include labor, equipment and materials. Based on the above information, a total of approximately 2,096 square yards of pavement may require increased maintenance activities. The increase in costs would depend on the frequency of paving activities required. Maintenance activities for a traffic signal typically include bulb replacement, and signal timing adjustments. On an annual basis, maintenance costs are projected to amount to between $2,500 and $5,000 per traffic signal. These direct costs are projected to range between approximately $19,450 and $33,450, annually. Thus, total annual costs to the City of New Rochelle associated with the proposed Retail Center project are projected to range between approximately $99,450 and $113,450. It is noted that this analysis does not attempt to quantify the municipal costs of the existing nonresidential uses within the Redevelopment Area. In this instance, the Redevelopment Area's incompatible nonresidential and residential uses may increase City code enforcement activities, and police surveillance, although neighborhood residents currently afford a degree of protection to area businesses during off-hours. The vacant condition of some structures within the Redevelopment Area also increase the likelihood of fires, and other hazardous conditions to which the municipality's fire and police protection providers, and emergency medical service, must respond. Fiscal Impact Summary Table 3.8-27 summarizes and compares projected annual property and sales tax revenues with projected annual costs associated with the proposed Retail Center Project. The revenue and cost projections are based on 1998 construction values and tax rates. Table 3.8-27 Projected Fiscal Impact Summary (Westchester County & New Rochelle) Westchester New City School District Sewer District Total County Rochelle of New Rochelle Property Tax Revenues $245,613 $394,983 $1,211,296 $64,414 $1,916,306 Sales Tax Revenues $1,380,000 $2,300,000 $-0- $-0- $3,680,000 Removed Property Tax ($82,282) ($141,224) ($431,114) ($23,149) ($677,769) Revenues Removed Sales Tax Not available Not available $-0- $-0- Not available Revenues Anticipated Costs Not calculated ($113,450) $-0- $-0- ($113,450) Net Fiscal Surplus* $1,543,331 $2,440,309 $780,182 $41,265 $4,805,087 SOURCE:Tim Miller Associates, Inc. *Would be reduced based on amounts of revenues lost due to removed sales tax revenues. 3.8-43 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Construction of the proposed Retail Center would be financed entirely by private funds. The occupant of the site would own the land and the proposed improvements. As such, no debt service effects would occur to the City of New Rochelle. Environmental site assessments completed to date have revealed the potential for site remediation expenditures in the area of the existing automobile service station along Fifth Avenue. These costs will be ascertained prior to the commencement of demolition and site preparation activities on this lot. Costs of remediation potentially include installation of groundwater monitoring well(s), disposal of contaminated soils and tanks, and additional site work. Limits of liability and exposure would be formally negotiated between the City, the current owner and any potential redeveloper as part of the Land Acquisition and Disposal Agreement. Potential Costs / Town of Mamaroneck Additional costs may be borne by the Town of Mamaroneck primarily related to the maintenance of the portion of the Fifth Avenue roadway between the municipal boundary with the City of New Rochelle, and the ramps to southbound Interstate 95. As outlined in Chapter 3.9 Traffic and Transportation, approximately 53 percent of the arriving vehicles for the proposed Retail Center and 63 percent of the departing vehicles are projected to use this route. This portion of Fifth Avenue is currently maintained by the Town of Mamaroneck. Other than the potential for more frequent resurfacing operations, no other maintenance activities would be expected to result from the addition of traffic destined to and from a retail facility at the proposed site. Fifth Avenue, between the municipal boundary and the ramp to southbound Interstate 95, comprises a length of approximately 1,300 feet. The roadway width in this segment is 30 feet. As noted in Chapter 3.9 Traffic and Transportation, a traffic control signal is proposed at the intersection of Madison and Jefferson Street and the ramps to Interstate 95, and another is proposed at Murray Avenue and Weaver Street. These signals would be installed at the Applicant's expense. Future maintenance of the signal at the 1-95 ramps is expected to be the responsibility of the NYS Thruway Authority, while the signal along Weaver Street is expected to be maintained by Westchester County (with reimbursement from New York State as Weaver Street is State roadway). It is noted that a traffic signal is also proposed at the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Valley Place, at the municipal boundary between New Rochelle and the Town of Mamaroneck. The Applicant would propose that operation and maintenance of this signal be the responsibility of the City of New Rochelle. Because municipal services such as police and fire protection, and EMS service to the proposed Retail Center Project would be provided by the City of New Rochelle in most instances, it is not expected that significant additional municipal costs for police and fire services would be borne by the Town of Mamaroneck. When additional costs may be expected, such as for traffic management activities during the Grand Opening and during peak usage of the store (such as in late August after distribution of the store's annual catalog), IKEA has indicated that the municipalities providing services (potentially including New Rochelle, the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont) would be reimbursed for additional costs. 3.8-44 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14,2000 • 3.8.9 Mitigation Measures IKEA would reimburse City of New Rochelle- and other potentially affected municipalities- for police traffic enforcement activities during major shopping periods. In correspondence with the Police and Fire Departments, no capital cost needs were identified. All costs associated with utility relocation would be borne by the Applicant. IKEA would bear all costs of land acquisition, and would pay for relocation costs in accordance with New York State law. Moneys have been placed into escrow to pay for consulting, legal and related costs associated with the Project. This account is replenished as needed. • • 3.8-45 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-16: Furniture& Home Furnishings Retailers in 5-Mile Trade Area Community Retailers CITY OF RYE Main Street various small gift and antique shops VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK Mamaroneck Avenue Calico Corners Lobermann's Home Furnishings(primarily catalog) Kitchen and Baths Majestic Kitchen Baths Greenwich Furniture Barn Route 1 Briggs House Antiques Country Curtains Pier 1 Imports Castro Convertibles LARCHMONT Palmer Road Arrow Lamp and Lighting Carpet Fair, Inc. YONKERS Central Avenue Winks (going out of business) Curtos Bigs Bedrooms Allen Carpet Lights On Gothic Cabinet Craft Central Convertible and Carpets Seaman's Furniture Carpet Gallery Sleepy's Pier 1 Imports Jennifer Leather Hi-Light Lighting Castro Convertible Kleinsleep Paramount Decorators J+D Brauner Butcher Block Thomasville Dinette Circle Cross County Shopping Center/Cross County Square Stern's Sears (housewares, linens, limited furniture) Lechter's Housewares Odd-Job(discount variety store) National Wholesale Liquidators Other T-Mark(Saw Mill River Road) Source: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. 3.8-46 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14,2000 Table 3.8-16 (cont'd): Furniture& Home Furnishings Retailers in 5-Mile Trade Area Community Retailers PELHAM Pelham Parkway Furniture City MOUNT VERNON South 4th Avenue Dynamo Furniture Discounters Regal Furniture Other Hahn's Furnishings EASTCHESTER* Route 22 Westchester Carpet Maurice Villency Roche Bobois * Downtown areas of Tuckahoe, Bronxville and Crestwood have several small stores specializing in antiques, hard-to-find housewares, or design services Source: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. Table 3.8-17: Furniture& Home Furnishings Retailers in 5-Mile Trade Area/New Rochelle Community Retailers NEW ROCHELLE Home Depot(Weyman Avenue) Costco (Weyman Avenue) Route 1 (Main Street) AT Proudian (rugs) CMC Furniture Wicker Paradise Carina Furniture Kitchens& Baths Carpet One The Curtain Shop Wall Systems Unlimited Furniture Ottavios Furniture North Avenue Carpet Image Casa Furniture NY Wicker&Rattan(closed) Max Goldman Lighting Division Street Dan's Carpet Source: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. 3.8-47 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-18: Furniture& Home Furnishings Retailers in 5-Mile Trade Area/ Bronx County Community Retailers BRONX Bay Plaza Shopping Center JC Penney(Housewares, Linens) K-Mart(variety) Paramount Decorators Jennifer Convertibles Sleepy's(Mattresses) Pear Tree Shopping Center National Wholesale Liquidators(discount housewares) Rockaway Bedding Other Fasciglione Furnishings (White Plains Road) ROMO Furniture Mfg. (custom, Boston Post Road) ABC Carpet(Bronx River Avenue) Home Depot(Gun Hill Road) Source: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. 3.8-48 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-19: Furniture& Home Furnishings Retailers in 15-Mile Trade Area/Connecticut (Outside of 5-Mile Trade Area) STAMFORD Atlantic/Bedford Street Safavieh Carpets and Home Furnishings Bridge/Summer Street and Ridgeway Shopping Center Bed, Bath and Beyond Pier 1 Imports High Ridge Road Lord &Taylor Brandman's Paint and Decorating Carpet Center and Flooring Sleepy's Mattress Buxton Farms Road and Merritt Pkwy Wayside Furniture West Main Street Tables and Chairs and More(going out of business) Stamford Town Centre Mall Macy's Bombay Company Domain Hold Everything Pottery Barn Studio Store This End Up Furniture Williams-Sonoma Fairfield Avenue The Warehouse GREENWICH East Putnam Avenue Ethan Allen (large) Antiques stores-several Maple&West Putnam Express Custom Furniture and Antiques Tudor House Interiors Country Floors Waterworks Interiors Downtown Greenwich Pier 1 Imports Restoration Hardware Best&Company/Lillian August/Christian Antiques Simon Pierce Greenwich Furniture Barn Workbench Furniture Home, Hearth& Patio Source: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. 3.8-49 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-20: Furniture& Home Furnishings Retailers in 15-Mile Trade Area/Westchester County (Outside of 5-Mile Trade Area) Community Retailers PORT CHESTER North Main Street Home Works Rye Ridge Tile Feinsod Hardware South Main Street Patdo Light Studio Greenberg Used Furniture Mediterranean Living US Route 1 Pergament(going out of business) Lechters HARTSDALE I SCARSDALE Central Avenue G. Fried Carpet Design Store/Door Store Bellini/Baby&Teen Leather Furniture Brasero Furniture Scarsdale Furniture Barn Dilmagtiani (carpets, rugs) WFO (Wall Furniture Outlet) Philip Engel Seaman's Furniture Work Bench NY Living Furniture Prince of Wales The Wood Shed Treasure Island Room Plus Jennifer Convertibles Ethan Allen Darling Discount Furniture Steven's Carpet Maurice Villency Accent Dinettes Source: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. 3.8-50 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Socioeconomic Conditions September 14, 2000 Table 3.8-20 (cont'd): Furniture & Home Furnishings Retailers in 15-Mile Trade Area/Westchester County (Outside of 5-Mile Trade Area) Community Retailers WHITE PLAINS/GREENBURGH Route 100 (Central Avenue) Bed, Bath and Beyond Sam's Design Center Floor Coverings Service Merchandise Montage Atlantic Furniture Domain Design for Living by Gil Leather Center Galleria The Bombay Company Calvin Klein Home Galleria Furniture Lechter's Housewares This End Up Macy's Department Store (with full-line furniture dep't) JC Penney Co. Department Store (w/limited furniture) The Westchester The Bombay Company Crate& Barrel Crate& Barrel Furniture Lechters Housewares Pottery Barn Restoration Hardware Select Comfort Williams-Sonoma Laura Ashley Home Route 119 EJ Audi Home Furnishings Sleepy's Rockaway Bedding (2) Pier 1 Imports Redi-Cut Carpet Bed, Bath and Beyond (freestanding) Nova Lighting Ferrari's Kitchens& Baths Source: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. 3.8-51 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 3.9 Transportation and Traffic 3.9.1 Introduction and Summary This chapter describes the results of a study performed by Vollmer Associates, LLP to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed Retail Center Project on the surrounding street and highway network. The generalized location of the Proposed Actions is found in Figure 2-1. The Traffic Study Area is shown in Figure 3.9-1. The potential impacts of added traffic on local streets and intersections is one of the key planning issues for any large scale retail project. It is important to the retailer that its customers and employees can readily reach the proposed site without undue delay. It is also important to municipal officials and people who live and work in the area, that any traffic added to local streets and intersections does not create congestion, which would adversely impact upon traffic safety, and the ability to access homes, areas of employment and businesses. These concerns are reflected in the Scoping Document, which was adopted by the City for the proposed Retail Center Project and forms the framework for the analysis that follows. The traffic study presented in this chapter is complex and lengthy. It discusses the assumptions and underlying methodologies used to develop estimates of trip generation and distribution for the proposed Retail Center. There are many long and complicated tables summarizing the level of service calculations for the 48 intersections that were examined. All level of service tables, which summarize existing and future conditions, are provided at the end of this chapter in order to better maintain the flow of the narrative. The actual calculation worksheets, totaling hundreds of pages, are provided in Notepad Text format in the CD-ROM provided at the back of the Appendix. A hard copy of these worksheets, along with other supporting technical material, is on file with the City of New Rochelle, Department of Development. A copy is also available for review at the New Rochelle Public Library. The reader should understand that traffic studies focus on peak flow conditions C, the few hours of the day when the greatest number of cars are on the road and project effects would be most felt. Peak hour volume is one of the primary considerations used in the design of roads and intersections. If a road or intersection can accommodate peak hour volumes, it can be expected to readily process traffic during the rest of the day. The majority of time (typically 20 hours out of every day) traffic volumes on local streets and intersections are considerably lower than peak conditions and traffic flows more easily. This study focuses on the three traffic peak hours as being the most critical to understanding project-related change and impacts: weekday PM; Saturday midday; and Saturday PM. During the weekday PM peak hour, commuters share the roads with other people who are shopping or running errands. During the Friday PM peak hour of a typical week, the proposed Retail Center would generate 183 inbound trips and 172 outbound trips. During the Saturday midday/PM peak hours, the proposed Project would generate 740/638 inbound and 567/869 outbound trips in a typical week, respectively. During "sale weeks," which occur only about 10 percent of the year, the number of Friday PM peak hour trips would increase by 18 percent (216 inbound, 203 outbound) and the number of 3.9-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Saturday midday/PM peak hour trips would increase 35 percent to 998/860 inbound and 765/869 outbound, respectively. These higher 'sale week" site-generated volumes were used in the traffic analysis. The analysis accounted for traffic volumes that would occur without the proposed Retail Center Project; the number of trips generated by the project; and their potential impacts on local streets. Given the substantial traffic volumes of the proposed Retail Center, potential impacts were identified at 15, 19 and 19 locations, respectively, during the weekday PM and Saturday midday and PM peak hours. In response to this assessment, a comprehensive mitigation plan was devised to address worsened conditions at the roadways and intersections of concern. This area-wide traffic improvement program is extensive and would include measures, such as adding new traffic signals, re-timing traffic signals to improve traffic flow, re-striping and modifying the lanes on existing roadways to better accommodate the volume of traffic, and widening pavement to provide for increased traffic capacity. These improvements would be fully funded by the Applicant, and would require approvals from the relevant municipality, and/or state agency. The following summary accounts for conditions that are expected to occur, if the proposed Retail Center Project were to be developed, along with its full list of mitigation measures. The expected changes to local intersections, as a result of peak hour site-generated traffic and associated mitigation, have been placed into five categories shown in the first column of Table 3.9-1. This table compares the Build Condition, including Mitigation Measures, with the No-Build Condition and shows the number of intersections by peak hour that would fall into each category of expected change. Table 3.9-1 Comparison Summary Number of Intersections that would Improve, Remain the Same or Worsen Build Condition with Mitigation vs. No-Build Condition Expected Change Compared with No-Build Symbol Weekday Saturday Saturday PM Midday PM 1. Intersections that would operate much better T 12 7 9 with noticeably less overall delay and an LOS increase because of Applicant sponsored mitigation. 2. Intersections that would operate a little better T 2 5 2 with slightly less overall delay because of Applicant sponsored mitigation. 3. Intersections not significantly affected by the 0 30 29 28 proposed Retail Center. 4. Intersections that would operate a little 4' 4 7 9 worse with slightly more overall delay, even with Applicant sponsored mitigation 5. Intersections that would operate much worse 0 0 0 with noticeably more overall delay and a LOS decrease, despite Applicant sponsored mitigation. Total Intersections Analyzed 48 48 48 3.9-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS •r,r • , .ani. rr W ! - iC`i \:•. 1 t / 01 ,s, r'1►'•a --- / ag '� l 'i` �)` r �( , r i f /;,C. ;,rl•/' l l , - 1 <if 1,., e ...t., „„sc, _..„..,_,,...„,....,:it S�wanoy r k..44..,, � -• .?t 4 ., 1 `. ,,. ' Sc High �.t, t• 't;r�I r %r '_ y t n ° a° tea° f + _ .. _e,! � , *`` /�` .j galCountry Club ' rl sla,ft'.: 4.___ �Gv� YER�r-- t 4 • r9�i. Ir , t �` � a Q1 /7-,..... 1' o �M \ -•/ �'' fJff ' '� y ,„ ,f 95 _ ' \ 1� ! 3; fl Yrr� 34' /. • '�.�i `�� 7L lr�i'r i„/._'7-.._,— l A.,„: 'y > I G L� "G t tY I,l l $ y I :� y 63 fit4t. ir/� a, �� ,, (..„,..• .i J \7 I 1.—.....,.... , „,,R -1 .' �4i'f 1J Ir� NI- ✓ ( „: r �j�c i ty ',;1140 �• J. v . 1 / ``. / 1� it 1t�' HFg81 U() --.. '10 yy£ i, I,� t , .t 2�i .v \.,-- f 1: ) t f3'_ �`.� Rtr31 / ,'� \ f7 f• �Q JV'y f 1.1";(7,,i-;__ __,. tt61 - }1 tt �� Z ' t� r £ 0� L -�fV 5 , �, \ ` ff �r _� lh,, / RR,p5 i _�� . `! � 'i�9 } Qtt \`1 �v J t �g 44 t. J �/ It\,-11' 1� G/' t \\ ��,f ?f -, - ' f •, '\ \' ,`! p . 'PF 4 4 rf a�i'� ,jt jf'�_ t �qWe.it . �6. !�, I t\ • ,y \ '� '� s :Ik •'' a-- Hammock, .� ,� oo i / r4 I. 7.,,,,---,------- - � -”:-_�_ �a 1;;;;'::. I4h` g F' it C It l[ttl� N r 9' \' j %ys:;;;44::: h cr �r M0 \ PI8 �_ :R 7t •art y! ,. OY�� R/Jr ,,, O' ,1`\ © .i•� ,TS tm )% . j . . ; ����,, ��T-I _ Fief r�ai71Q5t1ir@c.)\,,,,,,t,„ \ '/ ///y c; )4'70.. 1 ori c I � ':r use f r'I��� � �I►' • / 7 s /' " / 345Sch Q - Country Club4.i / ijiz%t. / \ ! Jr RE STUDY { t 9 I f I i c7/f /i Ab1 18 p 7 ./ ` �`.��" '_ �j" !r/J ���Wy E '7 i lS•?`t '�. `jT't` PART: -d'L-_-..-„,,,..1 �_•_ r 6y . + V +t, ! ` �-ard f,.' r f `-. 6 �' 42 • f:; t/ ,' `'• •• ` ! ✓ moi' `'- a�' \ jlj J r' f,l ! 11 (A'''11'\ (` ,/ !;'PCNL". I, 1. '•ti to l •,y ¢0/} h ✓ + r� / ���' r �� '1 p �` ! �� / 10 . t:• ( !r :''1,. t 'PF;11'\ /,, ` J , •,\ ) A��'' -, 110 ; n'5 ..,N,-4,,..,'t.... '•F ''`�'• ( t 5 n \\?.,Q �` tP t f• r+ .`iii..' tat '' e e R / til •OR L tt 43,•,_C e'i �' i" /� a ` •`� 1� j t^ 23b Perk l: �f / r f t'� r - • id; Vi y 69 232 y ,. -.• 2 • ,,� / ? '11.� �� ..1•_ / •.. • 1E-7- -.. -7 ' ,t_44,,,-1 ''r• ""~ !i ;' `-'' ���, --r: 't�Nr i Lem) �Ty� _ f y -k - ttl 1.�, ): t-fi d1 l. {�• .1 • r l_'� / =/ � r`\ I. • Per //�� + i O+t 1. --t5 •./ N 1� ..fir 't� `_ �� y r •tt�"7 1 G� i f, -:�.� +r rig f � + \ `• 27 •'•. ` . / �1 1 r' 28 t ,t .o? jy f� • h • • 1 `1 t 1 �t {� / t S _ v ' ,rte` P,��44 N. li -•,jI j�� -It „,..;.•s-i-,, t ,� }�` �VOa / . i, } X70' . ? 11 l i�'_ y__ Cid” i M c � ..�_ .- '! / } o j.t. Ir � :Y y(f 1 ` � •y _� Ct _ "•, ft0 �i `'\.r a• 3 ,w@Ct2 9�7 �� -- ` �' { i ""'1 t ! :.. L` L + • _ i z1 l ✓`` f o,._ . f tr a•, � E, Lona . r , _ ,c. t` reacen - ! !. ,-r it q, f •. -_L' -� �) �f' ,,,E i i k" 1' ,,/' ,1� / .+`t t�F• I W. J ? ` '*' �4- ,,%f_ Pt' l 1 4, r S-c �Rre, \ ` J j t ( 4 •� X46 0 Point **3(- `t• Ir 5 f5y T Q t22V,74,',._7_ ,, �} x.21 ! �,t04' {{{ ir edar E / • • ► .lj • - /r 7 4 r/ £ Z y`r "4 .,rte♦ �` t \S d. _�� . Ap�� +I �._-�/ ) 47 '"\ _ ( 1, i"ii �F�E , � 1 �`! fit` 4 � ' 'f 1 J1g%'� i` %P _ Jik ., € ; f t � H x �,.�{ r ,� r / T r� r' t . .0 ' . "�_' �,1.--:? ^\. °', :°-. -` ` 1 .•� '� �"' _ T L m on t� * -3E j Y�y ti �- .i .) 1� A�-- •• ��lt =�� j 1p.^ t 6~1 �pl ' / �p�+ LQ.r�'iIG t • cl t. r t - I 1 I .r< '� ` \ \\Qin , ! p" R+ - '�.�_ - w,.. �, s ) Imo . It � ti r t`- \ ti , \ l-; , ' .' rN � • j 1 `y �i'"' {i , , F ,W t . if �1 �` �� / f \ k., \Vf ' •t .,,.=moi'�( "�` ' w ' Harbor -� ,_ A•�K ; U g' •k - ? ti /, ,:. t 48`t_,, :t �s ' a HQ f .Edgewa ter . z- �, - r - Pa' k anti p ; �. - �' f o• � [ /'- _ n t� '\ H (IPr/i S ., \c4 r / t? 1 �if� i•I/ � • ;%1 iY ✓ n'ul 't . CQLIQ+ [ RVQ '` - ..- ��-y �' y .,\ 1� r "� ,\. 4 aZ,2 \ l �'- \ � 1„.., ._ ti. , •*'� �� ,�_. -,t GS���n 4 _ . jf a• if! + rcra ` Lake P' _ `ij +A ICcl rt r .a £ t it', ity �l r 1 . �`,� 1, s Q /r 11/:(.., ( ./ - r f-1\`', r 0 �"•it , ,� / 7}. r �'-4 t oE:'� �t f �,` �� o; 1 mbrella {{ ..--;411-- �_ y� t , 1 C //{ ` \ i; �: d,� �' \ '� _(�aJ Point + ,a� �� _ t= �' ` �' ',` �' `h"-s "y\Z - s dI i �r�/"' i;i , ...t' �� 't��•q�(�"_ _ +I ,L-' `'r 5 y��. + ,6�t1+ •C.' toLigtt 4. ' f/ S 1.. Z /'r�':�. �7- _ �- " ,•i�,:a. •l tft pt--,,r •/ , F. --s•M', �! 'Y tait� • t. .' ,/! .-T'��4 / r� _•1 ,c r £ +. \ -u.n ."„ •a FS,--.;�: ' t.,, - �.:%s A b r ,fere ircm Harbor. ' 7; , '0 ." tlt 1 ',-. f " lo ...,., S_ rt,/"//\`'s . 13 �� 1 i tDP\t �• N� { M2l(�/01Lf� f 4 • ` /N t i :rte r M s = / // �y / \k.- - J t " /:! \•, CElitord \ . :._��lll 4 F!+f a9 AVE t o Ar•MO ;1`:-.----.1-,-,'Ra Ic) 0a I t �Y file % +'',j + �' psi + ''..?------7 , -_r"-mo o,• - MMS t"r�/� A44 !i`...`...-,- ,., -,ti.„.*'. y VI \'`� 0 .)- • / :i� .t ) % K i i, :i; q • 1, i ,�t cL6G �\ x 1r +n` /4 .if8'7� 94/ '41,„ ///-f� )`� 3� Q �'�r i' ,t. / i 'r,._ 4 ,P'-" t \,t�_y;.: l _ 1 ,� '4J +.r`i,•"+ �J '"� it'iSE.� e� . -01`).-:::'':'•7...':'.i. , 18r,d`� ,.. 4 h r' I'_7, ,+f''" - �.s`:S 1, t HcAp i`' c - •// ''�'l.,i�r. � \ ff :.:„.•;:i:.,,,: •r _ +' i ,/''St" •.• , i. f, r 'A-• --i 1\ -f4 \`\J t• r'r ``1 6,�:•',r 4 \\,/,..," `.5' .��`�•.�'�' / ••l f,V ...L_ �,-tah .-_ :.�7'l� I t s.� ..TBble �- + , + _ -.-=' ,,A. l �/� rz b,?r , � 1l..- i Rock r+.• 'Yom!.t' { f \,,.. ',� .HrN7Q�,,t�: -- '. 1 , /r7,j \ \`.i St. �U' »??�'% J ... .': • ,tt.' • r 1 ,, asp ,s \^ t Cbrlc+I 'Sc a, .•• --;*7"ti I T �' ;_ e> � PI y , -�' Jo\ .• _ �' •-edq hr -3t ht Club .2 rt` - .4/ ,/ � �:ua a4_,4_,,,,,,,,,:i,,,,,..,,,;....,40,,. , -� •i . =� 1,...,___,,,,,. /N ` Harrison ..„Iiiiii viltt Sc { A Fi �(g' f`a� y`+c 1 i4 y i l4 _,:\,-.--..-=,---,..'..."_ , „-,•JC O'•+!f lry,� L �- ‘)(1,,,;••••N;'1 % • �et�ofort �t • , p r i'i A i w` '' 't11 `''r p t i • 't �1 f j J i 1` i l' {u'ttion. Lt‘‘ EC o / g t , remiUm to ,1! ` t E __ J! {, !� Llt -� - / `r - v �� '}(� '_tit jyurk• fuck Gut Pt '+t a ,'' r1 1 Cemetery I r`. �_\_ C:,:///"°".....i...'..,,..). 1?.-3.-.. s < Pt 4. t z+,: ,j`,..•4• ',k 4 gfi if11 `. +/ '•' ,/,,,;.:.,,,,..f-. % �� , Qv !�=.,\ T. .,.Echo Ua�! -�.�l ., T }� •_t e++ ''! U _ - %f ` F �) i - >`i' Traffic Study Area Intersections _• . / t'< i Cemetery { + �� f ,,r , �� cm a � ,l �,�' 1 ' '�!' { ry ! r ,� �, Als. h .'' ^�:, x a'r ey Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area r1' r, ii �� ! _ �'�� /� %+ t l ' Rock ® Plan and Retail Center Project ri, __,___:..__,' c - t""� _ t yy ” _ a \ o .:f'' : . Qo Study Intersection • Oi• .3AL�ty \.�. �� 11 , to ,h 1 _-fi, '�/ a.' q� '', \.'f5 Si; • e}` .2i'. - v �'JAiOH (/ � .!ILISF•. Echo 8 .. ,, \i. .•,\,. 'i �4 I c,,_. _, Fi ure 3.9 1(Page 1 of 2) ,� ` f`. -� .' fit v Ya tt•' . 'fI• tt /r 4.0.-i.--,4" . �• l( _ / )j' tc ti` 70' j �,r v.. =,- - . t Ya aO-,' `� O. \' Jp1OBati4der .r. 1Q\N H ghci f4. ./ No � °o „ .¢% ) , 1 ismer i. e thcot( R • Bonk Golf \ Q e4 /oi J. if f �� R Il� t Meld \ �, .d` '33 .. 1 - . •I� d " oyr ":j t-- 1 �iz5 0 - Fire a* ,f Course o C� �'`'• 4 ~ - �� . ` -_�- 41.,'",:''''.5--oit 1, '� f�. 1, tNr StV l � t �` -- u"-/9,/1,_ i i e+T a rX ;, 7w/ -._�/, �`�S , \ r^' . ,+ o ' GAS \ �xes Poomming 1 _ Q. c,.c)/ I> "•�l�-"� �r 'k ' \ _y J r... ' 16.7 4::f / rah° p�' r j , 4 N % ' e N,.... �t icor„Atex 4 / �, •" ','r' �. �r - y. ray f 1 , l t A. yr Cross',vay , � tu ,}, r r! �:\ `C �t / •. ' 2, // I !N /j! ✓�0 4 1' ti r /�:11:1(.61:1 .; c. > 9' ,. f,Itlrt Z 1 1 V8el 11I1 1 `-' �. ., / r//�� -� I , �� �/ `,y`v:- '1 ' 1 ,;. 'y/Water , -;, t91 K• .r . . _ �, f(:' �.,i f -c.. ,'' ,.5t `.,, _ \\:' >f l�� 4I r.� ,t - --F--; - `._ N.::'� 1r7 t \ I ,SJgF1 r �� / , , P� n, HA vE,T tI 3 / e Ut f �* •Er , /// /y/J /Y�s / / / I \Gs ''N‘ ..." 7. /lly, R t - 12 - - p• / a /7 / .® ' y , ! l �, ,1� '\ r ,f ,) .. , . , t1t f' FPSy / lI\ • i` 4 r ,,7' 1Ly- •' l ' g 1 •C i't 1 r;' / f� • /�' QT •Sy0 / :, ���" •,+ •..� } JfSa tyf �a ofs I`� A y Cem1 • l�AEnbur� �• rr I ✓' / 1. -r`r 1 •.rd t aFk S o', i /' \.� „ �1, tNaturef J s S�, f /fo !.�l�riol.t i i �s• vpj .n'Iti (' O �t I / ” Q ki / `! . Park ^in -iS, , _ , /''/ . _ .�� `h ,� /e y -,+ / �. `\Ctin r - , \� I 1 `� -s / / f- V - ..-_-_ -....V r- 0, .."'t K /4, // ,,.... ,.. r��� Colonial Acres . /y<;, ' r ` `/ oEl '` h �- i' 1• ,fes } \ r t8 : ` u .I ' M;/ • �r OAtSY y Kyr; '' i o @�,� ` It Z 1 , • ` , .->" �25 ,A 14• i, ,F, • /, ., , A ;� mar• o =r (��� i Leewood / ,,'' " ' -1 ,y, 1 :,,•_ e t ;,•9....- / , it ` . Gott Club f , ;/ ` / 4\„/ s/ �! > / / t r - 7 ( c a,. ,rr j A / \ f 1b Quaker r }ge / .` ' - ` 1.0 .� - �'. �� V011 Course •a0 (_„y. .',i-,0014 Oa'�f•i�Q' i' 'Al - ^-�- t-�4 :y j 7, • `{ ' I' T '`_ -- P�' r�4 it kt \ /'' ��, `pij j 125, •i -------/ - Quake •Ride • +•, r I 66l'--,-----4- • �,` �r s s V / °o /`; ! ti y� S c % 129 ss Golf Iub • � - 1-a. .,,- et / ..rd '� �� .Vy1' - ,ti, • fit \• . •ft I , .�-' '\ � - �y 'l} 22 ,'tPark ;1, :10, ill.I Mount '� L Gr.enlliJr S !� ✓'; ✓V J -I ,� BRAOf_.-- 4a 1 !`'I, � 1, n r _ 0 ,.,. - 1 , M,l a ; ; / t ° 4 4�fd'` 9¢...4 %i N 1' Is" 4 �„/ y �r It ;r/ v f of .; +� - � ��. / fri , i F// 1 \ 4 �i,', n i" �. 1 f ( f f`',' t \�+/ , / l` 1 ", p 1 �'i P1! } r Murdock Woods _ Gedney 11-1 , irr i at. / r ', t- / 110 . , c�A9g�s%-_- , t •'t 6'1 r• (ti o k "' 1 ,, - }''' a ✓ J�(}9tQ t r' +. \ \ ti �le'�t� ti: f f I y S •1 G f j t ,, _l t Ut/T ti'I / 1 f 'lf( �174,.,,,. / , `, r_k ilio • f•F` 1.:•,..,.,r---- /_. ' C� , r'< ,,rl /i /� �. 1/U':97t� I r C �� ' �, 'I t r '� � J 4 j. / / Re Br1�0t 3J f% 0% acres }4 'i ,;:t25 :,---,/,...c.., 1 . / '� - kWinged Foot ir'/ � tri ► /i _" kli .r=f . No 11 V f„11,c0 ' I v t • . 'r Park . ' 16 l �` �:11,114" Golf Club I +t c/ 14. C� �� 'P �' .4 fk•+ :r/ • 4 . I, Q1•r `.1 .j ,I / SIv.mrn6 1 f /' J 1 ng , ✓ 71 f f 4 L,IK/tc `}_ ,s' ; •.� .. /: /,o j i ,It , 4i -.11-,..,,24b I . ! Poo; i1 f/ } ✓ /.... C! /- `� { \ �� 82•�w '17 r `F is, .. —1 t,r ,a .i - V 6 .♦, _• r. ` ,. ', ` .. / /4 ,r---"/ ') `'�,, ti ...Li r ini —_�II 1 k 1 'jp24a� �, ° 1 ' r r .. [ "' ✓` f , ,�i Lfl , „i,;,„, r'o} . tt Bonnie E3riar- ' / - 4 •/ r/'i� I t c !nS 01` 11 , '' f +T , 1E- .� P �a 1 .w �� __ ✓ ✓ e / •t`i(r\ ci^ � i `` / •r Q) 1 r �, k rrt Sl 11 /� 1, , r Country Club . // - A. j % / (I f .� -i .r f l ' '. •ni 5{' I L ". tit •k, t01 69. >'' ,� If- , -_ i ° l � 9h0Q � '!^ / / / / , - v � ,� f �, Ged C f qv Q Tank `' �` ( [ B h sus 1 x/29 r , \ �jy rs'. j �� Y �„......,„ .� ,err r ,�' ;;+' fit, ,. Vt . ,•,ar l - g , r`� 4 t G_ ✓ ' ��" ,' ,/ ��, •\�• .•-- 3•l //•` �- ;1 ?Ng N 1--- ../. r. '' '' ' \t --'' . r Q 45• �`- ��7 '� ✓ o ff' i *-✓ f� (! l LAKES •,,,,<.------,/.,.rk' y�. v 7t -t /� ►>/ /�` � �/✓, cyp .,........7:- `�� J O �; l l etE S . r 6 't' i .; 'F-It10� � -, , P �'� i(A 4'S - �� �t r. •i r� g- \�': - ,.� e • /71. 4., J L' `� .,.`r5�f;'� P. FiK r-i' 't,, '1 •' 1 its y it (" c° C l a i / i .% / �: 139 .,\ :r -tom t / � Unr+i•:r;k)pe ? N( 1j �1 _� 4444 �Mf ✓✓J{ �/ °i /� / '` 1/l // 3g nt27 ! ti .,r Park I• ` f c " 1I %�,1f� � fix- / -c/ , U, // � L q 1 \ " ti- '9t.b p! . / i! / ►• / �o. V1 i `A, \ 1 !/•--.�`T/GH(4 0 ' ' l i'" •.-,fix+ ' l.con:,rct ' m l ,•,. .,. ' -, r / ��, l'"C'. �At-,, A6� - _ Resrvoir ` \� h ' ;l �, ,' j /+ • r / ',1 { r, S 0 154 / • •11 g t (� . a �"" �.i 1 *-17 \---1, �I. 'r ti ,' .-,,,,/ se /J�r ,� /;/� \� r / Ai--�-, 1" �l �j \� ..1._,,,,.i. ii I % j /u* �•' `0 i /,' �((( /23 f�� (141 /09 Z - /ii . t \ -, ` 1 �. >r 4 ` ..� �1 rf } "'' /-t r o �•', r'/ t / /� / - Traffic St Area Intersections afl di/ Qtif rL-4-'' 6t 7 .ti .. ' ,iyQ °- SIN f /111 tit ; ~ Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area ��r t~"y /r` ::,`,,3 Wykagy! i' / ,— y i' _ / `•�; J Plan and Retail Center Project o;, '�= j ,'I�)Country Club �� ! �I 4. ( urerAiri f ® Study Intersectionv?1f► Ni ' i/e ' koo -✓�, Z nt Sch " /J Figun 3.9 1(Page 2 of 2) _..(�Ir! ,, ✓h. 1 tk '`1Y v14, litV1 �., ✓ = t .+ .1.., 11 -11 1 WI %r �rf !! I/ if /n �Y/ ?r Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Using the same five categories, Table 3.9-2 shows the expected change in traffic operating conditions at each of the 48 study area intersections between the No-Build Condition and the Build Condition with Mitigation. In conclusion, the traffic study found that implementation of the proposed Retail Center Project would substantially increase traffic levels at some locations in the study area, but with the mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant, these increases would not significantly impact traffic operations at study area intersections. Table 3.9-2 Comparison Summary Intersection Operating Conditions Build Condition with Mitigation vs. No-Build Condition Study Intersection Traffic Weekday Saturday Saturday Mitigation Control PM Midday PM Action Fifth Avenue and Portman Road (1) NR 5 4, 4, 4, 1,4. 5 Fifth Avenue and Valley Place(2) NR/MT US 40 4, ❑ 2, 3,4, 5 Fifth Avenue and Pinebrook Road (3) NR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Fifth Avenue and North Avenue (4) NR S T 4, 4, 1, 3 Chatsworth Ave. and Palmer Ave. (5) LR S T T T 1 Chatsworth Avenue and Myrtle Blvd. (6) MT S ❑ ❑ ❑ Murray Avenue and Myrtle Boulevard (7) MT S T T T 1 Lincoln Avenue and North Avenue (8) NR S 4, T 4, 1 Fifth Avenue and Potter Avenue (9) NR S 0 4, 4, 1 Madison Ave& New Jefferson SUI-95(10) MT US T 4, 4, 2, 3 Main Street and Echo Avenue(11) NR S 0 0 ❑ Huguenot Street and River Street(12) NR S ❑ 0 0 Garden Street and 1-95 Interchange(13) NR US ❑ 0 0 Hutch. SB Exit and Weaver St. (14) SC/NR S ❑ T T 1 Intersection Condition Compared with No-Build Traffic Control 4 Operates much better S: Signalized Intersection T Operates a little better US: Unsignalized Intersection ❑ Not significantly affected 4, Operates a little worse + Operates much worse Municipality EC Eastchester Mitigation Action HR Harrison 1. Signal timing adjusted LR Larchmont 2. Traffic signal added MA Mamaroneck(Village) 3. Pavement re-striped,turn-lane added MT Mamaroneck(Town) 4. Pavement widened,turn-lane added MV Mount Vernon SC Scarsdale 5.Additional right-of-way needed NR New Rochelle WP White Plains 3.9-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-2(Continued) Comparison Summary Intersection Operating Conditions Build Condition with Mitigation vs. No-Build Condition Study Intersection Traffic Weekday Saturday Saturday Mitigation Control PM Midday PM Action Hutchinson Ave. and Weaver St. (15) SC/NR US T T T 2 Quaker Ridge Rd. and Weaver St. (16) NR/SC S T T 4, 1 Murray Avenue and Weaver Street(17) MT US T T T 2 Chatsworth Ave. & New Jefferson St. (18) MT US ❑ 0 0 Garden Street and Cedar Street(19) NR US T T T 2 Ramada Plaza and River Street(20) NR S 0 0 ❑ Pierce Street and Potter Avenue (21) NR S ❑ ❑ 0 Petersville Road and Palmer Avenue (22) NR S T T T 1 Beechmont Dr. & Pinebrook Blvd W. (23a) NR US T T T 2 Beechmont Dr. & Pinebrook Blvd E. (23b) NR US 0 0 0 Quaker Ridge Rd . & Pinebrook W. (24a) NR US 0 0 0 Quaker Ridge Rd. & Pinebrook E. (24b) NR US 0 0 ❑ Stratton Road and Pinebrook Blvd. (25) NR S 0 0 0 Stratton Road and Weaver Street(26) NR/SC S ❑ 0 ❑ Chatsworth Ave. and Boston Post Rd (27) LR S T 0 T 1 New Rochelle Rd. &California Rd. (28) EC S ❑ 0 4• 1 Eastchester Rd & Pelhamdale Rd (29) NR/MV S 0 0 ❑ Eastchester Road and North Avenue(30) NR S 4, 4, 0 1 Intersection Condition Compared with No-Build Traffic Control + Operates much better S: Signalized Intersection T Operates a little better US: Unsignalized Intersection ❑ Not significantly affected 4, Operates a little worse + Operates much worse Municipality EC Eastchester Mitigation Action HR Harrison 1. Signal timing adjusted LR Larchmont 2. Traffic signal added MA Mamaroneck(Village) 3. Pavement re-striped,turn-lane added MT Mamaroneck(Town) 4. Pavement widened, turn-lane added MV Mount Vernon SC Scarsdale 5.Additional right-of-way needed NR New Rochelle WP White Plains 3.9-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-2(Continued) Summary Comparison Intersection Operating Conditions Build Condition with Mitigation vs. No-Build Condition Study Intersection Traffic Weekday Saturday Saturday Mitigation Control PM Midday PM Action Beechmont Drive and North Avenue(31) NR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Lincoln Avenue and Memorial Hwy(32) NR S ❑ 4' 4' 1 Hutch Pkwy& Mamaroneck Ave(33) WP/HR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Weaver Street and Myrtle Boulevard (34) MT S T ❑ rr 1, 3 Quaker Ridge Rd and North Ave(35) NR S T ❑ ❑ 1 Huguenot Street and North Avenue(36) NR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Main Street and North Avenue(37) NR S 0 ❑ ❑ Mamaroneck Ave&Mt. Pleasant Ave(38) MA S T T y 1 Mt. Pleasant Ave and Palmer Ave (39) MA S ❑ ❑ ❑ Weaver Street and Palmer Avenue(40) MT S ❑ ❑ ❑ Depot Way East and Palmer Avenue (41) LR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Depot Way West and Palmer Avenue(42) LR S 0 0 ❑ Larchmont Ave and Palmer Avenue(43) LR S ❑ 0 0 Pinebrook Drive and Palmer Avenue (44) LR S ❑ ❑ 0 Weaver Street and Boston Post Road(45) MT S ❑ ❑ ❑ Larchmont Ave. and Boston Post Rd. (46) LR S 0 T T 1 Beach Avenue and Boston Post Road(47) LR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Winans Street and Boston Post Road(48) LR US ❑ 0 ❑ Intersection Conditio Compared with No-Build Traffic Control Operates much better S: Signalized Intersection T Operates a little better US: Unsignalized Intersection ❑ Not significantly affected 4' Operates a little worse 41% Operates much worse Municipality EC Eastchester Mitigation Action HR Harrison 1. Signal timing adjusted LR Larchmont 2. Traffic signal added MA Mamaroneck(Village) 3. Pavement re-striped,turn-lane added MT Mamaroneck(Town) 4. Pavement widened,turn-lane added MV Mount Vernon SC Scarsdale 5.Additional right-of-way needed NR New Rochelle WP White Plains 3.9-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 3.9.2 Study Methodology The following tasks were undertaken to prepare the traffic impact study: 1. On-site field observations were made to observe the traffic movements under various conditions. 2. A physical inventory was made of the adjacent street network. 3. Weekday PM, Saturday midday and Saturday PM peak hour traffic data were collected and analyzed. 4. Traffic flow conditions were examined on Fifth Avenue, Potter Avenue, Pinebrook Boulevard, North Avenue, Main Street, Huguenot Street in the City of New Rochelle; Palmer Avenue, Chatsworth Avenue, Boston Post Road (US 1) in the Village of Larchmont and Weaver Street in the Towns of Mamaroneck and Scarsdale. 5 Safety conditions were examined by reviewing recent accident records obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation in Albany, City of New Rochelle, Village of Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck. 6. Information about traffic generated by other anticipated major developments in the traffic study area, plus background growth at a rate of one percent per year were used to develop the future No-Build Condition. 7. Traffic currently generated by existing land uses, which are to be relocated as part of the proposed Retail Center Project, were deducted from the No-Build network in preparation for developing future Build Conditions. 8. A trip generation survey and analysis was performed to estimate the additional traffic attributable to the proposed development. 9. A marketing study was used help to distribute the additional traffic from the proposed Retail Center onto the surrounding street network. 10. Travel time studies were used to help choose between alternative routes during the trip assignment process. 11 Future-year traffic volumes, which included site-generated traffic, were analyzed to identify traffic impacts on the surrounding roadways, due to the proposed Retail Center. 12. Traffic impact mitigation measures were examined to determine their potential to address the increased traffic generated by the proposed Retail Center. 13. Ingress and egress at the Redevelopment Area was reviewed. 14. Traffic analyses at the New England Thruway toll plaza and ramps were performed and coordinated with the New York State Thruway Authority. 15. A parking utilization study was performed to assure that the proposed Retail Center had a sufficient number of parking spaces to satisfy the peak parking demand. 16. Sight distances were evaluated and capacity analyses were performed at each of the proposed Retail Center's driveway locations. 17. An examination was made of truck activity and travel patterns associated with the Retail Center Project. 18. Existing public transit facilities serving the Redevelopment Area were identified. 3.9-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14,2000 3.9.3 Existing Road Network Regional Highway Network New Rochelle has access to the extensive regional highway system of lower Westchester County. The principal north-south regional highways serving the New Rochelle area are Interstate 95 (New England Thruway) and Hutchinson River Parkway. The principle east-west highways serving the area are Interstate 287 (Cross Westchester Expressway) and Cross County Parkway. The 1-95/1-287 interchange is located about 10 miles north of the proposed Retail Center at the Rye-Port Chester boundary. The major regional highways are described as follows: New England Thruway (1-95) is a six lane, full access controlled divided highway extending from the Bronx, where it is known as the Cross Bronx Expressway, to Connecticut, where it is known as the Connecticut Turnpike. In Westchester, 1-95 serves the eastern section of the County and provides access to the Cross Westchester Expressway at the Rye-Port Chester boundary. Thruway interchanges with the local street system are located at Exit 16, Garden Street, in New Rochelle and at Exit 17, Madison Avenue, Exit 18A Fennimore Road and Exit 18B, Mamaroneck Avenue, in the Town of Mamaroneck. Hutchinson River Parkway is a four lane, full access controlled divided highway extending from the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge to Connecticut. At its north end the parkway has direct connections to the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut and 1-684 in upper Westchester. The Parkway provides access to the Cross County Parkway at the New Rochelle-Eastchester border and the Cross Westchester Expressway near the Rye-Port Chester boundary. Hutchinson River Parkway interchanges with the local street system are located at Exit 12 Lincoln Avenue in Pelham, Exits 14 and 17, Pelhamdale / Eastchester Roads and North Avenue, in New Rochelle, Exit 20 Weaver Street in the Village of Scarsdale, and Exit 23, Mamaroneck Avenue, in Harrison. Exit 23 provides a direct cross-connection to southbound 1-95 via Mamaroneck Avenue. Cross Westchester Expressway (1-287) is a six lane, east-west, full access controlled divided highway which traverses Westchester County from the Tappan Zee Bridge and 1-87 in the west to 1-95 near the Connecticut border in the east. In addition to Interstates 87 and 95, 1-287 provides access to the Saw Mill River Parkway in Greenburgh, the Sprain Brook Parkway in Elmsford, the Hutchinson River Parkway in Harrison and Interstate 684 in White Plains. Cross County Parkway is a six lane, east-west, full access controlled divided highway which traverses Westchester County from the Saw Mill River Parkway in Yonkers to the Hutchinson River Parkway. In addition, the Parkway provides access to the New York Thruway (1-87), and the Sprain Brook and Bronx River Parkways at the Yonkers-Mt. Vernon border. Cross County Parkway interchanges with the local street system are located at Exit 10, New Rochelle Road in the Town of Eastchester. 3.9-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Local Roads Figure 3.9-1 shows the location of the Redevelopment Area within the context of the traffic study area. The site has access from Fifth Avenue, Valley Place and Portman Road. Fifth Avenue is an east-west collector road, which borders the Redevelopment Area on the north. Fifth Avenue is a two-lane roadway, one lane in each direction with centerline markings separating two-way traffic. The speed limit is 30 miles per hour. On-street parking, which is prohibited along most of Fifth Avenue, is currently permitted on the block immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. Valley Place is a north-south local street which provides access to the Redevelopment Area at its the east boundary. Valley Place is a two-lane roadway, one lane in each direction. On-street parking is permitted on the shoulder along the east side of Valley Place. The speed limit is 30 miles per hour. Portman Road is a north-south local street which provides access to and from the Redevelopment Area from the west. Portman Road is a two-lane roadway, one lane in each direction. The speed limit is 30 miles per hour. Potter Avenue is a north-south collector road, which would provide access to the Redevelopment Area via Fifth Avenue. Potter Avenue is a three-lane roadway, one lane southbound and two lanes northbound with centerline markings separating two-way traffic. On-street parking is prohibited along most of Potter Avenue. The speed limit is 30 miles per hour. Palmer Avenue is a north-south collector road. The New Rochelle portion of Palmer Avenue provides access to the Redevelopment Area via Potter and Fifth Avenues. Palmer Avenue in this section is a six-lane roadway, three-lanes in each direction with a raised median separating two-way traffic. The portion of Palmer Avenue in Larchmont has two to four moving lanes, one to two lanes in each direction with centerline markings separating two-way traffic. On-street parking is mostly permitted with meter parking in the Larchmont business area, near Chatsworth Avenue. The speed limit is 30 miles per hour. The following streets in the Traffic Study Area are two-way: • New Jefferson Street [MT] • Garden Street [NR] • Hutchinson Avenue [SC] • Quaker Ridge Road [NR] • Weaver Street [NR, SC, MT] • Murray Avenue [MT] • Chatsworth Avenue [MT, LR] • Pierce Street [NR] • Potter Avenue [NR] • Palmer Avenue [NR, LR, MT] • Petersville Road [NR] -- • Beechmont Drive [NR] 3.9-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 • Pinebrook Boulevard [NR] • Stratton Road [NR] • Boston Post Road (US 1) [NR, LR, MT] • New Rochelle Road [EC] • California Road [EC] • Eastchester Road [NR] • Pelhamdale Road [NR, MV] • North Avenue [NR] • Lincoln Avenue [MV, NR] • Memorial Highway [NR] • Mamaroneck Avenue [WP, MT] • Myrtle Boulevard [MT] • Mt. Pleasant Avenue [MT] The following streets in the Traffic Study Area are one-way: • Main Street (US 1) - one way eastbound [NR] • Huguenot Street (US 1) - one way westbound [NR] • River Street - one way northbound [NR] • Cedar Street - one way southbound [NR] • Ramada Plaza - one way eastbound [NR] • Hutchinson River Parkway Southbound Exit road- one way westbound [SC] 3.9.4 Scope of Study The proposed Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area and Retail Center Project involve a 16.4 acre area generally bounded by Valley Place, the New England Thruway (1-95), Portman Road and Fifth Avenue. The Applicant is pursuing approvals to allow redevelopment of the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area with a retail center and associated accessory parking and loading areas. This traffic study examines 1999 Existing Conditions, the future No-Build Condition, the future Build Condition and the future Build Condition With Proposed Impact Mitigation. The future No-Build Condition is the condition without the proposed Retail Center Project. It includes the 1999 existing traffic volumes increased by one percent per year to 2002, and the traffic from other anticipated developments within the Traffic Study Area. The future Build Condition is the condition with the proposed Retail Center implemented. It includes the traffic from the future No-Build Condition and the traffic from the proposed Retail Center as previously described. Year 2002 was chosen as the traffic analysis year, because it is the year that the Applicant could complete construction and begin operation of the proposed Retail Center. The following intersections within the Traffic Study Area were investigated as part of this study, as called for in the Final Scoping Document for the DEIS. Figure 3.9-1 shows the location of the study intersections. 3.9-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 1. Fifth Avenue and Portman Road [NR] 2. Fifth Avenue and Valley Place [NR, MT] 3. Fifth Avenue and Pinebrook Road/Sylvan Place [NR] 4. Fifth Avenue and North Avenue [NR] 5. Chatsworth Avenue and Palmer Avenue [LR] 6. Chatsworth Avenue and Myrtle Boulevard [MT] 7. Murray Avenue and Myrtle Boulevard [MT] 8. Lincoln Avenue and North Avenue [NR] 9. Fifth Avenue and Potter Avenue [NR] 10. Madison Avenue and New Jefferson Street/I-95 Interchange 17 [MT] 11. Main Street (US 1) and Echo Avenue/River Street [NR] 12. Huguenot Street (US 1) and River Street [NR] 13. Garden Street and 1-95 Interchange 16 [NR] 14. Hutchinson River Parkway SB Exit and Weaver Street [NR/SC] 15. Hutchinson Avenue and Weaver Street [NR/SC] 16. Quaker Ridge Road and Weaver Street [NR/SC] 17. Murray Avenue and Weaver Street [MT] 18. Chatsworth Avenue and New Jefferson Street [MT] 19. Garden Street and Cedar Street [NR] 20. Ramada Plaza and River Street [NR] 21. Pierce Street and Potter Avenue [NR] 22. Petersville Road and Palmer Avenue [NR] 23. Beechmont Drive and Pinebrook Boulevard (NB and SB) [NR] 24. Quaker Ridge Road and Pinebrook Boulevard (NB and SB) [NR] 25. Stratton Road and Pinebrook Boulevard [NR] 26. Stratton Road and Weaver Street [NR/SC] 27. Chatsworth Avenue and Boston Post Road (US 1) [LR] 28. New Rochelle Road and California Road [EC] 29. Eastchester Road and Pelhamdale Road [NR/MV] 30. Eastchester and North Avenue [NR] 31. Beechmont Drive and North Avenue [NR] 32. Lincoln Avenue and Memorial Highway [NR] 33. Hutchinson River Parkway (Interchange 23) and Mamaroneck Avenue [NR] 34. Myrtle Boulevard and Weaver Street [MT] 35. Quaker Ridge Road and North Avenue [NR] 36. Huguenot Street (US 1) and North Avenue [NR] 37. Main Street (US 1) and North Avenue [NR] 38. Mamaroneck Avenue and Mt. Pleasant Avenue [MT] 39. Mt. Pleasant Avenue and Palmer Avenue [MT] In addition, the following intersections along Palmer Avenue and Boston Post Road (US 1) were also investigated as part of this study to address concerns raised by members of the surrounding communities: 40. Weaver Street and Palmer Avenue [MT] 41. Depot Way East and Palmer Avenue [LR] 42. Depot Way West and Palmer Avenue [LR] 43. Larchmont Avenue and Palmer Avenue [LR] _ 44. Pinebrook Drive and Palmer Avenue [LR] 45. Weaver Street and Boston Post Road (US 1) [MT] 3.9-10 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 46. Larchmont Avenue and Boston Post Road (US 1) [LR] 47. Beach Avenue and Boston Post Road (US 1) [LR] 48. Winans Street and Boston Post Road (US 1) [LR] The intersection field sketches showing number and width of approach lanes, type of intersection control, traffic signal phasing and ratio of green to total cycle time, parking regulations and other information required for traffic analysis at each of these intersections are on file with the City of New Rochelle Department of Development. 3.9.5 Existing Traffic Conditions Existing Traffic Volumes Traffic counts were collected in March and October 1999 to measure existing traffic conditions. Supplemental counts were taken in June 2000 at selected intersections. Continuous 24-hour Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) counts were collected at 26 locations for a one-week period in October. The ATR counts are the basis for the selection of the peak hours to be analyzed within each peak period. The following are the ATR locations: 1. Eastbound Fifth Avenue, west of Potter Avenue 2. Westbound Fifth Avenue, east of Potter Avenue 3. Eastbound Fifth Avenue, east of Madison Avenue 4. Westbound Madison Avenue, west of Fifth Avenue 5. Northbound North Avenue, south of Fifth Avenue 6. Southbound North Avenue, north of Fifth Avenue 7. Southbound Cedar Street, south of Palmer Avenue 8. Northbound River Street, north of Palmer Avenue 9. Northbound Palmer Avenue, south of Chatsworth Avenue 10. Southbound Palmer Avenue, north of Chatsworth Avenue 11. Eastbound Chatsworth Avenue, west of Palmer Avenue 12. Westbound Chatsworth Avenue, east of Palmer Avenue 13. Northbound Weaver Street, south of Quaker Ridge Road 14. Southbound Weaver Street, north of Quaker Ridge Road 15. Eastbound Main Street, west of Echo Avenue/River Street 16. Northbound Potter Avenue, south of Fifth Avenue 17. Eastbound Lincoln Avenue, west of North Avenue 18. Southbound Murray Avenue, north of Myrtle Boulevard 19. Northbound Boston Post Road, south of Chatsworth Avenue 20. Southbound Boston Post Road, north of Chatsworth Avenue 21. Northbound Palmer Avenue, south of Weaver Street 22. Southbound Palmer Avenue, north of Weaver Street 23. Northbound Pinebrook Boulevard, south of Quaker Ridge Road 24. Southbound Pinebrook Boulevard, north of Quaker Ridge Road 25. Eastbound Weaver street, west of Palmer Avenue 26. Westbound Weaver Street, east of Palmer Avenue To supplement the 24 hour counts, manual turning movement counts were collected at the study intersections in March and October 1999. Again, supplemental counts were taken at selected intersections in June 2000. The manual counts were conducted in 15 minute intervals on a weekday evening between the hours of 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM; Saturday midday 3.9-11 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 from 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM; and Saturday evening 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Four selected intersections near the Redevelopment Area were counted for two additional hours, until 9:00 PM, on both a weekday and a Saturday evening. The traffic count field data is on file with the City of New Rochelle Department of Development. For the weekday traffic analysis, Friday was chosen because ATR counts at some Traffic Study Area locations were typically higher on Friday. In addition, the proposed Retail Center tends to generate higher volumes of traffic on Friday evenings. Similarly, a Saturday was chosen over a Sunday for the weekend analysis because both background traffic levels and project generated trips are higher on a Saturday than a Sunday. Hence, intersections impacted by the proposed Retail Center Project would be more readily identified by the more critical Friday and Saturday analyses. Identification of the Peak Hour The ATR counts were used to identify the weekday PM, Saturday midday and Saturday PM peak hours for background traffic. Site-generated traffic, distributed throughout the network, represents the increment attributable to the proposed Retail Center. Together, these volumes indicate the time period when the traffic network experiences the highest demand. The analysis concluded that the study network experiences highest demand from 5:00 to 6:00 PM in the weekday PM, 2:30 to 3:30 PM in the Saturday midday and 4:00 to 5:00 PM in the Saturday PM. Diagrams 3.9-1, 3.9-2 and 3.9-3, found in Appendix G.7, show the existing traffic volumes at each of the study intersections for the weekday PM, Saturday midday and Saturday PM peak hours, respectively. The turning movement counts at the intersections of Fifth Avenue and Portman Road (#1) and Fifth Avenue and Potter Avenue (#9) included traffic associated with William Flowers Park, the recreational use, located across Fifth Avenue from the proposed Retail Center. Observations showed light to moderate traffic volumes entering and exiting the recreation facility's parking lot on a weekday evening (43 in / 37 out); Saturday afternoon (74 in / 10 out) and evening (23 in / 8 out); and Sunday afternoon (23 in / 45 out) and evening (10 in / 12 out). These observations included regularly scheduled events, such as Youth Soccer travel team matches and adult soccer matches. Accident Records Accident data for all the study intersections were obtained from a combination of the following sources: the New York State Department of Transportation, the City of New Rochelle Police Department, the Village of Larchmont Police Department and the Town of Mamaroneck Town Clerk's Office. The accident history of all the study intersections was analyzed for the most recent one year period available. For the most part, data for the calendar year 1999 were evaluated. At locations with a high number accidents or where a specific type of accident reoccurred, accident data for the a 3-year period were reviewed as well. The data was used to determine significant trends in traffic safety, such as a reoccurring type of collision (i.e., right angle, left turn, rear end) or a high incidence of accidents involving pedestrians. An overall summary of the accident analysis 3.9-12 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 along with the individual accident data summaries for each intersection is on file with the City of New Rochelle Department of Development. The significant accident trends are highlighted in Table 3.9-3. Table 3.9-3 1999 Accident Data Summary Trends Total Accident Trend Intersection Accidents Chatsworth Avenue and Myrtle Blvd. (6) 10 EB right turn collisions Lincoln Avenue and North Avenue (8) 22 Pedestrians being hit by EB left turners Main Street and Echo Avenue (11) 14 EB left turning vehicles sideswiping Hutchinson Avenue and Weaver Street(15) 6 SB left turning vehicles colliding with WB traffic Quaker Ridge Rd. and Weaver Street(16) 20 SB rear end collisions Murray Avenue and Weaver Street(17) 9 NB rear end collisions Garden Street and Cedar Street(19) 17 SB rear end collisions Huguenot Street and North Avenue (36) 43 NB/WB right angle collisions Main Street and North Avenue (37) 39 EB rear end collisions 3.9.6 Level of Service Criteria Signalized Intersection Level of Service General Traffic conditions at signalized intersections in this study were analyzed using the methodology in the 1997 edition of the "Highway Capacity Manual". The Highway Capacity Software, Release 3.1c has been used to perform all calculations in the study. (A later version of the software, Release 3.2, became available on July 15, 2000. A review of the changes in this release found that the unsignalized module's user interface and reporting features were improved, but that there would be no material differences in the capacity analysis results.) The signalized intersection capacity analysis methodology evaluates critical volume to capacity ratios and intersection delay to determine intersection level of service. Level of Service As reported in the Highway Capacity Manual, level of service for a signalized intersection is defined in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle during a peak 15 minute analysis period. Six levels of service, from A to F, have been established as measures of vehicle delay. These levels and their related delay times are summarized in Table 3.9-4. 3.9-13 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-4 Signalized Intersections Level of Service Criteria Stopped Delay Level of Service (Seconds Per Vehicle) A < 10.0 B > 10.0 - < 20.0 C > 20.0 - < 35.0 D > 35.0 - < 55.0 E > 55.0 - < 80.0 F > 80.0 Source: "Highway Capacity Manual", Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Special Report 209,Third Edition, Washington, D.C. 1997 The following definitions of the six levels of service are derived from the "Highway Capacity Manual": Level of Service A occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Level of Service B generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for Level of Service A, causing longer average delay times. Level of Service C indicates higher delays which may result from fair progression and/or longer queue lengths. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. At Level of Service D the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Level of Service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high V/C ratios. Level of Service F is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over saturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. A Saturated Flow Condition occurs when the volume to capacity ratio is greater than 1.2. Under these conditions, delay cannot be meaningfully computed because it is beyond the range of observed values. The Highway Capacity Software handles this by designating an asterisk (*) for delay and level of service whenever a Saturated Flow Condition occurs during an analysis. In the intersection analysis summary tables in this chapter, the level of service has been shown as LOS F for Saturated Flow Conditions, but the delay continues to be designated with an asterisk (*). J` 3.9-14 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Volume to Capacity Ratio Capacity is defined as the maximum rate of traffic flow, which may pass through the intersection under prevailing (or assumed) traffic, roadway and signal conditions. The operation of an intersection is expressed by the relation of the traffic volume to the capacity, or the volume to capacity ratio (V/C). The capacity and V/C ratio are calculated separately for each approach or group of lanes. The intersection V/C ratio is determined by the weighted average of the V/C ratios of the individual intersection approaches. A V/C ratio of 1.2 means that the traffic volume is, or would be, at the capacity of the intersection. Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service A different criterion is used to determine the level of service at unsignalized intersections. Under typical operating conditions the major road has a continuous right-of-way and is not affected by the minor street traffic flows. For an unsignalized intersection, therefore, the level of operation of individual traffic movements turning into and out of the minor road is analyzed rather than the operational characteristics of the intersection as a whole. The level of service of an unsignalized intersection is measured in terms of average delay to individual movements. Delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. The relationship between level of service and average total delay at an unsignalized intersection is summarized in Table 3.9-5. Table 3.9-5 Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Criteria Average Total Delay Level of Service (Seconds Per Vehicle) A < 10.0 B > 10.0- < 15.0 C > 15.0 - < 25.0 D > 25.0- < 35.0 E > 35.0- < 50.0 F > 50.0 Source: "Highway Capacity Manual", Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Special Report 209,Third Edition, Washington, D.C. 1997 3.9.7 1999 Existing Conditions Capacity analyses were conducted for the 39 Traffic Study Area intersections, listed in Section 3.9.4 (30 signalized and 9 unsignalized intersections). In addition, 9 other intersections were analyzed (8 signalized intersections and 1 unsignalized intersection). It should be noted that the intersection at Garden Street and the on-and-off ramps at Interchange 16 serving northbound 1-95, was unsignalized at the time of the traffic surveys in October 1999. Since that time, a traffic signal was installed as a mitigation measure related to New Roc City. 3.9-15 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Hence, this intersection is analyzed as unsignalized in the Existing Conditions, and as signalized in the No-Build and Build Conditions. The analysis results for the signalized intersections are summarized at the end of this chapter (following Section 3.9.23) in Table 3.9-19; and the analysis results for the unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 3.9-20. In each table, the number following the intersection name corresponds to the intersection number, which is used in all listings, tables and graphics. 3.9.8 Future No-Build Conditions Planned Development As part of this study, local officials in the City of New Rochelle, the Villages of Scarsdale and Larchmont, and the Town of Mamaroneck, were contacted to identify planned major developments in the vicinity of the proposed Retail Center Project, which should be considered in this traffic analysis. New Roc City, a recreation, entertainment and retail center in downtown New Rochelle, was completed and open for business when the October 1999 traffic counts were collected. There are four other substantial developments within the Traffic Study Area, which are scheduled to be built and operating by the time the proposed Retail Center would be completed, as described below: Palmer Center: The Palmer Center site is located at Petersville Road between Palmer Avenue and Interstate 95. The site is 83,760 square feet and when fully developed will include a Super Stop & Shop, general retail stores and a restaurant. Trip generation and distribution was obtained from the Palmer Center, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, October, 1996. Since the site was partially developed at the time of the traffic counts, the study's anticipated trip generation was adjusted by the existing traffic volumes. Avalon on the Sound: The Avalon on the Sound project is a 1000-unit apartment complex focused on a new urban park. Approximately 60,000 square feet of commercial space is proposed at street level along Huguenot, Division and Lawton Streets. The first phase is currently under construction. The distribution and assignment of site-generated traffic, shown in the project's FEIS, was used to assign traffic to the Traffic Study Area network. Expo Design Center: At the site formally occupied by Price Club/Costco on Palmer Avenue, construction is currently nearing completion to convert the building into an Expo Design Center, a division of Home Depot. This upscale interior design store will have showrooms of kitchens, bathrooms, carpeting, lighting, windows and other home design elements. The store will work with local contractors, who could professionally install these improvements. The trip generation for this development was computed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition for a Shopping Center (Code 820) of 100,000 square feet. This is a very conservative estimate, as the interior design center is expected to have a much lower trip generation rate and vehicle turnover than a typical "big box" retail store. 3.9-16 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14,2000 200 East Main Street: The property, which is located in East Main Street / Echo Bay Redevelopment Area, is the site of a former automobile dealership and several light industrial buildings and warehouse buildings at the rear. Only one building on the property is currently occupied. Hence, this property is likely to be redeveloped in the near future. For the purpose of this DEIS, it is assumed that the site will be developed as a small shopping center of between 85,000 and 90,000 square feet of retail space. Due to the sloping site, the retail stores would probably be located at Main Street-level with other low vehicle turnover uses occupying the space behind and below. The trip generation was computed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition for a Shopping Center (Code 820). (The redevelopment proposal for this site was recently withdrawn.) Future No-Build Traffic The project's traffic impact is determined by comparing future traffic conditions without the project's traffic (No-Build Condition) to traffic conditions with the project-generated traffic (Build Condition). The No-Build Condition for this Project uses the projected completion date of 2002 as the analysis year. The future No-Build Condition is based on increasing the 1999 Existing Traffic Volumes by a traffic growth rate of one percent per year for three years and by adding the traffic generated by the other planned developments, described above. Table 3.9-6 shows the estimated weekday PM, Saturday midday and Saturday PM Peak hour traffic volumes estimates for these developments. The corresponding traffic flow diagrams are in Appendix G.2. Diagrams 3.9-4a-f, 3.9-5a-f and 3.9-6a-f, found in Appendix G.7, show the future No-Build traffic volumes for the weekday PM, Saturday midday and Saturday PM peak hours. Table 3.9-6 Site-Generated Traffic - Proposed Other Developments Weekday PM,Saturday Midday and Saturday PM Weekday PM Saturday Midday and PM Land Use Peak Hour Peak Hours Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Palmer Center(adjusted) 245 138 383 288 299 587 Expo Design Center 180 194 374 258 239 497 200 East Main Street 180 194 374 258 239 497 Avalon on the Sound (fully 321 256 577 321 256 577 completed) 3.9-17 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Future No-Build Intersection Analysis The future No-Build traffic volumes were analyzed at each of the study intersections. Table 3.9-21, found at the end of Section 3.9.23, presents the Intersection Analysis Summary for the future No-Build Condition for the signalized intersections. Table 3.9-22 shows the Intersection Analysis Summary for the future No-Build Condition for the unsignalized intersections. 3.9.9 Existing Traffic Eliminated as a Result of Proposed Actions Eliminated Traffic Certain existing land uses, which currently generate traffic in the Redevelopment Area, would be removed or relocated as a result of the Proposed Actions. Table 3.9-7 summarizes the existing uses by type and size, and lists their estimated existing peak hour traffic volumes. These volumes were deducted from the street system before any traffic from the proposed Retail Center Project was added to the system. The traffic volumes deducted were based on the range of trip generation rates by land use category in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition. Appendix G.4 contains more information on calculating existing trips eliminated, as well as traffic flow diagrams showing traffic volumes that would be removed from the street system in connection with the proposed Retail Center Project. Table 3.9-7 Existing Uses and Traffic To Be Removed in Redevelopment Area Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Land Use Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total General Light Industrial (34,900 sf) 5 36 41 19 22 41 14 24 38 ITE Code 110 Warehousing (94,470 sf) 16 37 53 4 5 9 3 1 4 ITE Code 150 Open Storage Area (133,900 sf) 15 26 41 16 18 34 13 8 21 (Mini-Warehouse) ITE Code 151 Detached Housing (40 units) 19 11 30 8 11 19 6 5 11 ITE Code 210 Church (2,850 sf) 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 ITE Code 560 Total 56 111 167 47 57 104 37 39 76 3.9-18 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Potential Relocation Sites It may be possible to relocate some existing uses within the immediate vicinity of the Redevelopment Area, which are currently served by Portman Road and/or Valley Place. For example, the Applicant controls all of the Gerard Daniel Inc. Property on Plain Avenue. Approximately 19,300 square feet of commercial floor area on the south side of Plain Avenue would be available for relocation. Additional relocation space (10,000 square feet) may be available in the former manufacturing building, where the Humane Society is currently located on Sharot Place near Portman Road, to relocate light manufacturing or warehouse uses; however, the Humane Society is not contemplated for as a relocation site at this time. The available space in the Daniel's building was occupied during the traffic survey, but the available space in the Humane Society building was unoccupied. To account for the possibility of relocating displaced uses within the immediate vicinity of the Redevelopment Area, traffic generated by approximately 12,000 square feet of warehouse space and 5,000 square feet of light manufacturing space within the Redevelopment Area was not included in Table 3.9-8 and, hence, not deducted from the street system. Beyond the immediate vicinity of the Redevelopment Area, one site being considered is a three-acre parcel, located at the rear of 200 East Main Street within the East Main Street / Echo Bay Urban Renewal Area in New Rochelle. This property is one of the potential redevelopment sites included in the No-Build Condition (see Section 3.9.6). The rear portion could be a possible relocation site for up to 120,000 square feet of existing uses, displaced from the proposed Redevelopment Area. The possible relocation of up to 20,000 square feet of warehousing and 100,000 square feet of other open storage related uses would generate about 42 weekday PM peak hour trips, 27 Saturday midday peak hour trips and 17 Saturday PM peak hour trips. The potential redevelopment and occupancy of this three-acre parcel was addressed in the No-Build traffic analysis, as a larger, more intensive commercial development project (see Section 3.9.8). 3.9.10 Traffic Generated by the Proposed Retail Center Project Generated Trips Trip generation estimates were developed for the proposed Retail Center Project. These estimates were based on traffic counts collected in March 2000 at the 352,000 gross square foot (gsf) IKEA store in Elizabeth, New Jersey. These traffic volumes and the resulting trip generation rates per 1,000 gsf of floor area reflect store activity on a "typical" non-sale week, which is representative of conditions which occur nearly 90 percent of the year. In order to develop a reasonable worst case scenario for the DEIS, trip generation rates were also developed for the January 2000 "sales period". These rates were obtained by prorating the trip generation rates developed for the "typical" week, based upon the actual number of visitors by day of week during a "typical" and "sale" week periods. Visitors are counted electronically as they enter the IKEA Elizabeth store. These higher "sales" week trip generation rates only occur about 10% of the year-- i.e., in August following the annual catalog distribution and during the semiannual sales in June and in late December through early January. Site-generated traffic volumes for the proposed Retail Center Project in New Rochelle were developed by applying the trip generation rates, developed from the IKEA Elizabeth store, to the gross floor area of the proposed New Rochelle store, 308,000 square feet. Table 3.9-8 3.9-19 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 summarizes the resulting site-generated traffic volumes for the weekday PM, Saturday midday and Saturday PM peak hours. More detail on trip generation can be found in Appendix G.1. Truck trips for both merchandise deliveries and outbound shipments of sold merchandise were accounted for separately and added to the traffic flow networks (see Section 3.9.15). Table 3.9-8 Customer and Employee Generated Traffic Proposed Retail Center Project Weekday PM, Saturday Midday and Saturday PM Build Condition Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Case Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total January 2000 216 203 419 998 765 1763 860 869 1729 "Sales Period" March 2000 183 172 355 740 567 1307 638 644 1282 "Typical Week" 3.9.11 Traffic Distribution and Assignment Directional Distribution In order to determine the origins and destinations of vehicles entering and exiting the site of the proposed Retail Center, a directional distribution analysis was performed, based upon a marketing study prepared for the Applicant in November 1999. This marketing study forecasts sales by zip code groups, which represent counties, cities, towns and villages. This sales forecast was translated into number of sales transactions, so as to better estimate the distribution of auto and transit trips, as discussed in Appendix G.2, Trip Distribution & Assignment. Table 3.9-9 summarizes the trip distribution by automobile used in the traffic analysis. 3.9-20 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-9 Trip Distribution by Automobile Based Upon Estimated Sales Transactions -Year 2003 Location Percent Auto Distribution Connecticut 11.0% Manhattan 17.1% Bronx 17.7% Mt.Vernon 1.4% Larchmont, Mamaroneck Scarsdale, White Plains 3.3% (10605) White Plains, Tarrytown, Ardsley, Sleepy Hollow, o Irvington, Dobbs Ferry, 2.2/o Greenburgh Putnam County 0.8% Bedford, Pound Ridge, Somers, 0.7% North Salem, Lewisboro Peekskill, Cortlandt, Yorktown, 1 3% Croton-on-Hudson Pleasantville, Ossining, Mt. Pleasant, North Castle, New 1.3% Castle Yonkers, Bronxville, Tuckahoe, Hastings-on-Hudson, 4.3% Eastchester New Rochelle, Pelham, Pelham 1.9% Manor Rockland & Orange Counties 2.1% Long Island City (111) 1.8% Brooklyn (112) 2.1% Greater Flushing (113) 9.1% Greater Jamaica (114) 1.7% Duchess County 0.7% Beyond Primary Trade Area 19.4% TOTAL 100.0% 3.9-21 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Visitor Travel Directions To help visitors reach the proposed Retail Center and lessen traffic on local streets, the Applicant intends to direct its visitors from the north to use the New England Thruway (1-95), Interchange 16 in New Rochelle and to guide visitors from the south to use Interchange 17 in the Town of Mamaroneck. This would be done in its catalogs, newspaper and radio advertisements; on its web-site, www.ikea.com; and on its roadside billboards. Trailblazer signs would also be used to guide visitors from these Thruway interchanges to the proposed Retail Center. The placement of the proposed trailblazer signs would be subject to discussion between the Applicant, the City of New Rochelle or other municipalities with jurisdiction over the connecting roadways. In addition, guide signs would be placed near the parking area exits of the proposed Retail Center that would direct departing visitors choosing northbound 1-95 to use Exit 16 and those visitors choosing southbound 1-95 to use Interchange 17. Most people in an unfamiliar area will return to their origin by generally reversing the route by which they came. Traffic Assignment In light of the directional information to be provided to Retail Center visitors, site-generated trips were manually assigned to the street network within the Traffic Study Area, based on the above trip distribution, logical travel routes on the highway network serving the study site, and comparative travel time studies. Travel Time Studies Selected alternate routes through the Traffic Study Area, both to and from the Redevelopment Area, were compared through a series of travel time studies. These travel time studies were conducted in October 1999 on a typical weekday during the PM peak period and on a typical Saturday during the afternoon and early evening hours. The travel time studies were used to help make traffic assignment decisions. For example, would someone traveling south on the New England Thruway (1-95) have a travel time advantage by exiting at Interchange 18B and traveling through the local streets of the Town of Mamaroneck; or would it be faster to bypass the proposed Retail Center on 1-95, exiting at Interchange 16, and doubling back through the streets of New Rochelle? The travel time studies for both a typical weekday and a Saturday consistently showed that a three minute travel time savings could be realized through the second route, exiting at Interchange 16. Nevertheless, recognizing that some people may choose to use the slower route, three percent of the store visitors arriving via southbound 1-95 were assumed to exit at Interchange 18B. For the return trip via the northbound New England Thruway (1-95), the travel time difference was much less between the two alternate routes. It was found that entering 1-95 at Interchange 16 in New Rochelle would save only about a minute on a typical weekday and only seconds on a Saturday, compared with traveling through the local streets of Mamaroneck and entering 1-95 at Interchange 18A. Therefore, rather than assume that the arrival pattern would be reversed for departure, five percent of the store visitors departing via northbound 1-95 were assumed to enter at Interchange 18B. 3.9-22 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14,2000 The travel time studies also show that Interchange 17 on 1-95 in the Town of Mamaroneck is the quickest route to and from the proposed Retail Center for trips coming from the south. However, visitors traveling northbound on 1-95 must pass through the New England Thruway toll barrier and pay a $1.00 toll before reaching Interchange 17. Travel to the proposed Retail Center would be infrequent and discretionary and, therefore, not subject to very much toll diversion. Nevertheless, to account for some toll avoidance, it was assumed that 10 percent of the store visitors arriving from the south would avoid the $1.00 toll by exiting 1-95 at Interchange 16 before reaching the toll barrier. The results of the alternate route travel time studies are summarized in Appendix G.3, Travel Time Studies Assignment of Site-Generated Trips to the Roadway Network The trip distribution pattern was assigned to the roadway network in the Traffic Study Area and to specific driveways and roadways at the Redevelopment Area as a percentage of the total site-generated traffic by direction, see Appendix G.2. This link-by-link directional, percentage assignment was multiplied by the site-generated traffic volume entering and exiting the site, shown above in Table 3.9-8. Traffic assignments were reviewed with respect to time of day or day of week differences-- i.e., weekday PM peak hour vs. Saturday afternoon peak hour. The resulting site-generated traffic volumes for the proposed Retail Center Project assigned to the street network are shown in Figure 3.9-2 for selected links in the roadway network for the weekday PM, Saturday midday and Saturday PM peak hours. More detail is available in Diagrams 3.9-7a-f, 3.9-8a-f and 3.9-9a-f, found in Appendix G.7. 3.9.12 Future Build Condition Future Build Condition Traffic Volumes The site-generated traffic volumes were superimposed on the future No-Build traffic volumes to produce future Build Condition traffic volumes, which are shown in Diagrams 3.9-10a-f, 3.9-11a-f and 3.9-12a-f for weekday PM, Saturday midday and Saturday PM peak hours, respectively. These diagrams may be found in Appendix G.7. Future Build Condition Intersection Analysis The capacity and level-of-service analysis for the future Build Condition is summarized in Table 3.9-23 for the 38 signalized intersections and Table 3.9-24 for the 10 unsignalized intersections in the Traffic Study Area and may be found following Section 3.2.23 at the end of this chapter. It should be noted that the Build Condition analysis does not incorporate any of the proposed roadway modifications to Fifth Avenue, Portman Road and Valley Place, related to the Redevelopment Area, which are described in Section 2.6.6 and shown in Figures 2-4a and 2-4b. These modifications, which include widening of portions of Fifth Avenue, Valley Place and Portman Road to accommodate turning movements, are addressed as mitigation measures in Section 3.9.13, below. 3.9-23 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 3.9.13 Traffic Impact Assessment and Mitigation Traffic Impact Criteria The traffic impact criteria used for the proposed Retail Center Project was approved by the City of New Rochelle and is the same as that used in Environmental Impact Statements for other recently approved projects in New Rochelle, including Palmer Center and New Roc City. In an urban area, such as the City of New Rochelle, Level of Service (LOS) D is considered to be acceptable during peak periods. In accordance with this criteria, an impact requiring mitigation is defined to be a change in level of service from an acceptable LOS D or better to LOS E or worse. If the future condition without the project (No-Build Condition) is expected to operate at LOS E or worse, any deterioration in level-of-service or any increase in average stopped delay would also be considered an impact requiring mitigation. (See ■ symbol below.) A change from an acceptable LOS C or better to an acceptable LOS D is considered a worsening of traffic conditions requiring disclosure, but not an impact warranting mitigation. (See o symbol below.) When an impact requiring mitigation results from added traffic generated by a proposed project, the general objective of the mitigation planning is to identify reasonable measures that would return operating conditions to acceptable levels -- i.e., LOS D or better. However, at those locations where the No-Build Condition is expected to operate at LOS E or worse, the objective is to mitigate to No-Build service levels, rather than LOS D. Summary of Project Related Traffic Impacts A summary of intersections expected to have a significant impact or worsening due to traffic from the proposed Retail Center Project, is provided in Table 3.9-10 for the weekday PM, Saturday Midday and Saturday PM peak hours. (Intersections with that are not significantly affected by the project are also shown.) For traffic impacts requiring mitigation, the needed measures are noted in the right column. The following symbols are used in the table to identify traffic impacts by category: ■ Intersection requires mitigation 0 Changes to LOS D, no mitigation required ❑ Remains at LOS C or better Figure 3.9-3 identifies the impacted intersections. The mitigation measures recommended in this DEIS section are those required to mitigate the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Retail Center Project. It should be noted, however, that several of the intersections, where mitigation measures are proposed, would benefit from traffic signal timing changes or other improvements with or without the proposed Retail Center Project. The implementation of the traffic mitigation program would be subject to discussion between the Applicant, the City of New Rochelle or other municipalities and state agencies with jurisdiction over each affected intersection. _ 3.9-24 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS • y, .►/ Q f� ?y y 1!j. ` /, 'L--- ---fg .�1,� C _ - Jç f� " �� I '�j ' ♦ ' ! High y" ; s' Y '' •:::7' ',,4.1-.7(: \ Ile $Iwanoy �l l.)t;rdT i '�� i �I (Q d Ie �0 �0 } %- / � fr .2�R 37 �hn a 16 .„1,1\0..,. �40� '/� �� r ��� ."--.14.......„.; _ Country Club 1i 5, �, /��__ fER • �� �i r9L !� %1 IL ''.:27\:,.., 1.. 1 Q/' D =tet it .� p sL4Ur Y"t+ •� t /4�l ,A`,.i: 4; f V' BS '`{i /r W _--- _ 'r/.'�t/ Y GR, 11 1 3•, i- 'r ��� j A r i^ / '(� �. -�� � 1�" !!r rr� �¢% // /;3 _ ../ rr� - Jai �-� o L L 'c„\----. n ,,,r I I s ` - . �01�1 e3 � �1 3 I .�— 1 �, �`. r. =-r/ f ` / • 1/ / ,/,- rP_,.rte---�— _ 1,ek, u R �, ` 48 �i� / 13 � J ,' / \,'/ i < ,/ Il _Ef "�'� --,x--------- "c- //�!v 1:>' P� ,,,........„,...\\ "\�4 {^,� �1 /ice V La ./i.‘>,./. tv _5 ' \� ,�S , / -...k...1,....-- , j \` -,'". 0 •y r 1 .1 2/ "."--•-'< ,Se -- %1 ! 1 Q ,1 .y, %� �l. �,` \ .f-. ; '` , % 1 �� i� \7' lltt • ,� - f .A.„...,,„.• /l \\ \ P 19 Heserurrr.r r_''' r s;�"�- i� a O cL�i� ` \. ) i % r-- CL111:1'. / r �I � 7 i' i �rO �� , �LtL t`�s- t oke,-- moi c 1:4.. I - \ , .J�--- �P+/E ��� MI > 2� n .125 / �, f � /! Q..:� --::__.„...4.,./-*•�A,/l / l� 1 _ A °C ° G � P �, QI ;j �,// �,/ �'` > \ , 6 % � �7 C`L.%'.� �. ti p ra _'ti ��4,: 3 ? \1 ti rr \ 17,4 t r/ at+ / =fes I < t. ail'. FJ I) ' e C h t 'L4 i- " + c ;;;3' I ;�! r`Kr +1 oM I temmoci;> ,J ;' . �, t'� •� •; eO Q s' \� '•\ y"UN Cy //...„ • iii 11 �� \, / \r/ Pla d a ` 0v/ -� tea' �. _/ = r="— -e.!' 2 ?°'. -°-5.--,_1-- Q 1071 STs. �' ��w \. Fie Hampshire �� ..,. =� �' +' \ I/:rl fiE ST r -'+) `f+ t') . .r use At, f1,(1s� 0:>16211-''401 e`, «� Sch ..t Country Club: \l //� `l \\ \ ' .� i fl ')( fl �1 '1 .a 471 �� •'S'T r ` 'v1^N i ��, • =:�:y-�. r��f-' I '`.f'f �J WhBtt \ ,) 'i ' .ate ,,,,,,)iJJ �• �Jr71� j� I`,,: fF�' �y,,i �`/ .�. 5 - u��� r4:. j / ' 1 • it_.11,37.,,,.., .v .l; 2+A Jl `\\`` - ,1 / r ri1 � `� TIs�li' ��`�[, Tk' f ARK N`- _i r i �� �� 4 Np I ✓ :r. �✓� yl✓ �C_r rte\\ ia 1 -fir o r O� ch i / j °L � n� j� f et- I t11\ to:,../.. S oti �! /�,� '`� n ( �F �..._----,i - VoYo Q . t t • �� • r ~.'1 �_._,,,:t_,,-4.-,-,),I.,=- • 1 1 velo Area At ' 84 1 2/ ( Ufa int Park `\ \'* 7/---- / � r te. crHue�u> i • e e �+ � Rede ment * '"e �l i ',J.:1' f c 1 !�R i _� . 387 `. a j _ / jL_ :'->..,_,1::' i , "+ 'r CLI,f I tf 1"::;:-.7,'41;;E;11\ .$ettrnbn' F,irY, a� 1 c• I `° ' •/'i 'i �•. /f r�1 .-7/1'( -,/,, •f. ,. •1 'I, I.' �'� _ 69 t`ILli,r�flr) '1 %,r '.q \-_r1"--<Y126-----1; �'• � �."r��l -'L j ,� c P*. /"; �!r?�i• ` • 0, . - ''+ I� •-#.." = , ,1 „ j� y Pttr _,_-' 4 ��,�: m �" 100 p� 7� I ; r ./:r G f '' ' Ep 'l 'i'./ \'/ �' : P8 G? 'tfI - \ 9$\ 5�� ,�� 3288 -�� at. 'q; A` ! , / �+ \ ,J•, // ..„ , •.• O."'r jy�%J ,r � yg�t t 12 �' ��[��]� 1 ' ` 9' " b 1 1N FNe', _ "I N� `\ + �' •/�, \ .!L - - „ M �• +•�+� __ -rte _� 1 I �•., • / y _� ,:::.„.‘,711o: 1, i/ J 'l {i l 4° =�1 5 I 4 �\ '`; �� Y P� /''� R r `•/'� �Ctl i IL__, } . %' / '� / ��`'•:. / ti3t_.:3*- -'') i L' Io a I ,. ....‘1111, •� \\. - r; , 1 C a f` .,,,,,,SP "/ -k / ;\ �l \ reacen li., E,i1 1'tf4°1_, �` __ ,_ 1 �y 4L�i �/ j; -, yii t' _flej�e N.�' / 12s H 1 '`'' t,," <` % <� -/=� t: 9 �` �ro,4Point •14E * '�_ t ----,_-,-„,,,---=,.-rt . ti� ` }' ti s 1 _ s �. %'� 0 f '�I I X f�E /'f jet. ,', ism 1' b c h ''\`P` 41' 1iii / edar ` +l 1 a J,r 12 ` �� 7 • U C. �G �� %/ �� t, 4` \ 1 ( �� � r t �� l�Q iE- /'� v.:, V .t Z '�g - 1 `...- X4-] . PSE\ µ • t r.'. ',1/4i: �� �� t is > . �r Ts, wp �c 24-1- --.:. Y�;h t6. � ti Q r �✓ s ' �Jr,:....., _�3 41 ' ;,•, 1t 'j n�`.�--J, -: r- 1: + 5 i' ---� --- .fi ''� , !" ..'i.P '‘, -- \ i1 \:..� ` ---- .,1 .� '�:., .-I,' iP — itt39„.: -_ y ,` �jiI R J = � r ty15 � \.�` %/C � le- a-•..\\--.--.)” n\" — \ , _"3l '�+ `/ '- 1a,,-•� i\ t '� `` ''' I:* Z ' . , 4 ��- .., 4 --it / ,`_ 70 �'; ,` . , —_ �'J( r 1 \ Harbor t t, , i--- ^ 't _ ,,+a 1 ug t^}q 6` `'l I ,�, *� `\ t�, dgewa....Edgewater - 2187 . - r J 4' �O \\ 264 i t r liiii- - _ :r' s S` 8r 1, - • 24 I'� Q r $' ,/ e` ' V r eINE� -� ,;r « ' Point t hu rK r {r. .„,..,t j - 1 =----A-17--4... .--,,,.„.._' ,1. p�:r�.\�' �'� TIT; �'�\ �• • ' h�r' i� W°C) - •�t if..h , " 'Ct1 T1 U:r.�ri(. ;1 -.�olr r •,s- ^, � .��� > ♦ •., - y /: -it� _••• "' .Y- ,'': Aill? �� ,. �(1/i t' s• p',�� , ro;.I�pTe t.. ter_ r y`' BI Q. _(. \. , .`•--� • • `5 ' :/ L.,, 2:,18-11:, Li J;, \''' '111‘4C:;*,.. / _• y l i �yl y 1 r ,,vr .r `'r Il,. '- ' 1 -12 O } 9 j p+ t`C i.�/ ,� !' �( ' i�f 871,E ' 4 ; irC`� S�/ r �• �� � `\ 't� 3 rllbreUa .f ti ,/,` 'Lam=`' _'48E, ___ 5--',,'c••1,,: N o 36 I`` % ap c 4,::.r.r e,,.'- ' '' / 402 :. / T iilt .1' cr, .c ,4/ // ,r ,-7 N,-• \ -•=', _ �� J "�� Po i n t - + '•, - ,! `� �,,;..: 4'J I, w- • ,f ... /,.., JL' .I 't• /,`• y !Js .� •_� •s 1,,,.,!.'�� T,.7.--- � ,..k•. m L l g h t "; :- 1y .Lc • "1 Z' `d rY 'lip ,��. /`� Yr!/ 1 „�/! t -� C i f�\ /\�f/ �O _1, ,'� ° .r 10 f l .„_,..A...-',,,,4-- t�, '- 1 IA tel/ 9 r `,-'f 'rr � J ,l Y � �\ t'y.� f�r i _ � / ���. Gil r` 42 '' +• 1 V „...---,,,,,,- /'—'S a �—� `r. ,5, l !1 i ct { i:trhinRoR . , 40 I _S1 -`-r, w' - :► �{ it e ., g • t zr� t, !!' r, '> ✓ k f ;�7 l ' t?M ..z$,:h :r Ga pv� y- t �s' ff • rte= `Sch - - ,� }' Harbor E .� \ �` Qrsesh©e c < =r tlk* -” r,- ; * �i s 3 `�\ f're ia�m• 1 a •.. ar r • / Y, 4'1 ,,11'' 3T ! 4 OS$ I'i \� + n 1 j 4I aik-., 1N _ '~G,t �►�•� 1y5J�11 �Fy_� kg--i‘ i"- b. �P,s \. 12 roc', �. . Cfiiford LiI ,� 11121.t�(?72f� . kClr�� %' 11.�sm X25 ma ' Medcca! pvE 'i•��' S�EPP'to • AfmOr ,i,`,0'%'',.., ':� �\:„M1 94 Oa r ll- l ,- ^'. r '• 3 I .� _ ' ` � ���.' t ,,. �� j 1. • 39 ,l!, ,�tr�_ GK,r�� ,• , (., 5 ,, ` 1( - u5' �P V a \,R 1-•b•_ 1 �; "`, %' %'� 7 .i o \Y+ rtti _j tl;�� �"' s,7.--41r14,,,'/H.-0-+-7 - 2 I 7 S- tiu J �.�.. 41.1 7 • 00 i .ji1 rid,: .• (\f _ 4 _ •••. . / - ^ . , , _-- L- "11N`,;, c, I ;� -.P� 6 I •a;".4 the•,\ - t'`,5, . l(Y_: E,t' _ :\0 17 4 /i •- w�. -4...,._Tabie ,k _ .. '" M fRock .`l''gk't'g a,fr'' f �� ♦ `1,---"%" TONT f r xr',,���y Sa,)`� w !3u`/ - c �r ' Y f` r ',,JH:aS :.� — t be el BSc ) do a t \ '� - eet /I'acht CLub ,,a • ._ t7 -,tet,_--,- ,�. r ui 1� Ay',! --_-•-:::-----,•-, -y 1 c-,\ � /f C��\y ilk �:.J arr SOfI i� r1 } � ,lit � Er, a tiss t r�\ 1 'ee G 5'� s ,, 4� , ��'o `,res o, \ - :• •4 'fleaufort 4 w'` ' 'E� HAM +•-j •` � = 1 rJ�.: � I 1� ���i. yc7�t , 7f 'I. f f! //�v�_ yrs / Ct s% 3\:_ik, \ �., t' L.lC. / -1 . W \ i2 u *4R4va d , •w 1` ap 6auderLam' Hi�hSeh i �J / `t. r` Lk, oo�� ` e t h co t•� Brcok calf a �Q o ., , , rt i /‘,----. { , z ,rte ,po ______).100_________ t r! `field --/ -----------Q . t+ f1 �L p/7 ~ '� r 1zs�fl Fire ,6...- „..- Course • a1IL 4, l \ i; / m RiSta' ° 1 �\ (.. uw,,,v _, -- - ✓E ! r SS GP Swimming o o� / \\ `/1' r r •-2•re' �'?� • / /1 ' � u 0 d ! \ \ �xO•Pool ��'�� } '••.• �� } j � \ Complex •• ik,_, �� `I •, \49 t1 p414,,,,Oit-',--7/4// 7 :,�� `� % tZ , —, CroSslray v� �l” .1`zl r i �� � ?^��Jf` / �/ // /e,f; 4Q 5 .75 /� A `� ; 5 • ' F (?I(1 ' / Zi 1 1 4 � ', �� 4-•1. , ,� ` m � e � Waterb`��,_ _ �= ;'L...-,...76:........4' , till r < '� i+- fits J eti -r 1 Y (7, .77,......\- „ „----,-.1 �� „- �\ - l ,, tf tr -',Tn , iG: r � rS 3� 3 ,.�_�_ 9:.! • � I�_ ��I''' r `- )`// �.!` 1 x r , r� P1�' l /� r 12 t g yARVE •T •i /�' (� 1 ;_f �� \ J r\ "".,,..t f!!� 1�` It �� ►.T 'T ::)., --1 1 ';......\\,_ .'= 'Z2l• , � v • . iii . Jv; R4r � �/, / \Y� G ti 7 8 J l "� / �� A‘iii C e m s 2 3(' • O , :Ilei j. / d /, T-- atk o a 9 , �!• �� /, \ l Mature 011 J j`$ .al,rio!<t �' cr !1 'T' �' �' elLY"'''� .t\'iS ! )-1'' ,t/:r '� ,iip,- \ =Cen f7 �� ?� i _t. j / Park %.L-� _ , 'rh 1�� ! Y J / -/ -,.,(4„ / ./...\..l, i,,! ` I �r �rpl ti S i �� VV,/" I ✓ '3 .nom f r , i. �� :` j �� •Caionial Acres Ise .i + r �' \ le. ', � ]"_ DAISY } /:tal / °`l I', ;z O1`; S , / ' '\'‘`.. 0 ..)\-_ _ �' "' 11.* o' '• / '� o t+ •mar• k r 1 1/(.. 1 LeeWood !r f T i'` '/e % �,,--- � \21` -\ P \ 1 \ Goff Club i %% r\\ ✓� r , • %' ,i • 8er lrir • JJ r. j l i � � s� v� —_ s:i ` (�u.tkcr � gc �r f ,� .v-:-..;; ;N': i. - ,k, � fir: _ '�_ Golf Course P� �, j' / •ry j• f 0 ,o t.}Citt .i, • J ti i o "� t } � ` �Q ,,, ' si �`x js. r ��i - e \0 �i �. , n- Quake4.Rldge • � � 1 66 f s U,v jJ.` o� J"4�l \\\'\/ � 't` \ /; �;5�� �� ize 1 Golf tub � / ,/r ,+ \, 2., f �i)� .Stj. ////;; �j S9 Y �� , �'�"� • r \ �, ,1 �1 i 1 \ r{ 'a 43` S' r- 1 et!N(5..c1 fir .. J� -F l(?ri.l j,�/` � .L I / `tel /^l �, < \• +y\ A 1).'t' Cc. (� •\JPark j /' t —"- tftount -(rramn#' r Sr�Y/ S RR--'' �'''' •`� L-e(' i ;; -- o .. --- .. -o Gf `'', �\ ,' �i ce j � t fr ��1, ''.\\'';'-:-.,1\ \'' �"•; ' t� £• • p'+ � •'� ; .w ,.� ,1Ja ; 5t,- �.. F •�- � MUrt�Ock �oOds � ` /�. \- 4 '\C+1J���\,� ,�t Gina d - ? r v/ �° t � Pre ch � r— ' , , Po ,s ^z / f'.; /. ,:;,....,.... \\:.1..;/ fi {Vtr-' " P`�� i` l�� 1 r 1� l 10� 3 4 ^ S r :-1111:1111111°.:\i ` r 5 ',\ / ;(- •, 9- t 3 2 I: n :,., 0 48 7 ,... LV �\ r. ~_i �E. i "/"A. / 11:-..,---• .. 4: FS\ 4'. , \,, vS,T r>�' ._.41 ,. ate" '/ \ y it 1 t, J \'` 1 , \ os, = It ,lam f -.c7 k� „, r ! �t� ti- i +.� ' i' r \ v^dard . \ ‘,6-2r)-(-1--,14,, Sc +' 2r ,� h i �,. ser o33 !' f 4 / /, I' -�( f ' \ 1 i� �� y li /t` 0 J1 l,crt i r 125 9 �� (1.____- / E Winged Foot �.`' �.I �� �, t/ ,,... _-- \ iti 'i\ 0 ,v,...., .Q�4 to v'' Lf()T Park ---' - 1�) ._ �L ; �+ 1Golt Club j ,��1 L � x'2 \, @r1 + t�'RaE1 / - •, r J t\ \' \ `�L I jl ;� _3 tF R�� ‘tQ O ms ' r ��p }� !_ Gag , /� s _• '1t � \ 1.031 i M � Jz ;\ 1i /r) ,'-',// �,\v�y �, �/ \ r / ��. Sw•mm ngy n ' ek' Vlm - t- \�� �Is t + ! 7, Pk. S/ \ I i Pool ' ;` /'__--.77--.-ti % ” \\, �� l_1•Li ra 'Po a9 r �t ; /� 45 ` `. .l.- /`� / 14,---r.., �J� • ti(��. \.\ 1 ,'t }} 'C'/"`iSC iQ1 I. ,. F` 1 .,.,0.0,<� 1 lWare! ` ¢0'� •{ -*Country Briar �.% \��f"--el -�-- i < ..\,/ ;'t i .. �G,-.�in � R, '' ^L�`'m ticflt��, Cauntr Ciub t. i / t f .� �1� { tti _ , c tt S{;ri �a S,. ti gµ -- rF i ' m y ,jt . I/ „ / f ,,-- ' y 7 i �, , C1VY �Q Tank iv r , 1� ' --el?, ,.'11 . x/29 + _ f • � � r h r`. !/ r • ` 4*C k r l i, 113P� ,�.r =! y7r 'K TWIN t , - f �' 15 i A y�q l�� �f ` '+ // .�� %' S/may ' '�� %/ _,j ae's LAKES y r (, ' 1 0.06€ \ �O Cl, 70 • ,• ! ►� \ J \9p, _c. �" �Q ' \+ a COUNTY t ; j�, 1,4 „, 1j - ,,./.... r r //''��e• t £ � „(f` _,', : �`r f ‘k..., ,. '� tG , ` ,r t m + 1 1 / ii a+.r M, 7 !) LLL1Jll 1 �\,r 5:. 1'.4R}: 5'r I • 10 ! • ' • , �✓/ 7 j ,4 h �/ // 1=--r- ---,..-,..--..... b \ )ndevr;l0,e; i_ o° 37 /` / 0, / / / �//Vii' c r ' �•:\.,A t 1 7 \ 1 !j I 4 % Park ' `' '�' / ! 2_ 1 t4 • 4VE ' 6 I \ -, j;-�� HIQ `�r�` ,f!'� f 26 20 I 23 1.= , tP t i� ,�. 1 '!{ ' • ,: r9 / \4i%, !II ' / f �C�'�'� / ' t ' -,• `x,11 +- �qti s ,�v` t}� Leonard • 10 � t'" \ .� r / + ,/,..0 q y 4) B a • 11 .Zlga\ / Ithi 4 '+}itlille School , rri t r f 48 `_` /`s /.; .oT 1, , 1 'r. i� BJP% P0' \, 3( i 16/ 5 sJ ii / 11 4 > \ 0 ` Re rvairI 15a „ .. I ; �� ,1 -) ,0, �/ , / 1� \/��0j✓ 'h ! ;\� ' ` r� II i l Xi /” P B $t / S � D o l' - \\ I m a`;• ti,_. Gipp I� c / { , e . ..' < ♦ \ \�$cz in t /• �- 1 r!el= qi l' p D ~,.,� , � } �' Proposed Retail Center Generated Traffic Rj 1r' g •,', z 1 --�; - j�o ; ., Y > ,,„, 0 Weekday PM Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area %1. ? ate _- ,�, y--_—_4,,,i ..• io Wykagyl / ` a �) 10�� m� 10 �rh •�i .r ! / 4 •-..;��; /% - -4 ! k -` r ,� 1;, u; !II Saturoa, Midday PlanandRetailCenterProct Cuny Club 1 1� \\ 37 / �� 1" •sr % it �f �.. 4� /l 1 ! , r • tai' y� .. ', 1' \---- -- a� �{ if �'��5{l �� V °, // / / i.� ' Hal �b `C-�. ��,-... ,:-..,\\y- ,,,,. ��� t f. \� :t i 7 ,� •Q - JJ • ' ,• �` (J. ..W GL Q 11 r �i//� ��� �i/J !/ t�;. r' ..�� fj .i�;tj ' L`. , 4/ ,• � • �',__ '' t /`tl / r'. ,,..;,.."i\---7),, / - . . 't .' 'V/ `�,�•i` 40 / ,r9��+�[We „ `x High Se „' ,: !1 !'� S 419 `r?� r.-\., :1' �Siwanoy j r�{ i;NT'r i„-----Ar" _ 4�' e g4 .0 _ < •\ Country Club ER - t ( a �. r �? �a a 1 /"! r1� �.. s; , qC3__ t _ 5f O /94.2, h /' f a ' 1 Q h� - r��:M ' o `� �/` ``7� •''%+ ! `4''! 95 w /fr - r Gf%a''� I� p 3 `. �;/ ,r; 34. _\ .6 ff F /J /4C4-/k,tr, f • II 83 � .- x • i ;. � al I� L v w. t.x _ J� n 11:. .� f Jr t_ go���--" � f. +--`�J�,t ,,,,,„4, 1,1W i •r i �. . \-• ,.�j� 4r' rl 4`` ,. ./, 'f \._ _. ',..\,. .) � r r h'246 UOtt' i �• �� - O lyf. � �r� `f�' p' 4i �'- 40' :Cn[r3l)//L.\ / ` f7i7� j1/ `� .TNtr'�,f �1t .. �__,� ,- a -� d ' < _�� 125 scf �,, � ,4,...„...,,...,,,,,,„,_ r - \ r s wco k. J ,� ! ./ 4.1/ .7 Ro \5 ti P \ •J, J �. a t C1� f ;'i ' '' j-y-- ' , �S' * .•aZ•r' �� ! 4'I�•��1 ! 'r 1{ �'•J f� a ,, 74 '`.! 4�`a qa��` T / M 'y J/- �� y � �` ty0 �' / rfl I i o 1 " , .R + ;.. P ly ' • e;�c , ; �t t. ,, t: ,b. ! Hifmmocks3'1431, , t' // /JPlaF ! e `t� 45 � Field Hampshire , , �`t ,$•., .'r'`� I `. • U��.TI�RE :Tl-FDY `�`I .r use �}, (' 0 fi • / sb` / '� - // `eh „' , : ---4,...,6.,:-;\ Country Club / fAN `� ',�''\� :> ), � r r, ,iig 1 1 i ;i 18” ` 7 41 1 r`\'� , .1 � :-;\ ��� eiitt '�, it +�s' ^£ T`r' PARK ' ' i'",_.4 r` �"� ` w arta t�:; i �` C1� •m! ! ` \ f,l i "G�f r nom. is i l� f Jj ',� E ./ ,� f !•��•,G'Cf{Z„(�; ' `?1 J or.. ;' h 1() �.�' Ei-5 C`..� �% _:�� �_,�__., �C•,�p Q -"K."' ... ''�. 1� ,t )00 + • t Redevelo.ment Area _ '" . Ai SI 4rI Ht4� t 1 : e .� \r nt 1 rP ,Ir ..44 ? F'�inC Park 1� ,, ,..{...41,),! `'/ 1r J1*• }/. J,+ ! Q ,`1 ` '�tj \ 'ti, - 77---:„...•, DR t� •• :.rt•� Perk • ?1,4 43 �x" —..- y /f F .,t ' c.[�,_ ' �. i 'q �r J E t �`' 23a „,,,n,...„....-..,.._--.:' 2 1 / t -O•.y r H / -'r, t 1 ,'.'A �,' )' � :'t; �ry I'tt en() S 1 ;k 1e� 11.:i r J '� 1. r 1 ► �/ f/ f J (L( 4 i f r k.,, 1 t' J „,,,, ...„ 'S `�.•C S k ""'y ,k ` ' K•_P .� •t « '/ 4'; -:.,r ' ° - 1' _ 1 �a -' Pa '1 (,),'",/r = \ i i {y ' �> 27 ~r y •,... .., '� L �.�� rf � 'r. 1 1 :�, �y j V / r , 1 �j� �\' P r .' — •Z. �i- f l'',5�:4 ,' 1 �' i ri;�t = 1 ; f..., 4_--. t- -, / ,;'.\, :•3."©. ert� 9 't' 7 / Se ' f / 10I•,+, I.•'it ; �. i ' t i �;r (� .1.-.._' -,..."7„..'.-\_1 q t_ �'.�r i f R'1t (..; iOtlst ` �1' \. G / rte I ` \ '•-! ' ilf. J. �,, reacen / _ ? x!_2 fj �/ �� //� ,�4E. '.i �' -! .clik}�,y.� 1. '! •„s t , 6 e. F `Xt} ri t r; 4 fit' t - ,.i,.,.' •I I "f - be f. o \ Point .I *•!k iF �:/ r /"? 4 S sem- i? OEil ( t- �i . •• � OPS .� f \ :cl. y QCipf L• > Q ** rr', r.. f • Nt `r `y, i •til • I 1 r - \� _ � 1 g h t s, .y i,t%/.t3 0,' ,:;i, :� \f , �'V f 5 y/ ''; rte 29 v --""� �� a ; � j �_ = `; i - lh 1`�✓ . i, ,gip I r � c, , s ,ave_ : £ � �, r �,,n� i tib �,,,. / jt La rchmont‘, 41. (!, fid # - I•! it .J s� / r pM1� r.r �l fr n' 1, 0.-‘1,-s,,..,-1-2__.._/,,,,,,/) C. - i ,,,,./../ I \p , } } I ' ,... ..1.1..--• ,k_. _ I + `.L 't..- V� / L- .�.+' ,.1 y rj' �`�` x ' �•�'('t ` ,•.. •,ti_IPI'`�, �r,1 * ��N' , ` �• r* i ,j ; ..: " f ,Nr. . /.'" !' d . � '•\', ' - '.r•.'\ .,- ~i1 ,t .- Harbor -r. f _ y r 11 g ” — +1 - 6S'` t. ti rJI ,.-,....."--148 l �, f t ' _ -C �dgewa ter mgr- ._-al/ Ij , i.�i �.. }-A? Y '. Fa' k �v `'4 "Y ''1,4,410„..„,,--;'' p �O/a 10--, -\\ i \� t t 3 !• tr o :LNE �' �\ I' , 'Point t tIU�C,[3' « r +` Ft �•_ .yt ��j • �'tl 1+1 �_ _ vAV�.'t. ��' � �`' `y4� \ !v s +moi - � - �'t f,,z_-_, ;:! w-"'1--iri i t �d I • / r. \ +h ',„.."-,44--,- ) I ,�� }fit � r` i�' , rr �' �- y • /"T; � ,, • ,,\ ry G r '' I,-. m b r e l l a :•r; � /I l/y , ! cry T 4_1 i HQ •� /i /y�'/s�i ,/% l 1 40 /� ` " ',11, --'am` P /2---.."-/,- l /V,,, \ I " ` -, ♦' "ar" -CD; �: i �'" _,,.• �r"s//.� lffr. � P1 f. •'t •�`!(�i,;"- // rl ,''k ,qe J ' , C - Point .� ��'i. if r�'_ start' > > it ,;ti\ !"' f t i .i -,f -// 4�. �- t'- 'b m Ugh t L (/ Pj t + 4 1tl // r!y��y� \ t /� / V F \1' • t.._--' Q --._.z Ir r �J ! j� -s 1i_ ch , t as .� f ! ,•� '/ •65j / !�-^. �,L ,. 1q !.f/ � �� � ` -. � fit � � `� ��`t r,1V '��,. '� � ��.'l. `+ � fir' .s--,�' 1 1 i - tiLit / t ,, '1,. : 1�" _ � ..,— \. , -m l/ ;# 1`i G,, s t.. .-.\ J sti; 1.`- //� 1, '' 1 \ t.xt f - / ) .1,-- '�';, p,t�r,.'.._• i•, ,'t•^ y ti`° - r/{... :1�{r ^� i ; '1e-11 ,�4J x : W _ , , ,,, `- r I / oresh.oe 4 ,s �- y 19 , -- rfJ r r, 2` �► \ z ' r J„4t`,(r _1' - y+<.to - ' .- �` 'gib j ,/Pre ium 1 Q �' ..- * Harbor m ,{ / / , liV. t_ '' N - a 3 j_ti ,\./ `r // cBrl�ocd t fr � , r S {ate. at ,r - I , . _-- Armor i }-'` o Oaty/ j r ;•rte�_ l ,r 1-,-t -=yip ---.0 G,,i A J :I' ? ' i ti �tj '1E�1, p� i'' � /' r •� / t `r`0�1 � Y st ' �� 5S,' firs ' ��JD{ + Z/ " rt L'' L L'. ;,.j.- ; :1 lr•li. /l.ti el /..r;-F: \ ri Ol1 ° l � \� Ht�' j�; ;?x a?_ iG: R ldtl. , t. f;a .',: `1 1 1 �R' ,.r �� • • •• 1 _fs � }. , ,- r,\ 1 36 1 =�1.-••• �yJ �,- ��Y_; .t.... c �' r', 7 ♦' p� est able '' / • r - [ l - 1 ".`I L' ' '•r+ % ,. O_— :'f • }121.. 6 µ Eta f. ` r ��` •27,-.".N� t ' ' �+ r. ;�Jr _ ' Lau %' �, moi► '`� �' } rROCk g 9 ^'- ��J it b 'V ' :a r / •+ \ k ..••••41t\„ c. 4..? k + r ' r� i t r `� i'' br`, Jn' rt N� i't5 ',11t ,, t.�C �,, x�.. ` \ `” % y� ��L l',,,,,-/-f./ .,,ed Cht Clutf7. t't,r_ 1 (+�} _ x. Ate' ,�..•:r F h. tdil qi� �r, Y _ 24t :,� 1�C N+ i Ff d ` \1 , ', �\ ' Cs� r\ • ... v / f��ct' l/ ,N� 1 HBrrisolll� ,r; A., Pgtt i; ;i ` G ` - V7; pix , A 4�,r 1; r ' '` = �• c 1I t F `• k9/ s:� ! A .�. - • 6 J! ti tIc t ll 1 d �} , �.r v.- • C // 1 / 00 ., i �•> i p 6ouider c ,,; Harrison r t ` �I j Ray r E '�✓ r Ljtt10 µ �' �' ,. Ni Sch, i I '! -a • , ' .'�_ 00 / o �j t i : C t / Bratzk Gotf t� ( :it ' rte1.. rj' l � jl� ✓rji Field9+ ,a r /y, �� ra 1 '� rC Course 0 UI _` '--/-4. ..,„ [, '�► _ - - c/at J� �} 4. •.. ��'- t , ;� •• - . •• - s ./ y , / _ ` 1 } Int ,4--:. 0 ? ' `\ g '1 O Cont. �' , ii,,,, ` 1 1 j ^e �roS5tY3y '�• PI6� J4 (' 1 �. " , 1'J ,•�� \ -- rr � J •�I , � 0' 9�(`Q � • ...;>. --....../ ' 4 I�11 .�'1 'K ,� �'!lI[f ' 't• / '�..1 �� ,f,. i • - ��,, • 1 1 �, .k Water• \cam. - ` tri / • 4 �ti ` 1 ,tPa ! +` i 14 i �'r ' ` i'• 'F - `•� •�►• _ 4t: �``,\ ` •i 106' Tqf�, 1 �( ,` l �1•,I 'lRV�-1 i \ 22•`�p` / ! A ! N •• v 'r+/ r / 2 1 10 \ \\� I,'► • ' f PpP� ._A_1 -_ G . r / - S 1 i� �� —�1 S ;0-4.). r 71 i-‘1,7 "/ C 1� F • 4 pal � i n�� •-,...A. 7 ([� I • 1 r .ti- -- '+7: , i ,7...,„ ° = 11 ,�O !�•1`("\\'1 \ ` ' `4 i .S \ - ' )- �. / • �' (fa i. . \, J/ ! - .` • % C.- , V. :r e ors' , A� �Cem' Nc�inbu�r �I p �' �"� `�, i .4" ,; J.•\°ale/ .//' ./! I �_�r� __ �" 1 13;•\ •r ;ci ('atk 1 0', � f, \. e' s r A ` /17t1(lQlar �• 6., °• t '/ If' B�Vp-6 Hd�'Iti JD ( / !. -��7 J =Cenur / r \O i , 1 ` 7 - Park• a 40 /Ass,- S ' / / f o/ i` -ch a r' / �-��"' i �� < • 47--- O I \ r ri y'r3)`';, ---1 / -, H!' �1 L .7,-10' i' i / ` ' i',/,1-/ Colonial Acres • /94' rl '. !° !41 16 4 1, ,,, Ilti, C y.r -Iiii• \ •to I I. ` \�/ C. t \; '�1 1 0 1 3i�/ jL /.Z. \Cif __,-, ',.\ _ ...-_,, 6) 4 '..' \ \ . i Z �¢ A. / . / 14 / \4 ‘• ;mar• a -r 45 Leewood ,l / � \ , �-{4 . .S .`,: . e ®; .� - - _ PSE• �. , I 'Golf Club if t' rt \,/ ` „ , 1, r 4 j ' P ` "e;9rouair \, 1y\ ! If i a I 1� ��� f / j~'J* 15 Uuak4r\,:gc / \`,ii' to a', t r O / �r J O0 �' f 19 t '1 11�Ctt1 •• J r4I �i / , -��x -v ��., �� Golf Course - �;5° F -' ,' ;; Y ,tRt`r�..:- - }{ /,I ,... 4- ,, ;' ., * 1 , J A•tt. ;` \ ���' •.�\ A: n' Quake'.Ridge �'• 1 r 66 , \ vOQ r (r1' 11. 7 \ 5r• t• ��/a�1 / �`- ! ` Golf IUt} • , y i •� { Q. r y If . \ , - ee •(••'d / \• ..... �' i t,-- l(iliil" °�� ° 1 ' '''' R I R t 1 '�Q` - -1 �- (V� \ Park l:`�J '� LI Mount I fL-r". (liar] •Ir SCf- �IygR :/ .�/ I( i '\, ORAI r; \ ? i ./N ,4 \ , ? r / /.Ø '/ _ '.,.'.� 6, \-‘, ♦ a. y���',,,,gg;; "-. J . I/ r•, ;' %/_ -r. p..i .-\~ iN (' 'rt • - '� ! - I \ `� .?i' k __ "� ` r,� \ ¢l''j !/ l E t �� • ^�` Vr0 . Muriock Woods/: / Iona r, die' (� _tI`J �. yi y i're 'Ctiehr' ��J. I,> ,� 1 -,rf r, ,` , Pon/ r ,,� J ' ' ,% f/ ,.` i Q !'�-� tT'9-�j'� - ( • 45 `� •'* • •t a k ,r' i .'I •/`. \ \, t �.; fieri/ �� t_ , ',/'� .._ . 1. �J, ., f v 1 1 —may V, 1' �� is ,� C) T 'may �i J1 1A� \ t! A, 4 I ` -, �,! --..1,- � r ,° ' rrf ` �, i ~ '� f i• r f ��l 'h '"`��. rf ' / .1f:;7-f-�i�.-..,.rr�,,�� Ward / i / \ J1- 1i / �" �� / fly �/•�_�`T' , a ,�/ �gS/•'j •. `f ! �' r �•li � ` \\Re :e ri/o ,r yr• �� ` 33 \/1 j p�t� ,t�>� Acres t ' t '-)7.j `�� �r / •} 1 Winged Foot ` (ff / \ �C (\\`'� L --� I ' u \ No \:. .J QP i. c ., ► • 4` Park _ 16 GolfCl / L. l �/ ! f ' 1\i �' ' 0 I r �/ 2s 6 . / }.) Cub '( 1 `� tt f 'L�;r ` \ _ YY ��. ri C4 0 g9. COw.mrm �.•/ / //J ` 1 ��Mr_L► -'`�R � r �'i t 4�t� : � -.- •Vi'J + 0 ,r �r �/ J, ' I , 7' .' ' ° / IlrCI ! t. _ Bonnie Briar , _ / r ! ,,,,://784,/,-T_-____\___„\ rf P ! fI clfns 0� �i ',i �_ ; 7 �`,' ' E 'm S<tt +Country Club !i a qr.,. ' �// $ e •rn \B a \ t - / r ', gip'-1, �, • Tan ,n,,, o t I / • =g it X29 41;_: ``� �\ 1 '� ,, // / \ \ Ged .,y C='� Y� y ( ii 0,' s. / t $'� • �''•-• mac^ - /4 4 , ,/� 1 ti! -: T1. \� l !/ 3' 4/'% .•+.� / W - kr' DA/1N , � i _ R _ 1 , �� \,„---• ,, Q 1�+ �, -. I ,mss r�� ,/ / / j �` r + Ilk !I 7 r a, LAKES ^,iti' �;`�! 6 y� \'i , „1\\\�///.f ` 'Q a. fl / rr 1 ►J \7 , _ ,j- :7 / f o. CCiIlNCY ..t < i;U ` '' ;� S- �� } r . � ti `, 1� o 7 �.' i. r5 PARK °E r;ti ( i, •21 �� h ', rJnd�Yvc:lupcci II ;r l _ ip \.i 1 ,) , \ 111107f nor ! >/ f/ 38 AVEi '� �� ark `lam ''-\ / / i/I 6- R~� / hf lj4r ” t Leonard -4` 0^ •' \ r` \✓i40 } _ �} , / • /// ///�Po • ,� /// •h'�9 • , \ `/ \� r / '' �'qy� •. ff Middle School � � `y 1 r' �r 4 cS; f ._ fr'I- jt f `, f � .. i tit 1 - s, 0 • Res�rvotr ( ` \� I t t I J { 154 n Q{rr11 �•74 r �` ,. /114. n !� �r / ;��.h, . yE `� � fo. I� r p}• a J 1 �+" - ,4, . i : it1g'.45-;,- ` fli�f / "l t �' J �.. /�/ „� ��.o ila8in,• , } r p p —: 1311 Not Significantly Affected Traffic Study Area impacted Intersections Rp' li �1�1 /ir 41'>-- `I1�Z ' !, t O� ••••0 rte',.k_. - �� '�� 1 1,/ i i. f At,y_ .i ' ! l _y 12s'. 1 ❑9 Changes to LOS D,No Mitigation Required - b Avenue Urban Renewal Area �' � Igo I IC' ( . �o' ;_ / t `'1� Country Club : J o ` 1 .,'I_ urr Ave . Plan and Retail Center Project r i ;1 !�� ' / �, �` ob t \ ni 5cj ® Intersection Requires Mitigation r.r h � rlV lel!v i 7, r!B ; ► . '' 1, f `►roM�.-\( w' 11,11,i/. , , f, �: Figure 3.9 3(Page 2 of 2) Transportation and Traffic September 14,2000 Table 3.9-10 Summary of Impacted and Non-Impacted Intersections with Proposed Mitigation Actions Study Intersection Traffic Weekday Saturday Saturday Mitigation Control PM Midday PM Action Fifth Avenue and Portman Road (1) NR S l ■ ■ 1,4. 5 Fifth Avenue and Valley Place(2) NR/MT US 0 ■ El 2, 3,4, 5 Fifth Avenue and Pinebrook Road (3) NR S 0 ❑ 0 Fifth Avenue and North Avenue(4) NR S • ■ ■ 1, 3 Chatsworth Ave. and Palmer Ave. (5) LR S • ■ ■ 1 Chatsworth Avenue and Myrtle Blvd. (6) MT S ❑ 0 0 Murray Avenue and Myrtle Boulevard (7) MT S • ■ ■ 1 Lincoln Avenue and North Avenue(8) NR S ■ ■ l 1 Fifth Avenue and Potter Avenue(9) NR S ❑ ■ ■ 1 Madison Ave& New Jefferson SUI-95 (10) MT US • ■ ■ 2, 3 Main Street and Echo Avenue(11) NR S 0 ❑ ❑ Huguenot Street and River Street(12) NR S 0 0 0 Garden Street and 1-95 Interchange(13) NR US 0 El ❑ Hutch. SB Exit and Weaver St. (14) SC/NR S 0 ■ ■ 1 Hutchinson Ave. and Weaver St. (15) SC/NR US • • ■ 2 Quaker Ridge Rd. and Weaver St. (16) NR/SC S ■ ■ ■ 1 Murray Avenue and Weaver Street(17) MT US ❑ ■ ■ 2 Chatsworth Ave. & New Jefferson St. (18) MT US ❑ El ❑ Garden Street and Cedar Street(19) NR US ■ ■ ■ 2 Ramada Plaza and River Street(20) NR S 0 ❑ ❑ IN Intersection requires mitigation Traffic Control II Changes to LOS D, no mitigation required S: Signalized Intersection 0 Remains at LOS C or better US: Unsignalized Intersection EC Eastchester Mitigation Action HR Harrison 1. Signal timing adjusted LR Larchmont 2.Traffic signal added MA Mamaroneck(Village) 3. Pavement re-striped,turn-lane added MT Mamaroneck(Town) 4. Pavement widened,turn-lane added MV Mount Vernon SC Scarsdale 5.Additional right-of-way needed NR New Rochelle WP White Plains 3.9-25 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-10(Continued) Summary of Impacted and Non-Impacted Intersections with Proposed Mitigation Actions Study Intersection Traffic Weekday Saturday Saturday Mitigation Control PM Midday PM Action Pierce Street and Potter Avenue (21) NR S r, ❑ ❑ Petersville Road and Palmer Avenue (22) NR S • • • 1 Beechmont Dr. & Pinebrook Blvd W. (23a) NR US • • ■ 2 Beechmont Dr. & Pinebrook Blvd E. (23b) NR US ❑ ❑ ❑ Quaker Ridge Rd . & Pinebrook W. (24a) NR US ❑ ❑ Quaker Ridge Rd. & Pinebrook E. (24b) NR US ❑ ❑ L7 Stratton Road and Pinebrook Blvd. (25) NR S ❑ Cl ❑ Stratton Road and Weaver Street(26) NR/SC S ❑ ❑ ❑ Chatsworth Ave. and Boston Post Rd (27) LR S • ❑ ■ 1 New Rochelle Rd. & California Rd. (28) EC S ❑ ❑ ■ 1 Eastchester Rd & Pelhamdale Rd (29) NR/MV S ❑ ❑ ❑ Eastchester Road and North Avenue (30) NR S • • Ci 1 Beechmont Drive and North Avenue (31) NR S Li Li El Lincoln Avenue and Memorial Hwy (32) NR S Li • • 1 Hutch Pkwy& Mamaroneck Ave (33) WP/HR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Weaver Street and Myrtle Boulevard (34) MT S • C7 ■ 1, 3 Quaker Ridge Rd and North Ave (35) NR S • El ❑ 1 Huguenot Street and North Avenue (36) NR S El El El Main Street and North Avenue (37) NR S ❑ ❑ ❑ Mamaroneck Ave& Mt. Pleasant Ave (38) MA S ■ ■ • 1 • Intersection requires mitigation Traffic Control E Changes to LOS D, no mitigation required S: Signalized Intersection ❑ Remains at LOS C or better US: Unsignalized Intersection EC Eastchester Mitigation Action HR Harrison 1. Signal timing adjusted LR Larchmont 2. Traffic signal added MA Mamaroneck (Village) 3. Pavement re-striped, turn-lane added MT Mamaroneck (Town) 4. Pavement widened, turn-lane added MV Mount Vernon SC Scarsdale 5. Additional right-of-way needed NR New Rochelle WP White Plains 3.9-26 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-10 (Continued) Summary of Impacted and Non-impacted Intersections with Proposed Mitigation Actions Study Intersection Traffic Weekday Saturday Saturday Mitigation Control PM Midday PM Action Mt. Pleasant Ave and Palmer Ave (39) MA S ❑ ❑ Weaver Street and Palmer Avenue(40) MT S ❑ Depot Way East and Palmer Avenue (41) LR S LI E ❑ Depot Way West and Palmer Avenue (42) LR S II ❑ Larchmont Ave and Palmer Avenue (43) LR S E ❑ u Pinebrook Drive and Palmer Avenue (44) LR S ❑ ❑ u Weaver Street and Boston Post Road (45) MT S C ❑ Larchmont Ave. and Boston Post Rd. (46) LR S ❑ • • 1 Beach Avenue and Boston Post Road (47) LR S LI LI Ll Winans Street and Boston Post Road (48) LR US ❑ ❑ ■ Intersection requires mitigation Traffic Control O Changes to LOS D, no mitigation required S: Signalized Intersection ❑ Remains at LOS C or better(blank cell) US: Unsignalized Intersection EC Eastchester Mitigation Action HR Harrison 1. Signal timing adjusted LR Larchmont 2. Traffic signal added MA Mamaroneck (Village) 3. Pavement re-striped, turn-lane added MT Mamaroneck (Town) 4. Pavement widened, turn-lane added MV Mount Vernon SC Scarsdale 5. Additional right-of-way needed NR New Rochelle WP White Plains Intersection Capacity Analyses Summary The impacts summarized in Table 3.9-10 were identified by examining average stopped delay per vehicle, volume to capacity ratios (v/c) and level-of-service ratings for each of the study intersections. The future Build Condition was compared with the future No-Build Condition at each of the study intersections, and a determination was made whether there is a traffic impact warranting mitigation of specific movements. Most intersections requiring mitigation only require signal timing adjustments. This adjustment process consists of taking green time from one or more lane groups that are operating well and giving the time to lane groups that are performing poorly, due to the proposed Retail Center's increase in traffic demand. For example, green time could be taken from one lane group, changing it from LOS B to LOS C, so that another lane group can be improved from LOS E to LOS D. This optimization process attempts to get the entire intersection working well without any poorly performing lane groups. This may mean that an intersection with 3.9-27 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 traffic mitigation applied would operate a little worse -- i.e., with slightly more overall delay, than it would have under No Build Conditions (see Tables 3.9-1 and 3.9-2). The level of service evaluation of each of the impacted intersections requiring mitigation is summarized in Tables 3.9-25 through 3.9-30, which may be found following Section 3.9.23 at the end of this chapter. These tables compare the before and after mitigation capacity analysis results. Figure 3.9-4 highlights the nine traffic impact locations that would require physical roadway changes and/or additional traffic controls beyond traffic signal timing adjustments. Figure 3.9-5 illustrates the nine intersections with proposed roadway improvements, individually, both with and without the proposed mitigation measures. Intersections that would only require traffic signal timing adjustments, in order to mitigate the identified traffic impact, are not illustrated. The impacted locations and proposed mitigation are described below. Fifth Avenue and Portman Road (1) At this signalized intersection, shown in Figure 3.9-5 (page 1 of 9), the northbound approach deteriorates from Level of Service (LOS) C in the future No-Build Condition to a saturated flow condition during the Saturday MD and PM peak hours. The following mitigation measures are recommended for this intersection: • Modification of the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to northbound traffic. • Widening of Portman Road between Fifth and Plain Avenues to add width for an exclusive left-turn lane and storage to the northbound approach. The roadway would be widened within the city-owned right-of-way on the west side of Portman Road. • Widening of Fifth Avenue between Portman Road and Valley Place to provide a series of three westbound left-turn lanes, including one at the approach to Portman Road. Additional right-of-way would be provided along the south side of the street from within the Redevelopment Area. The recommended mitigation measures would improve the northbound approach from a saturated flow condition to an acceptable LOS D, as compared with LOS C in the No-Build. Approval of these mitigation measures would be required from the City of New Rochelle. Fifth Avenue and Valley Place (2) At this unsignalized intersection, shown in Figure 3.9-5 (page 2 of 9), the performance of the stop-sign controlled northbound approach deteriorates from LOS B in the future No-Build Condition to LOS E in the future Build Condition during the Saturday PM peak hour. The following impact mitigation measures are recommended for this intersection: • Installation of traffic signal control. • Widening of Valley Place to provide exclusive left and right turn lanes. Additional right-of-way would be provided on the west side of the street from within the Redevelopment Area. 3.9-28 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS i tt y-'- Ql; '1 .,.ml• , ,�, - r� _._•__,.• 'ag .y" /rI� .✓� .T-E` --_.--h,,,., )r _ / -,, ,7,�r �, ``- - i'iil rr ,J.:".' /- I' cG`-.~ •. ��\- 77 �: .4 if+', f `�4 \\v"._:________- Y�t • >y• f, �' s'%� '1 1 �' ,T' " l i"7,/r.,.:--,-:// �, 1 f. high f:'�i• • 7 �-� ` 4SIwa(14y 'j C #, "} ` ,}i �y i ��.4 it` t o A3' f r--- r`�. r-, a ` �/ _ .• __ t •tiS'C 1Country Club tf 1ER Po J° a r94 'i, ,,f % rwl •y...'6..,,,l' f A.F1 F; q G y , -� ., tf \\ [ -: _ % 0,L ,�• r,„ ) a / 7j :� �. b'1 '95 w ____.,.._,,,------,7_ \ _ o ' !(( . !' + t f /� ,r 34 `,.6 4 \ '" / / • Y a' /` =goN ...,/ R `i ,,-'41` 11 i+tt+ �� j P.,. .....§:„.A.,_.„) 1 , \ i .1 rJ, / . \ /r•.4r ! , t/ j �� f 1,4,itirp.,....,p !/ \�` • �� _ AV ' Q 1'1, I W / is �' L , 4t '..r a • r, . •, 7 \% ,� Jjr ' HE?381710 r =" m ___—_,--,,y------- '• a ?�rrN -'` *ti i'i y� �: `' t • �i { �� CfittBl 5 r/ �` 7 • ;/^ �!v `'.4 rittT 1 5\ � ., 1� ty�(tr I. j 4. --# r �� Set / , \ 7 \. /•� 4 {i' /20S C y `_r\ 15,;i ii� ! ,Py•s/ 4Cl y 1 P1 f J / V y # / , r ,� 4.)-4 /.alp r If f; I ( \'> I''CL27,1.% ' JF. 1i ' iit'7?' ❑r • % �� `w G©� T4 3�flt/. ��a. .`,+r3A'PP % �` N \ • � yL �{i/f4° �, .� i)i , L4 � p - 11, , 1. e C t II ! r ,� `.�. ; Hammocks //\ \ 4 ,.., Pl { ' ' r ;f , f `� ..3V�E �•� l P. tl '1rt1+ pi`,�. -0 L t ie.L���; _r M� \ PIS \ \ / .^�_ �i�' ,f. `w� r1 '-=�r..'�o - , I µ: p Q' ,�' _ 'r. C'`'4J-4.4.1.6 ",(.7.,,,,/,/i,� f ` ' ; ^�",�,t Fielt! }iampshire �,,1,,. , �� '`•f? � , i?^;'r '•jI '. ;' %T i r �- ;� ,, u 5P' _ { � ( j . Jr •� ti $c :. Country Club t 'ii Na tvRE TLiDY j1 I r� f T ia0f I� '�1` �' < �' ! " n�t '•� ��� � ea !� r ,r`t t15 c\ TY PARK 1 i t ` �.l 1'` t� s <'/ / y 1 yr ' `••• -..•,,...„_,A(//7" J•' / i'--1(' .' '9 s i�' % ! to fr _ �; eC h •1 \ m�• ¢� SCh . 67 �'� / ,�'`'F �` i o rd „ Jv O� f t( F S L .. j" t.'. , K - ,.. % ,' , ,, ? / ' 3J f _ _J-- \t ?p \� ��q J .f ! � = ► ' iso , Redevelo•ment Area !f / ` `" ,,�' \ i' /t ! ry Hai 7t(>t • e 8 r �� n t '>k 1/ .r---k.„,,----.)_ ` ' '. i n r Park \ i• ,f' • �a �,`\,.. 't,! 4 r , t+ na Park �1 \� y `�r• rr -'4F F 1-` mo.• 1' ', 7.: -. :t ,ke ~' t 7rf'F1Qft 1t s 2 /' % Cy �i f•' • ,1 ; �. 69 23a.. } / 't'• .1 is f -y' •k-:�Q,1 ,r` - I A„` 1 4 i l ` Neu Lena ', 01 ^ ,, k f .,. 1T * �( +r te ! Pt f P •, r/ L`l\ �r,' .:. O tt'. / 44 ., r� ,, 4\ t1rC a te, /r 'k 1 \ r 'i - •i' ' IF�C < '� �I It 1rr '� ` • �6 �^a `` ty 1' I� • �j 1 / *•- \ * \y ,/ 1 -I hBL:'D, t�Y , ^ p .r•.� '�'.A. , ( _. , 6 � � LC r r 1 T . ti._.- r t TOP t / d i ,r Y ,y,' s jY F ' ,,, \1\. a•'• we -, y • \ . r.' ;, . y -y t �ilr f ""`ti 4 4 4 J-�4 lona ,: � /: 0 1 / ,A?4p !^ ter'Q� \ I- rescan i 1 �� i .q OC . - +{; •+ / r t' ,It A' ., 'J, tri-R_t, 1, , st i,tlege ` r,, r� ' , r • = /��/y l +/ 7 k ,f 11f. ?h, Oil Point ; • * �k�f ff X --ay �7 ��`. ,.( r' \ ( ,-,t, ,f ..1' �<f\ { r 4 ! l l , „.11,-\ -,,,,,- '"f.f "IE'j ` ,) .iF ,- ,r•-- ,,, ., „,,,, lit 4 k, ,r ' 1a ,5 'f , Y' '"`•• 4y,z. '. Imo ' t, � � ` '��\. - r 1'g 48/,y-'-_ /' %'�Q`QPI/ , ^ , .-�-i.� \ ,/ 5 ^ ( V1 •If I 7' • 1 I 5 , 1 vg ••A �R,. ✓ ,, ..- _ nt\ .\-* * 4 A _ . .. •• i'' it l '_ �iy� Larchmo rl .`I -~-`' r' ;' - a. I I' '} • -�' 9 -k �1►E ;__e,%,. • ,. ' (j'/ �• '\ — ; b�P \..p� \��(.\'� , .. V - ,i_ ti p� ..-.d' , (_,�,5� "f �' y'� /h'\ i -y-ti `� 1 \` '� I•�i'"`- \ ^-•'1r� /. ' \. - r1E * r ' '%''�, `~' 1 l 'W i tr...., 1 7! y / ! /a�` .�;aY.. \ r F �. ^^y If vy NT r �. T iii 1-...r#7,__...-,31 ; ; 1 tI _,- ` 0? _ o ',,i. !'. �t , .y .._.-------_10dgewater j�" << _ ` ' '[8y r,� y rjf ; 7.),,,,It;$.--. Point'--1' \ ��ti_ ''� {{_y iE r$ - 1' \,ter ' aM.t;'i -• �0/ y _ _ 1 - , , fid _ :� 'f O• \ �..�-.�.:,.r-, \/ ttu9rK „, -, n ! �-1, V 4111, H 7 (9 % V s )>) v--__ :4,-( t^) L WO 1 •i��.. t - _:4.._ t , Ave;`. _, - 7: i ,t�rir , ' (L \ - , _ - -,a� ti-. _"`- i' f i .,,-;',4.1',,-(1–,i, �t,C4Tt K� _.' °LIG ._ ., r1 4 I ` ;�_ '/. ,-. t , 1a �yf t1,1 .,�'• ••' ►: J'l �/ l'�„'fi.k_ i tel ' ,U�i P'' _ 't ,. 4 L I t y I( 0 '' 1 y. I:, rf - �l - • - r i ,,,_,6:4, r r 4 .% _!VI ji rlci Ie 11V£ �' 5 l''0 7'7) �,f/ i�{~� ' \ l? 'r % Jl�_ , `� ii , , •?i. ? ` + gh.�#��_Q-RTO�u_, 8� �, y \�/ ! '1�;f1 r' < \ f =� - mbrella 7'+'/ / ,.f-. , i• i , i ,1 rex . ' +� s ,), #rid .,.\\I--,_ \\''', ---, ao ♦ . /, 1 r `,kr f�� '�/ it' .i `"..�- ,5 �,C f. e I ,,r ��' 4.,. .,•:-..,- ' .' / ,. Q `;, Point .w f ,r '`��� S •I'I 1.71� J' � �ir , Ir _ Ot ,.7 i'y ,. Z '[}.,•' ► ;/1 I1. t+1 ,r/ ':% ...`/ // •�V �i ,1�/` y..--"'A 17/`,a.4* ,(- mLight 7 •' „., 1 /7 PI r, 1-14..ti .. _ ''+LC I5 --71 • 4•,,,,,,A,---- yIt\�� i //f r` itt f\ f 1`- Q:P' ./ !7 .F _ _,.....„.,1,__.,......: �.4h - .t•I•,,A -.'.\\-x:,.....,„ J/` �. 14. r,/ I!/ f .bSj V_ � � r/ ,,1.,�. i f i \ , J, 16t/ r 4 r r r �- f J r tVlW 4=,� tl� h lug ':r` i r i �� y ; ',--:-.s_,.,1 ?/� 4+ s/i es, ,Y, >. t f, _ / a / _. �- zp t v .-- \..1__; t ~//� ,( --\\\.),./0\ r t o`rseshoe f+ — � t „i31,9,,,, f 'A' 1 e, ! ; r,..--^--•,[ ry .�.t_- /' i/ • 19 � �' : \t411/1\C"\"— SCh � • �l �'b(3?` f `_ ,. -\'�" t�'f�•, �. ¢. ... ^\^ �t,, 2._'',,,r-• , wh.`; rr _, � ,%j'_; s:;-‘.• �` ,.+ t '' ' •\ `� \, •21�.rit .i ." Harbor . ... . . ... ,iP r r / :_ Vit, ", ., ,m - „ 9 r? '^\\" 4 \� CBitf rderg - � ,� / \:: 4 �;/�: Millpond ), (1.- N �,F,• .1 • i rf .'-• '*-',,LI).-,-i-_-_-_.— r" •� gr At!S �N �^ 1 \,+ �` .,,,,..„...07- `�/\fPT10 rr'L `,. Ip 1O Oak/ i :; ' y �_ ,; _ t-� o --•-------, 7 .s rid 1 • r a / 4� , t1 c } rrOu tN L V - ", - ,.•,,,, ,,,c1 .•/,•• $3 5 4'\ D",,,,, .1,4,A `� �+b0 r-•Lii' `. `,.. �. l•'i S1 -1..-• f I` �Y 42,- t�_'�`.� - 14 'ij .`'�f' �f.�.c 't-+�:f. ,3i..\ 44"434_: ,C'f1 • 0.„-,?::::.:.... land,-.:�Ct !• , 4 -• �� } i ,...,,„,......,_.,..45-'-''t., �p� - tts l lr r. \ ,.,:,.:rt•L F' -1..` 7� I _, " ' \ r t 'xYyE t�\ ll�/ it. �' ♦ +`,•�� �Csib s : l��t,. " ['ark r te,/1T � ' c �' +4 Table v F / }' '� lss.- -,`l;� tONi,�,,^._.rs'cc^'14,5.,� s r -'%`,"' )`� '4., �j' �''.//�Bu•�,/".` p- _, ,i 1•. lU�./ -s• i ?: ti �; br• d«Q`'N s !'�� t v'/�a +� ��� \ ` F400,ed:.., )r r I YI i.:- �. .E Rock i i M � 4 — -a '',} 1 sx kVA k- �';^ `f' :, h Cub ,t `R v Jfk 2--19; r' ,l ', . r .,o,-,- •• s--', A`. 5 , '` •i ,, ., , r . ri 4t"��r }ey: • Firrisorl Yr H / `` "'1t� rt r� 'SL ci, s� �f�4 ;` f le�`y.- 1 \ y , r '!t L� - ' r} J'� autort P h flA l ` �'^+. •r-.i iY. �, � -1 t �`• „f ,r $ ` ....",,,,A, j'rr Y -1,,;,.. .,.,, L „,,,,,j,,,;.•11,..,‘:„.".. ! r, aF r-- ..4 r � { 4144 :_.4_21,...„,,,,,,..,‘,,---, �`+J rP �� . ‘,,, 7 , - r -� � � '\ - �`^, ' / ,,,% ison• Lt t Echo . remiurn is u -/,;-;.,;-- • t f,- _ •� •Q! - <-+ =:,,. . '`,, +••' .sell.--r.• _ �,� jt� '' 'hf , I'i3f}:i &tick - t`aUt. P 1 rjj Y ,c g'r`-' Cemetery . - r .\ f ,/ ^+ .� \ x,74. `�j�v, 'f ` ; �� ,1'. Pt il� .4�4• / .11 t Z` �” /; i t?ir i 1, f `"...// i• �r:_� A< fir.% \So -' QQ� • Echo BU's tit ,, ; z'- o I ! 1. /7. •'\ 'J''''' j• Off-Site Physical Roadway Changes t; ` •, +� 't A' •• r' 1 li Cemetery ` �/ `� em i Is i t i �/ • �� ;_ Ih ,v Y Bailey Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area �/ • q; 1' , s�wx ^ �- ��� 1 f !/ nt� o �� ,. `' :`?` Rockr6 t is_ f. i-, r _,Ki `�'y r, /f .cs 5q 0 ® Study Intersection Plan and Retail Center Project c°e .at , a�4 ; 5 —� 7a Ai 1r . 4, c Echo Figure 3.9-4(Page 1 of 2) A". / : 0 o y� 1. ` 1,_ FG"i ./ /4 \13, ,/:,-r r✓ rJ `e `ti c am, r 8�i,(der • C , - `. Harrison ' r IF Tillir . ' /L' •_ ... J; / t �-- ogo 'l ,o \ 1i t�1 C O t :� �� Book Golf • Q 3 eq .•, High Sch • i 1 J ' -h a r 'f �. _ �, �; I. 'Po ` VI r I 'Field ` e�/ ' y�. . f i� II. ;d+ J' �� ~' ; \'-� y ` 1 - ' ..--� / y +,125�,� *O Fire o r C`-,� Course \ o U r 41 /lI r h _ p..re%7 AYF ` � ,i '�1 - }� �f�_ l:0\m., 0I t GRH/ St2� •Q. 5ti�Irnmrnc: 11 0 ,W �gotQk� l�t ••�_ � 2\i- , �~� +fI{'iI1N"/S. r' 'a'• ' _} 'F / i O_� 1 t� a/ 4 f^ ''� C ��� �+ o y e + ,., O POO. X I `. / } il!'^ t�.'=i•- •• r.' 7 { �L Q / h O 1i �, p5. `' g (Orr,pte. 1 F • i�l tt f •�"(-,P. '! -y. , `� . i ,� /, �� , - �': , j�.� CYOSSL'J3y K , r 4,i l 2J; j ; ' • :• 2� / a?QJ"f . 1 9fY , :7 pRJ s s , �, F-xiold Z i 1" I.!'� \tisk -�',1 � �. �-, r1 `�' r r / ---... + �,1,� S / is ''� I;., ',�.I h • / �/Water`• * •1 �' ----A„�f 4.G ,` 1 L , \ �,\ QIP ' ': lr 'I + °•-, — ' w 1. 4a:•• �. 0 . y, f I "'� k:,;J r - i sp rR ? • I /� r ti �� �l :, n, tigRve * i______ ,soil , TIt \ ,r,v ? r ;/i / f .:, , 2 ` .Ilp.5.6 If \Nli •Q ., , G- -: ra 111 � 1wg1J. ,,o. � • :'�a1e : rj✓ s ! s f \ , P:u'r, • y\A ' Icj r{ 1' 1 envch L ai. -,� Cenj cf' 10° j j1) -� .1 • it /=�, rr,, r "c T _ � j, �� '� �9 , J' �( �Yi . a Cotonial Acres • J9t '' �� h. '.. r/ O li , tj u \ �� l f -y P•it. 1'4 O + \ �r 1 / Q /1'4-f>41* •" `\> ,: ` Y ? ,/ n til i f, \ / i �% ` '� " - *° '- ' .2 \ /I ' tO --'mar• • \ 1 -1 • Leewaod ! r �`.: 1 '} `,' t� /e �' f _../- .\ A. r , o 7jj�taOlf Club /; (�/� ;� r �r I •• 17AI e \,-Relervair �. i��. r! !r1 1 ;� ;f� i ! \ i 15"-----'-'7 Quaker -.ge ,• 10100P I. - / °T „'. "-../�f�G r C� Go'f CourS@ �:.0 / / • oN •'k / \ o ;5�0"i �. -4 ••• Y �'�l--� �` \ � �2o i '1r f� , 1 / f t��SS 1��� j �1 �5 ! Quake .R:dge 4I t i 65 • RR'����`a== +1 1-,r' �v I r',,p / i ,r', �.1•', ,_?--)7,---- / � y� /\ O /�J 10).___I 129 Golf i U b t, f •+x.r i /'T�` l .?, ▪22; lrr1 4 �/n �' �� .r ' t �' j eek . 'd i//c�: 1` }� '- lo na ' / /�;r! a+ • � ' yob ..- ... °•mss i Park • j j ' ' �- c— • i . fount r,' ? //. (;r:linTftdr 5c}RR-6. 4,6".v.f i ,'Cl { gRA-f+ \ f \ `1 \ �L, 'la'1 ,{� n r O. \ • oft i y 1 �ti ' / Jrr i f 1 /G, C 3 , , { /•t; /. 1� �.. ;., �1` , ,. t �Yt' T/li ti / i -, i +' P ` / " „ ,t+P� Murcic�ek Woad i. r 0� ' 1 '� 1 ��' H Ina C�' ( �, I r ( �f ., +T-a'z / f` - ,.4 l' C 1 '73�' Pre �5CE1 ..-7701 / ▪ 1' �i t - � ! .1 y . Pond . , r ' \ / 9A$g%' ' •l(f " ' . o k r d d !•i. y , ,r :• I i •� �y �\r _ _ /� : \:. ..7\ i �`_ a r Gi''N \ `�`_ , 1 � //��. � , /17 ,'J�f..`' tir /11P:t 7r-r. -/ It;F 1 ' •/' :t4S' '' I ." +IfF - 6hr � � T 33 /; '- Ward y ' ,i.:12-) /`� � �,r%a Sc ei " g� �. �i Re :e o • Acres ti t' ,.•tis► `' ..' - / y Winged Foot _ ` 11 f ��- Z l ti \ No 1 /�Q c i° •44 i 14 ' Park es"- 119 ' �17�'Ji6 .__. Golf ClubsW, ill 411 1' �cw'f% f�'J(`'` �Lt� 'f /B<\ !% !" +1@ 'moo• ,��� -.._ ..'Lp�ae�'/ q ;r r � 411 _ 'r `� , r ~ `d3 _�-- A.. til -(.2.,,..t_ . .. ,# ��. a. J :COQ. / ,� �.,t ����.., 4 ' `I,)• .. _i / .. '' ... , `!„.'"• 'SW.mming / /-} •R i .1/ ‘\/../. . ::34;:- A 1,_ _-=-77.-75--77-= ._� ?_��_ fl _ `��`.� "l am '.1 1,‘, f •-' / /, O "C6 I • .G' 1 1 Pool ! ' • '- irN _�,_ r t /c ,It { ` /,-, -11 • 11,r 4 1 a,/ `=-r,, r r j /rr\ .dii p It Bonrne Bn3r '� \ - / �/ 1 �'`f ✓~ v g• ,r •�, •4 �/ { \• l ' In tic ft ° P . . �m Country Ciub 1� // r 'race f i• / 11 e i'':� 'C' In �, ` + O/'', 4 ,1 Tt 1i. 7 Tank'\ [�. t r •'' 'e b.• I i� WO �''. , ,� � 1 /, z. ! /��� Ged ti y C Q' 1 J '' r/r! '� Y,Y i' s- a r 11 ,r^',, ` .' _' Q • t-47,,... 'y//\>4y �._ ' Ili j� C-� �•� �'.�. x \,;'' .- JW - L.� l� rV'Jl t•� ''� i/. I J - I /. \ `� t 6.� 'r ) Q �I j (�\ 1 ' +` ' �� /. �� / it 1 '+ t 1 11 .�! . TV-t C/��< 9� / �' f 7 \ v^ 11 ,t i 4, cc_ it• LAKE) y•‘.�; .•s;'r/ 6}I\ ' /'/ "1i14G£ ,4 ` ','1 A `;A U �/ >' ��/ `I�I //7V: .,. N,�� �'• • SO e ^`'4 1 0 l;cotiNrY o 4 1 ti t ( / 1?0 - ��� - �C' NI I k -) 1 Lm/ / M.'7 °''`f r'''- r 17 1 / l i , lip l 02i �" ' Vii' J+' \h /'ndt"Jt:lO e( Nit - _ r / /'" % � �:� a 1 / Park r ,� /� P; ",.7 Pc �� - ;> , • tib \ �r--� r 16,9:2, -;'- - Q ' / 1�E m i \ J a o \ • > /% 'pt1' ! an:rrct �, j� /hr0 \'� H�- •/ / (, l0�t t� Middle School i Q/ �� : , !�'s r.. .07�- / /i. ``� o / ' .'" �' ‘1.411‘'°,1".."'-i-,',...'. S 0 _ Res vair '� t 5a �C T. g 1` r �--'' ...„v5� /:' 'r~� •r t e ` ► .,-, t •. -l/i, /. /r lot may,: 0 3 u,. �17`� .416%.„/ + � 'j ;r/�-i ��caetn �S S /23 r J1 ri 19T -� f�./09r1, ..• -a. ir `� ' I � ' {� ��� 1 �'nl 9 �'�.1� / ,;;A„:4,_...,_.., / rJ I / l 1 1 r� v t � ' f►i r, O@-Site Physeal Roadway Changes ft%f Q' ) `11 ' Z I ° ' vINE' -' ��/ 4 - •�; Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area : 1. fa, �r 1;� \ '+ tO / ' r �? O _ ` 22S r I t , O n /. 4-/y Ltr-:,, �% J�/' la YkagYi oft \ • t r ' n eli i� �,, `�, , �/, ; r Plan and Retail Center Project o c-,i !// Country Club � \ t7' , ��r' / y o • m 5h / ), Figure 3.9-4(Page 2 of 2) c__ ^ "1+�h '1 vk37vrV1 41' �;rre • _• '' '+�o 4,.."'�E WI ,! if` // i /�.:. FIGURE 3.9-5 (page 1 of 9) INTERSECTIONS REQUIRING PHYSICAL MITIGATION FIFTH AVENUE AND PORTMAN ROAD (1) N ■ Traffic Signal n , > Lane Use EXISTING INTERSECTION CITY PARK ROAD 11' 12' C 12' 33' FIFTH AVENUE ■ A • 18' 42' • A - V 24' PORTMAN ROAD INTERSECTION WITH MITIGATION CITY PARK ROAD ►f 12► • C , 12' 33' FIFTH AVENUE • t 10' A t--> 12' I > 42' V ✓ - /1, H H V 10' 11' 4-0- 11' —►11' PORTMAN ROAD FIGURE 3.9-5 (page 2 of 9) INTERSECTIONS REQUIRING PHYSICAL MITIGATION FIFTH AVENUE AND VALLEY PLACE (2) IITraffic Signal N > Lane Use LJ ■ Stop Sign EXISTING INTERSECTION 13' C 12' FIFTH AVENUE 18' ' 17' ft ■ 32' VALLEY PLACE INTERSECTION WITH MITIGATION 12' C i 10' Il' 11119' FIFTH AVENUE 12' 10' 10' V � ► 10' 12' 4-► 22' 11' VALLEY PLACE FIGURE 3.9-5 (page 3 of 9) INTERSECTIONS REQUIRING PHYSICAL MITIGATION FIFTH AVENUE AND NORTH AVENUE (4) N 1111 Traffic Signal > Lane Use EXISTING INTERSECTION NORTH AVENUE 28' , 28'4 ► V BUS STOP A 17' 13' FIFTH AVENUE • • ■ A 16' t > 18' V BUS STOP 4 0,- 33' INTERSECTION WITH MITIGATION NORTH AVENUE 28' , 28' ► V A 19.5' 17' FIFTH AVENUE • 11119.5' 16' > A 12' V • a. O O m 33' FIGURE 3.9-5(page 4 of 9) INTERSECTIONS REQUIRING PHYSICAL MITIGATION MADISON AVENUE AND NEW JEFFERSON ST./I-95(10) III Traffic Signal N > Lane Use ■ Stop Sign EXISTING INTERSECTION NEW JEFFERSON ST. t 24 ► H A � V _ 25' C 30' MADISON AVENUE • 32' I > 30' ft --► 4-10. 17' 14' I-95 INTERCHANGE 17 ENTRANCE/EXIT INTERSECTION WITH MITIGATION NEW JEFFERSON ST. 1 24 ► H V ft 25' C 130' MADISON AVENUE • ■ > 32' 30' • I � V 17' 21' I-95 INTERCHANGE 17 ENTRANCE/EXIT FIGURE 3.9-5(page 5 of 9) INTERSECTIONS REQUIRING PHYSICAL MITIGATION HUTCHINSON AVENUE AND WEAVER ST.(15) IITraffic Signal N > Lane Use ■ Stop Sign EXISTING INTERSECTION .411 A 11' C > :11' HUTCHINSON AVENUE ft 13' 13' WEAVER STREET INTERSECTION WITH MITIGATION 13 ►f 13 ► B, <-1 A 11' ■ • 11' HUTCHINSON AVENUE A 1•:411 13'' 1-3' WEAVER STREET FIGURE 3.9-5(page 6 of 9) INTERSECTIONS REQUIRING PHYSICAL MITIGATION MURRAY AVENUE AND WEAVER STREET(17) ■ Traffic Signal N > Lane Use n ■ Stop Sign — ■ Warning Sign EXISTING INTERSECTION WEAVER STREET 14' g � � 14' WEAVER STREET MURRAY AVENUE INTERSECTION WITH MITIGATION WEAVER STREET SIGNAL \\ AHEAD \V� (355 ft.away) 14' SIGNAL 1111AHEAD III (355 ft.away) 14' WEAVER STREET MURRAY AVENUE FIGURE 3.9-5(page 7 of 9) INTERSECTIONS REQUIRING PHYSICAL MITIGATION GARDEN STREET AND CEDAR STREET(19) 1111 Traffic Signal N > Lane Use ■ Stop Sign EXISTING INTERSECTION 26' ON-RAMP a ■ TO I-95 NB 24'-� ' 26' / GARDEN STREET fiIfiI� 33' A CEDAR STREET INTERSECTION WITH MITIGATION V 26' / u ON-RAMP a ■ TO I-95 NB 24' 26': > GARDEN STREET 411-10. A V CEDAR STREET FIGURE 3.9-5(page 8 of 9) INTERSECTIONS REQUIRING PHYSICAL MITIGATION BEECHMONT DRIVE AND PINEBROOK BLVD.WEST(23a) ■Traffic Signal N c Lane Use ft • Stop Sign ■ Yield Sign EXISTING INTERSECTION PINEBROOK BLVD(SB) 19' 12' ■ o `r► a : 21. 12' BEECHMONT DR. V I2' 15 F' I PINEBROOK ROAD INTERSECTION WITH MITIGATION PINEBROOK BLVD(SB) 19' 12' ■ d a C a 21' ■ ■ �---� 12' BEECHMONT DR. %\ V 2 I 15 u V I PINEBROOK ROAD FIGURE 3.9-5 (page 9 of 9) INTERSECTIONS REQUIRING PHYSICAL MITIGATION WEAVER STREET AND MYRTLE BLVD (34) N II Traffic Signal —> Lane Use EXISTING INTERSECTION MYRTLE BLVD \ 4 14' V 110- <,_, 25' ■ WEAVER STREET 14' fi WEAVER 11-► STREET 16' INTERSECTION WITH MITIGATION MYRTLE BLVD f 14' 1°' <ID i V 12' ■ t 12' WEAVER STREET 14' fi WEAVER 41----► STREET 16' Transportation and Traffic September 14,2000 • Widening Fifth Avenue at two locations between Portman Road and Valley Place to provide two right turn lanes, including one at the eastbound approach of Fifth Avenue at Valley Place. Additional right-of-way would be provided on the south side of the street from within the Redevelopment Area. • Re-striping the westbound approach of Fifth Avenue within the existing pavement width to provide an exclusive left-turn lane. The recommended measures would improve traffic operations on the northbound approach during the Saturday PM peak hour from LOS E to an acceptable LOS C. This compares with LOS B in the No-Build Condition. Approval of these mitigation measures would be required from the City of New Rochelle. Fifth Avenue and North Avenue (4) At this signalized intersection, shown in Figure 3.9-5 (page 3 of 9), the westbound approach deteriorates from LOS D/E in the future No-Build Condition to LOS F in the Build Condition. The following mitigation measures are recommended for this intersection: • Re-striping the westbound approach within the existing roadway width to provide a left-turn lane and a right /through lane. • Modification of the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to westbound traffic. • Elimination of up to six parking spaces on the south side of Fifth Avenue and relocation of EB/WB Route 61 bus stops to shared bus stops on North Avenue with Route 45. These recommended mitigation measures would improve conditions on the westbound approach from LOS F to an acceptable LOS D during the weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours, and to LOS C during the Saturday PM peak hour. This compares with LOS D/E in the No-Build Condition. Approval of these mitigation measures would be required from the City of New Rochelle. Chatsworth Avenue and Palmer Avenue (5) At this signalized intersection, the northbound left-turn movement operates at saturated flow conditions during all peak periods in both the No-Build and Build Conditions. In addition, the southbound approach operates at LOS E and F in the No-Build Condition during the weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively. The Build Condition continues to operate at LOS F and E, respectively, but with higher stopped delay. The following mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Modification of the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to northbound traffic. The recommended mitigation measure would improve the performance of the northbound approach during the weekday PM, Saturday midday and Saturday PM peak hours by decreasing the v/c ratios and by reducing the average stopped delay. Although the left-turn movement would continue to operate at saturated flow conditions. The southbound approach would continue to operate at LOS F during the Saturday midday peak hour, but with lower stopped delay. Conditions improve during the weekday PM peak hour from LOS E to an 3.9-29 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 acceptable LOS D, which compares with LOS E in the No-Build Condition. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the Village of Larchmont. Murray Avenue and Myrtle Boulevard (7) At this signalized intersection, the eastbound right turn movement changes from LOS E in the future No-Build Condition to LOS F during the Saturday midday and PM peak hours. During the weekday PM peak hour, this turn movement performs at saturated flow conditions (LOS F) in both the future No-Build and Build Conditions. The following mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Modification of the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to eastbound traffic. The recommended mitigation measure would improve the eastbound right turn movement from LOS F to an acceptable LOS D during the Saturday midday and PM peak hours, as compared with LOS E in No-Build. During the weekday PM peak hour the turn movement's performance would improve from a saturated flow conditions (LOS F) to an acceptable LOS D. This compares with LOS F in the No-Build Conditions. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the Town of Mamaroneck. Lincoln Avenue and North Avenue (8) At this signalized intersection, the eastbound left turn movement deteriorates from LOS E in the future No-Build Conditions to LOS F in the Build Condition during weekday PM peak hour. The southbound approach operates at LOS F during the Saturday midday peak hour in both the future No-Build and future Build Conditions. The following mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Modification of the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to eastbound traffic with a leading green phase in the weekday PM peak hour and more green time to southbound traffic in the Saturday midday peak period. The recommended mitigation measure would improve the performance of the eastbound approach during the weekday PM from LOS F to an acceptable LOS C/D. This compares favorably with LOS E in the No-Build. The southbound approach improves during the Saturday midday peak hour from LOS F in the No-Build to LOS E. Approval of these mitigation measures would be required from the City of New Rochelle. Fifth Avenue and Potter Avenue (9) At this signalized intersection, the westbound left turn movement operates at LOS B during Saturday midday and PM peak periods in the No-Build Condition and deteriorates to LOS F in the Build Condition. 3.9-30 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 The following mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection to clear the westbound left-turn movement: • Modification of the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to westbound traffic. The recommended measure would improve the performance of the westbound approach during the Saturday midday and PM peak hours from LOS F to and acceptable LOS D and LOS C, respectively. This compares with LOS B in the No-Build. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the City of New Rochelle. Madison Avenue and New Jefferson Street/I-95 Interchange (10) At this unsignalized, stop sign controlled intersection, shown in Figure 3.9-5 (page 4 of 9), the performance of the northbound and southbound approaches during all three peak hours deteriorates from LOS D or F in the future No-Build Condition to LOS F or worse in the future Build Condition. The following mitigation measures are recommended for this intersection: • Installation of traffic signal control; • Widening and restriping the 1-95 exit ramp within the New York State Thruway right-of-way to add an exclusive left-turn lane to the northbound ramp approach. The recommended mitigation measures would improve the northbound and southbound approaches during all three peak hours from LOS F or worse to an acceptable LOS C or D. This compares with LOS D or F in the future No-Build Condition. Approval of these mitigation measures would be required from the New York State Thruway Authority in coordination with the Town of Mamaroneck. Hutchinson River Pkwy. SB Exit Ramp and Weaver Street (14) At this signalized intersection, the performance of the westbound left turn movement deteriorates from LOS C and D in the Saturday midday and PM peak hours under No-Build Conditions, respectively, to LOS E and F in the Build Condition during the Saturday midday and PM peak hours, respectively. The following mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Modification of the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to westbound traffic. The recommended mitigation measure would improve the performance of the westbound left turn movement during the Saturday midday peak hour from LOS E to an acceptable LOS D, as compared with LOS C in the No-Build. During the Saturday PM peak hours, the westbound left turn movement improves from LOS F to LOS C, as compared with LOS D in the No-Build. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the New York State Department of Transportation and/or Westchester County in coordination with the Village of Scarsdale and the City of New Rochelle. 3.9-31 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Hutchinson Avenue and Weaver Street (15) At this unsignalized intersection, shown in Figure 3.9-5 (page 5 of 9), the performance of the westbound approach during all the peak hours deteriorates from LOS F in the future No-Build Condition to LOS F with higher stopped delays in the future Build Condition. The following mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Installation of a traffic signal to be coordinated with the nearby signal at the southbound exit ramp. The recommended measure would improve the westbound approach during all three peak hours from LOS F to an acceptable LOS D during the weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours and LOS C during the Saturday PM peak hour. This compares with LOS F during all three peak hours in the future No-Build Condition. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the New York State Department of Transportation and/or Westchester County in coordination with the Village of Scarsdale and the City of New Rochelle. Quaker Ridge Road and Weaver Street(16) At this signalized intersection, the performance of the southbound approach deteriorates from LOS E (weekday PM) and LOS D (Saturday midday and Saturday PM) in the No-Build Condition to LOS E or F in the Build Condition. The following mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Modification of the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to southbound traffic. The recommended mitigation measure would improve the performance of the southbound approach during the weekday PM, Saturday midday and PM peak hours from LOS E or F to and acceptable LOS C or D. This compares with LOS E or D in the No-Build Condition. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the New York State Department of Transportation and/or Westchester County in coordination with the City of New Rochelle and the Village of Scarsdale. Murray Avenue and Weaver Street (17) At this unsignalized T-intersection, shown in Figure 3.9-5 (page 6 of 9), which is controlled by a stop sign on the Murray Avenue approach, the performance of the eastbound left turn movement during the Saturday midday peak hour (LOS D) and Saturday PM peak hour (LOS F) in the future No-Build Condition deteriorates to LOS F with higher stopped delays in the future Build Condition (see Figure 3.9-4 page 5 of 7). The following mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • The installation of a traffic signal. In addition, Traffic Signal Ahead warning signs with flashing amber lights should be placed in advance of the intersection on both northbound and southbound Weaver Street, due to restricted sight distances. 3.9-32 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 The recommended package of mitigation measures would significantly improve the eastbound left turn movement during the Saturday midday and PM peak hours from LOS F to LOS C, compared with LOS F in the No-Build. Approval of these mitigation measures would be required from the New York State Department of Transportation and/or Westchester County in coordination with the Town of Mamaroneck. Garden Street and Cedar Street (19) At this unsignalized intersection, shown in Figure 3.9-5 (page 7 of 9), the performance of the southbound approach during the weekday PM, Saturday midday and Saturday PM peak hours deteriorates from LOS F in the future No-Build Condition to LOS F with higher stopped delays in the future Build Condition. The following mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Installation of traffic signal control. This recommended mitigation measure would significantly improve the southbound approach during all the peak hours from LOS F to an acceptable LOS C, as compared with LOS F in the No-Build Condition. This proposed new traffic signal needs to be coordinated with the recently installed traffic signal at the intersection of Garden Street and 1-95 northbound ramps. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the New York State Thruway Authority and/or the City of New Rochelle. Petersville Road and Palmer Avenue (22) At this signalized intersection, the performance of the northbound approach deteriorates from LOS F for all peak periods in the No-Build Condition to LOS F with higher stopped delay in the Build Condition. The following mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Modify the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to northbound traffic. The recommended measure would significantly improve the performance of the northbound approach during the peak hours from LOS F or worse to LOS B. This compares with LOS F in the No Build. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the City of New Rochelle. Beechmont Drive and southbound Pinebrook Boulevard (23a) At this unsignalized intersection, shown in Figure 3.9-5 (page 8 of 9), the performance of the southbound approach during the weekday PM and the northbound left-turn movement during all peak hours analyzed deteriorates from LOS E or F in the future No-Build Condition to LOS F with higher stopped delays in the future Build Condition. The following mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Installation of traffic signal control. 3.9-33 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 The recommended measure would significantly improve the southbound approach during the weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours from LOS F to LOS C, and significantly improve the northbound approach from LOS E or F to LOS B during all peak hours analyzed. This compares with LOS E/F in the future No-Build condition. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the City of New Rochelle. Chatsworth Avenue and Boston Post Road (27) At this signalized intersection, the performance of the northbound approach deteriorates from LOS E during the weekday PM peak period in the No-Build Condition to LOS E with higher stopped delay in the Build Condition. The following impact mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Modification of the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to northbound traffic. The recommended measure would improve the performance of the northbound approach during the weekday PM peak hour from LOS E to an acceptable LOS D. This compares with LOS E in the No-Build Condition. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the New York State Department of Transportation and/or Westchester County in coordination with the Village of Larchmont. New Rochelle Road and California Road(28) At this signalized intersection, the westbound left-turn movement in the Saturday PM peak hour deteriorates from LOS D in the No-Build Condition to LOS E in the Build Condition. The following impact mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Modification of the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to westbound traffic. The recommended measure would improve the performance of the northbound approach during the Saturday PM peak hour from LOS E to and acceptable LOS D. This compares with LOS D in the No-Build Condition. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the Westchester County in coordination with the Town of Eastchester. Eastchester Road and North Avenue (30) At this signalized intersection, the performance of the eastbound right turn movement deteriorates from LOS D during weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours in the No-Build Condition to LOS E in the Build Condition. The following impact mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Modification of the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to eastbound traffic. The recommended measure would improve the performance of the eastbound right turn movement during the weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours from LOS E to and 3.9-34 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 acceptable LOS D. This compares with LOS D in the No Build condition. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the City of New Rochelle. Lincoln Avenue and Memorial Highway(32) At this signalized intersection, the performance of the eastbound approach deteriorates from LOS D during the Saturday midday in the No-Build Condition to LOS F in the Build Condition. The performance of the westbound left turn movement deteriorates from LOS D during the Saturday PM in the No-Build Condition to LOS E in the Build Condition. The following traffic impact mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Modification of the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to eastbound and westbound traffic. The recommended measure would restore the performance of the eastbound approach during the Saturday midday peak hour from LOS F to an acceptable LOS D and restore the westbound left turn movement during the Saturday PM from LOS E to LOS D. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the City of New Rochelle. Weaver Street and Myrtle Boulevard (34) At this signalized intersection, shown in Figure 3.9-5 (page 9 of 9), the performance of the westbound approach deteriorates from LOS F during the weekday PM and Saturday PM peak hours in the No-Build Condition to LOS F with higher stopped delays in the Build Condition. The following impact mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Modification of the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to westbound traffic. • Restriping westbound approach within the existing pavement width to provide a left-turn lane and a through/right lane. The recommended mitigation measures would significantly improve the performance of the westbound approach from LOS F to LOS C and B in the weekday PM and Saturday PM peak hours, respectively. This compares with LOS F in the future No-Build Condition. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the New York State Department of Transportation and/or Westchester County in coordination with the Town of Mamaroneck. Mamaroneck Avenue and Mt. Pleasant Avenue (38) At this signalized intersection, the performance of the northbound left turn movement deteriorates from LOS E or F during all three peak hours in the No-Build condition to LOS F with increased stopped delay in the Build Condition. The following impact mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Modify the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to northbound traffic. 3.9-35 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 The recommended measure would significantly improve the performance of the northbound left turn movement during all three peak hours from LOS F or worse in the future No-Build and Build conditions to an acceptable LOS D. This compares with LOS E or F in the No-Build. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from Westchester County in coordination with the Village of Mamaroneck. Boston Post Road and Larchmont Avenue (46) The westbound and northbound approaches at this signalized intersection deteriorate during the Saturday midday and Saturday PM peak hours from LOS F in the No-Build Condition to LOS F with increased stopped delay in the Build Condition. The following mitigation measure is recommended for this intersection: • Modify the traffic signal timing to provide more green time to the affected approaches. The recommended measure would improve the performance of the westbound approach from LOS F to LOS E and would improve the performance of the northbound approach from LOS F to LOS D. This compares with LOS F in the No-Build Condition. Approval of this mitigation measure would be required from the New York State Department of Transportation and/or Westchester County in coordination with the Village of Larchmont. Hiqh Accident Locations Existing accident data, previously discussed in Section 3.9.3, is summarized in Table 3.9-11. The effect of site generated traffic and proposed mitigation measures on the accident trend at intersections with a relatively high number of reported accidents is shown in the fourth column of the table. Table 3.9-11 1999 High Accident Locations Change due to Proposed Retail Center Project Intersection No. of Accident Trend Change due to Accidents Proposed Retail Center Project Chatsworth Avenue 10 EB right turn collisions No measurable increase in EB and Myrtle Blvd. (6) right turns. Lincoln Avenue and 22 Pedestrians in north Increase in EB left turns (<45 vph). North Avenue (8) crosswalk being hit by EB leading green phase added EB left turners w/o E/W pedestrian movement. Main Street and Echo 14 EB left turning vehicles Small increase in EB left turn Avenue (11) sideswiping movements (<10 vph). Hutchinson Avenue 6 SB left turning vehicles No measurable increase in SB left and Weaver Street(15) colliding with WB traffic turns. Traffic signal added. Quaker Ridge Rd. and 20 SB rear end collisions Increase in SB through volume Weaver Street(16) (<50 vph). Green time added to SB approach. 3.9-36 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-11 (Continued) 1999 High Accident Locations Change due to Proposed Retail Center Project Intersection No.of Accident Trend Change due to Accidents Proposed Retail Center Project Murray Avenue and 9 EB rear end collisions at Increase in EB volume (<50 vph). Weaver Street (17) stop sign. Traffic signal added. Garden Street and 17 SB rear end collisions at Increase in SB volume (<350 vph). Cedar Street(19) stop sign. Traffic signal added. Huguenot Street and 43 NB/WB right angle Small increase in WB through North Avenue (36) collisions movement(<10 vph) Main Street and North 39 EB rear end collisions Small increase in EB through Avenue (37) movement(<10 vph) The proposed Applicant-sponsored mitigation measures would be expected to reduce the reported accident trend at the following four (4) intersections: • Lincoln Avenue and North Avenue (8) • Hutchinson Avenue and Weaver Street (15) • Murray and Weaver Street (17) • Garden Street and Cedar Street (19) No significant increase in accident rates are expected at the following four (4) intersections due to the proposed Retail Center Project: • Chatsworth Avenue and Myrtle Boulevard (6) • Main Street and Echo Avenue (11) • Huguenot Street and North Avenue (36) • North Avenue and Main Street (37) A marginal increase in accidents could occur as volumes become heavier at the following intersection: • Quaker Ridge Road and Weaver Street (16) 3.9-37 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 3.9.14 New England Thruway Toll Plaza and Ramps Existing Toll Plaza and Ramp Configuration The toll plaza and ramps of the New England Thruway (1-95) were analyzed for a weekday and Saturday to evaluate the impacts due to proposed Retail Center Project site generated trips. Traffic volumes at the toll plaza and on southbound 1-95 in the vicinity of the toll plaza were obtained from the New York State Thruway Authority. Table 3.9-12 shows the plaza traffic volumes by toll lane during the Retail Center Project peak hours, as recorded on the days the street network traffic counts were collected. The future No-Build volumes were increased by the background growth factor. The Build volumes include "sale week" trips generated by the proposed Retail Center in proportion to the existing EZPass and full-service lane usage. These added trips were assigned to toll lanes 10, 12 and 13, the toll lanes most likely to be used by traffic exiting at Interchange 17. Lane 11 was closed during the peak hours analyzed. The lane capacity was assumed to be 500 vehicles per hour for the full service lanes and 900 vehicles per hour for the EZ-Pass lanes. In the future Build condition, Lane 10 is expected to exceed capacity during the Saturday midday peak hour under the current operating lane configuration. While it is noted that the adjacent full service lanes are operating well under capacity and could handle a greater share of existing through traffic, two traffic improvement measures are suggested. The first option would be to open Lane 11 during the Saturday and Sunday midday period, recognizing that the additional operating cost would be offset by the additional toll revenue from the increased traffic volume. The second option would be to open Lane 11 and close Lane 10 during these high exit volume periods. This shift of lane capacity to the right would encourage through traffic, now using Lane 10, to use available capacity toward the center of the roadway in Lanes 7, 8 and 9 rather than Lane 11 farther to the right. Either of these measures would handle the increased traffic volume without significantly increasing toll plaza delays. A weaving area capacity analysis was also conducted for the segment between the Toll Plaza and the Exit 17 interchange, using Highway Capacity Software, Release 3.1c. For northbound 1-95, the weaving segment included toll lanes 9 through 13 with traffic exiting immediately after the tolls at Exit 17. The analysis assumed a 35 mph free-flow speed since traffic weaves after being stopped at the toll plaza. Exiting traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic counts while volumes passing through the toll plaza were provided by the NYS Thruway Authority. No-Build and Build volumes were obtained by increasing the Existing traffic volumes at both the exit ramp and plaza by the growth factor (1.03). The analysis indicates that the traffic added by the proposed Retail Center to the weaving area between the Toll Plaza and Exit 17 on northbound 1-95 would maintain the same level of service as the No-Build condition, but at slightly lower speeds. Table 3.9-13 summarizes the results of the analysis. 3.9-38 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September, 2000 TABLE 3.9-12 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project New England Thruway Traffic Volumes Existing No Build Assumed Traffic Traffic Build Traffic Lane Peak Period Direction Lanes Transaction Volumes Volumes Volumes Capacity Weekday PM Northbound 1 Closed 0 0 0 - 5:00-6:00 PM (Toll Plaza) 2 EZPass 205 251 251 900 3 EZPass 473 527 527 900 (October 28) 4 EZPass 560 617 617 900 5 Full Service 375 386 386 500 6 Full Service 293 302 302 500 7 Full Service _ 226 233 233 500 8 Full Service 180 185 185 500 9 Full Service 226 233 233 500 10 Full Service 174 179 214 500 11 Closed 0 0 0 - 12 EZPass _ 232 239 266 900 13 _ EZPass _ 104 _ 107 119 900 Total 3048 3259 3333 Southbound All 3 Lanes 5961 6140 6185 7050 Saturday Midday Northbound 1 Closed 0 0 0 - 2:30-3:30 PM (Toll Plaza) 2 EZPass 140 196 196 900 3 EZPass 327 389 389 900 (October 30) 4 _ EZPass 410 474 474 900 5 Full Service 468 482 482 500 6 _ Full Service _ 380 391 391 500 7 Full Service _ 359 369 369 _ 500 8 Full Service 303 312 312 - 500 9 Full Service 258 265 265 500 10 Full Service _ 296 304 593 500 11 _ Closed 0 0 0 - 12 _ EZPass _ 184 189 308 900 13 EZPass 55 57 93 900 Total 3177 3428 3872 Southbound All 3 Lanes 3791 3905 4294 7050 Saturday PM Northbound 1 Closed _ 0 _ 0 0 - 4:00-5:00 PM (Toll Plaza) 2 EZPass 129 185 185 900 3 EZPass _ 357 420 420 900 (October 30) 4 EZPass _ 431 496 496 900 5 Full Service _ 444 457 457 500 6 Full Service 382 393 393 500 7 Full Service 393 405 405 500 8 Full Service _ 338 348 348 500 9 Full Service 335 345 345 500 10 Full Service _ 166 171 412 500 11 _ Closed 0 0 0 - 12 EZPass 197 203 318 900 13 EZPass 47 48 75 900 Total 3219 3472 3855 Southbound All 3 Lanes 4205 4331 4786 7050 3.9-39 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-13 Freeway-Ramp Capacity Analysis 1-95 Northbound Off-Ramp Interchange 17 Existing Condition No Build Condition Build Condition Peak Hour Level Average Level Average Level Average Service Speed Service Speed Service Speed (mph) (mph) (mph) Weekday PM A 34.14 A 34.04 A 33.61 Saturday Midday A 34.95 A 34.83 A 31.52 Saturday PM A 35.36 A 35.28 A 32.30 Similarly, for the southbound 1-95 entrance ramp, a ramp junction capacity analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of site generated traffic, using Highway Capacity Software, Release 3.1c. Exiting traffic volumes were obtained from the field counts and the NYS Thruway Authority. The analysis indicates that with the traffic added by the proposed Retail Center, the ramps would maintain the same level of service as the No Build condition, but at slightly lower ramp speeds. Table 3.9-14 summarizes the results of the analysis. Capacity analysis of the entering and exiting traffic at Interchange 16 and the northbound off-ramp at Interchange 17 were calculated as part of the intersection capacity analysis for Garden Street at 1-95 (Intersection #13) and Madison Avenue at New Jefferson Street/I-95 (Intersection #10). The impact at each of these intersections was mitigated by the proposed installation of a traffic signal. Table 3.9-14 Freeway-Ramp Capacity Analysis 1-95 Southbound On-Ramp Interchange 17 Existing Condition No Build Condition Build Condition Peak Hour Level Speed in Level Speed in Level Speed in Service Ramp Service Ramp Service Ramp (mph) (mph) (mph) Weekday PM D 51.6 D 51.6 D 51.0 Saturday Midday B 58.0 C 57.9 C 57.1 Saturday PM C 57.6 C 57.4 C 56.0 3.9-40 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Additional Ramps at Interchange 17 During the EIS Scoping process, the possibility of additional ramps to the New England Thruway (1-95) at Interchange 17 was raised. Vollmer Associates contacted the Office of Infrastructure Management, Planning and Research at the NYS Thruway Authority. This NYSTA office reported no plans to add ramps at Interchange 17 in the Town of Mamaroneck to serve traffic to and/or from the north. Further, based upon the traffic analysis above, the addition of such ramps is not necessary to mitigate Retail Center Project impacts. 3.9.15 Retail Center Truck Trips and Routing Truck traffic to and from the proposed Retail Center would vary from day-to-day and week-to-week depending upon the season and the variation in seasonal shopping demand that occurs at the store. Table 3.9-15 summarizes total truck trips by period of the day for an above average weekday and a Saturday for both a "typical week" and a "sale week." Table 3.9-15 Expected Truck Trips Proposed Retail Center Weekday Saturday Time Period Typical Week Sale Week Typical Week Sale Week Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit 6:00 AM - 9:00 AM 5 8 6 10 3 7 3 9 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM 1 3 1 4 0 5 0 5 12:00 PM - 3:00 PM 2 1 4 1 5 2 6 2 3:00 PM -6:00 PM 8 3 9 5 6 0 7 0 6:00 PM - 9:00 PM 3 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM - 10:00 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM -6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Daily 19 19 24 24 14 14 16 16 Delivery Trucks Generally, IKEA expects 7 dedicated truck round trips per weekday from its warehouse in South Jersey during a typical week and 8 truck round trips per weekday during a sale week. These trucks arrive periodically between 3:00 PM and 9:00 PM on weekdays, drop-off a full trailer and leave within the hour with an empty trailer. In addition, trucks from furniture manufacturers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania usually arrive at the store early in the morning after 6:00 AM. Past experience suggests 6 trucks per week from furniture 3.9-41 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 manufacturers during a typical week and 8 to 14 trucks per week during a sale week. This averages about 1 or 2 truck round trips per weekday during a typical week and 2 or 3 truck round trips per weekday during a sale week. These trucks arrive with full trailer and leave with the same trailer empty after two to four hours. Container shipments direct from Europe to the store via the Ports of Elizabeth or Newark are less predictable, but usually arrive during daytime hours. The proposed Retail Center estimates 1 or 2 containers by truck per week during a typical week and 2 or 3 containers by truck per week during a sale week. This translates into 0 to 1 round trip container shipments per weekday during a typical week and 0 to 2 round trip container shipments per weekday during a "sale week." These trucks arrive with a full container and leave with the same container empty after two to four hours. Truck trips from the IKEA warehouse, furniture manufacturers, and port facilities would all originate from distant points located south and west of the proposed Retail Center in New Rochelle. The most direct route to and from the store would be by 1-95 to Exit 17 in the Town of Mamaroneck. Trucks arriving from the warehouse in South Jersey would be driven by IKEA employees, who would be directed to use Exit 17 and travel on Madison and Fifth Avenues to the proposed Retail Center. Trucks from furniture manufacturers and the port facilities are typically driven by independent contract carriers, who are not employees of IKEA. These contract carrier trucks with loaded trailers are likely to avoid the toll at the New Rochelle barrier and use Exit 16 in New Rochelle, rather than Exit 17. These trucks would use Palmer, Potter and Fifth Avenues to reach the proposed Retail Center site. All trucks with empty trailers or containers, whether operated by IKEA or contract carriers, would travel on Fifth and Madison Avenues and enter 1-95 at Interchange 17 for their return trip to New Jersey and points south and west. Trash and Garbage Collection Trucks The proposed Retail Center would also have two large trash containers located at the loading dock, which are picked up everyday, six days per week, and one food waste container located elsewhere on site that is picked up three times per week. The trash and garbage containers are typically exchanged for empty ones early in the morning between 6 and 8 AM. Empty containers would be brought to the proposed Retail Center from a contracted trash hauler's yard, which would most likely be located in one of the surrounding municipalities, including possibly Yonkers, New Rochelle or the Town of Mamaroneck. Full containers would be brought to a disposal facility in upper Westchester County via 1-95, using Interchange 16 in New Rochelle. Furniture Delivery Service Trucks IKEA also offers "In-Home Delivery" as an optional, extra cost service to its customers. Currently, "In-Home Delivery" service in the New York metropolitan area is based at the IKEA Local Service Center, a warehouse facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey, which is a separate facility from its Elizabeth store. Under this operating plan, sold merchandise from the existing Elizabeth and Long Island stores, as well as sold merchandise from the proposed New Rochelle store, would be brought by semitrailer truck to the Elizabeth warehouse for consolidation. Deliveries throughout the metropolitan area are dispatched by truck from this Elizabeth, New Jersey warehouse. It is expected that six truck round trips would be made per 3.9-42 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 day on a "typical week" and eight truck round trips would be made per day during a "sale week." These truck trips are made six days per week, including Saturday. Truck trips between the proposed New Rochelle store and the Elizabeth local service center would be via 1-95 at Interchange 17. 3.9.16 Construction Worker and Truck Trips Given the nature of construction operations, the number of construction worker and truck trips to and from the site would vary considerably, depending on the phase of construction. The construction operations, schedule, and the estimated total number truck trips by activity are discussed in Section 13.3, Construction Impacts. An analysis of the construction schedule (see Figure 3.13-1) found that construction worker and truck traffic at the site would peak in Weeks 51 and 56. The construction related worker and truck trips occurring during a weekday and/or Saturday PM peak hour are summarized below in Table 3.9-16. These construction related trips are compared with the existing worker and truck trips that would be eliminated from the site due to the displacement of existing uses. The net change in number of trips is shown in the bottom row of the table. Table 3.9-16 Construction Related Worker and Truck Trips Weekday and/or Saturday PM Peak Hour Construction Schedule Construction Schedule Week 51 Week 56 Trip Category Light Vehicles Heavy Trucks Light Vehicles Heavy Trucks Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) Construction Workers 0 128 - - 0 168 - - Excavated Rock Removal - - 5 3 - - - - Pavement Demolition Removal - - 3 2 - - - - Excavated Soil Removal - - 10 5 - - 10 5 Construction Material Delivery - - - - - - 0 3 Subtotals Weekday PM and 0 128 18 10 0 168 10 8 Saturday PM Existing Site Traffic Eliminated -55 -109 -1 -2 -55 -109 -1 -2 Weekday PM Net Change Weekday PM -55 19 17 8 -55 49 9 6 Existing Site Traffic Eliminated -36 -38 -1 -1 -36 -38 -1 -1 Saturday PM Net Change Saturday PM -36 90 17 9 -36 130 9 7 3.9-43 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 As shown in Table 3.9-16, Week 51 would have a larger increase in truck trips compared with Week 56, but Week 56 would have the largest overall increase in traffic volume. Construction worker trips would have the largest net increase during the Saturday PM peak hour. Trucks with pavement demolition debris, excavated soil or rock, described in Section 3.13, are expected to travel to and from disposal sites, located north of the Redevelopment Site, via the New England Thruway (1-95), Interchange 16 in New Rochelle. Trucks with construction materials are expected to travel from and to suppliers, located primarily south and west of the site, via Interchange 17 in the Town of Mamaroneck. Hence, the primary travel routes for workers and trucks would be between the Redevelopment Site and these two Thruway interchanges. In addition to these interchanges, a significant number of workers leaving the site are also expected to use westbound Fifth Avenue. A review of No Build traffic conditions showed that only three intersections would require mitigation measures to handle the net change in traffic volumes, due to Construction related worker and truck traffic: • #10 Madison Avenue/ New Jefferson Street/ 1-95 Interchange 17, Town of Mamaroneck • #19 Garden Street and Cedar Street, New Rochelle • #4 Fifth Avenue and North Avenue, New Rochelle Intersections #10 and #19 are unsignalized, and the critical movement is expected to operate at LOS F in the No Build Condition and only worsen under Construction Conditions. Intersection #4 is signalized, where the critical westbound movement is expected to operate at LOS E in both the weekday PM and Saturday PM peak hours under the No Build Conditions, and it too would only worsen under Construction Conditions. All three affected intersections would require mitigation due to the proposed Retail Center, as described above in Section 3.9.13. In the case of Intersections #10 and #19, the installation of a traffic signal and other related improvements is proposed, which would also address the expected Construction related traffic impacts. Intersection #4 requires traffic signal timing changes and the re-striping of the existing street width provide an exclusive left-turn lane. Again, these measures would also address the expected Construction related traffic impacts. The Applicant would be willing to advance the implementation these proposed mitigation measures to sometime earlier in the construction sequence, subject to discussions with the City of New Rochelle, and/or other agencies and municipalities, who may have jurisdiction over one or more of the affected intersections. 3.9.17 Delivery Policies and Services The proposed Retail Center Project will have two customer loading areas both easily accessible from the cashier area. On the Main Level, the customer loading area is located along the westerly frontage of the building. On the Ground Level, the loading area is located below the cashier area with direct elevator access. Customers will have a choice of pickup and delivery options. They can either load their purchases in their own vehicles or arrange "In-Home Delivery" through IKEA. The "In-Home Delivery" service is described in Section 3.9.15, above. 3.9-44 ' Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14,2000 Customers are responsible for loading their own vehicles, although IKEA employees are available to help and offer suggestions. Cord is readily available for tying down trunk lids or tail gates and securing lighter weight merchandise, such as mattresses, to car roofs. 3.9.18 Parking Parking Accumulation at the Proposed Retail Center The proposed Retail Center Project will provide 1,572 parking spaces for customers and employees. Figures 2.4a and 2-4b found in Chapter 2 of this DEIS show the layout of the parking areas. The majority of the parking spaces would be located on the at-grade parking area beneath the store and on the parking deck at the store's main level near the store's entrance and exit. A parking accumulation analysis for the proposed Retail Center Project was based upon the traffic surveys at the IKEA store in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Table 3.9-17 shows that the parking accumulation at the proposed Retail Center Project site for the "typical" week, "sale" week and the August catalog distribution week parking demands can be accommodated with the available 1,572 spaces. Table 3.9-17 Maximum Parking Accumulation Based on Gross Floor Area Day of the Week Typical Week January August Catalog (vehicles) Sale Week Distribution (vehicles) (vehicles) Friday 371 438 517 Saturday 1081 1457 1530 Parking Displaced along Fifth Avenue Currently, parking is permitted on the south side of Fifth Avenue between Portman Road and Valley Place. On weekdays and Saturdays, most of the parking is related to existing businesses that front on this block of Fifth Avenue. On some weekday evenings and on Sunday afternoons and evenings, the parking is used by 20 to 40 cars belonging to visitors, who come to William Flowers Park, mostly to watch and/or play soccer. If the, proposed Retail Center Project is approved, all parking along the south side of Fifth Avenue would be prohibited. Most of the existing businesses along Fifth Avenue would be displaced by the Retail Center Project. This displacement would eliminate most of the business-related parking demand. The remaining parking demand on Fifth Avenue would be related to the recreational activities at William Flowers Park and a few existing businesses that would remain, near the corner of Fifth Avenue and Portman Road. William Flowers Park has a 200-car parking lot at its west end, which is located on the north side of Fifth Avenue between Portman Road and Potter Avenue. This parking lot currently serves a dual purposes. During the late afternoons and evenings on weekdays and on weekends, it primarily provides parking for recreational activities in the park. On weekdays during business hours, it primarily provides parking for employees and customers of nearby 3.9-45 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 businesses. In addition, the parking lot serves a midday layover area for some Wykagyl and/or Beechmont school buses and their drivers. The parking lot was never observed to be more than half full during the course of the traffic surveys. Hence, the parking lot could accommodate the parking demand that would be displaced from the south side of Fifth Avenue. 3.9.19 Sight Distance A field survey of the proposed site was conducted in October 1999 and updated in August 2000 to determine the sight distance for vehicles exiting the site. The sight lines from the approximate locations of the driveways was measured. These measurements were then compared to the minimum sight distance requirements according to the AASHTO - Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1990. The proposed Retail Center driveways along Fifth Avenue would have more than the minimum required sight distance for drivers to safely turn left or right onto Fifth Avenue. In addition, the traffic signal at Portman Road and the proposed traffic signal at Valley Place will create gaps in the Fifth Avenue traffic. The ground-level driveway on Valley Place south of Fifth Avenue would be located in the same place as the existing Plain Avenue intersection. It would have sufficient gaps from the proposed traffic signal at Fifth Avenue and Valley Place to allow exiting traffic to turn left safely. 3.9.20 Public Transit Public transit is readily available throughout the area. The Bee-Line Bus Service runs numerous bus routes to/from New Rochelle and surrounding areas. Table 3.9-18 provides a summary of the available bus service. Bus Route 61 directly serves the proposed Retail Center with stops along Fifth Avenue. Transfers to/from this bus route are provided on all the other bus routes listed in Table 3.9-28. This bus route typically operates at 50 to 60 minute intervals. During the AM peak period, buses arrive in half hour intervals. Route 61 is a full-service route operating in both directions Monday through Saturday between the Bronx and Port Chester, serving Pelham Manor, New Rochelle, Larchmont, Mamaroneck and Rye. The bus route generally follows US 1, but it leaves this highway route in Larchmont. It travels on Chatsworth Avenue, Myrtle Boulevard, Madison Avenue, Fifth Avenue and North Avenue, where it rejoins US 1 in downtown New Rochelle. Metro-North stations on the New Haven line are located in New Rochelle (near North Avenue) and in Larchmont (near Chatsworth Avenue). The nearest station is the Larchmont Station, approximately a 3/5 mile walk to the Retail Center site. Regular train service is available at half-hour intervals. The proposed Retail Center would be expected to employ about 350 full-time and part-time workers. An estimated 15 percent or 50 workers would be expected to use public transportation. Two-thirds are estimated to use the bus and one-third to use the commuter railroad. Bus Route 61, for example, could easily handle 30 to 35 additional passenger trips per day. Similarly, the existing Metro-North train service could easily accommodate 15 to 20 additional passenger trips per day. These daily volumes would likely be spread over two or 3.9-46 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14,2000 three hours, because these workers would not all have the same working hours. As a result, the hourly demand would range from 10 to 18 bus and 5 to 10 train passenger trips in a peak hour. Table 3.9-18 Project Area Public Transit Service with Transfer Connections to the Proposed Retail Center Bus Route Service Retail Center Service Area Route 7 Yonkers - Mount Vernon -New Main Street, Huguenot Street, Division Rochelle Street, Memorial Highway, Lincoln Avenue 30 Yonkers - Bronxville - New Rochelle Main Street, Huguenot Street, Union Avenue, Lawson Street. Webster Avenue, Eastchester Road, New Rochelle Road 42 The Bronx- Mount Vernon - New Main Street, Huguenot Street, Lawson Rochelle Street, Boston Post Road 45 Eastchester- New Rochelle -Pelham Main Street, Huguenot Street, Burling Lane, Bay Division Street, Cedar Street, North Avenue, Mill Road, Pelham Road 45Q Top of the Ridge- New Rochelle Main Street, Huguenot Street, Burling Lane, Division Street, Cedar Street, North Avenue, Quaker Ridge Road, Pine Brook Boulevard 60 The Bronx - New Rochelle-White Main Street, Huguenot Street, Palmer Plains Avenue, Chatsworth Avenue, Mamaroneck Avenue, Boston Post Road 61 The Bronx- New Rochelle- Port Main Street, Huguenot Street, Burling Lane, Chester Fifth Avenue, Boston Post Road. 62 The Bronx- New Rochelle-White Main Street, Division Street, Lawson Street, Plains Cedar Street, Boston Post Road 66 Dobbs Ferry -Scarsdale -New Palmer Avenue, Cedar Street, River Street, Rochelle Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont Avenue, Murray Avenue, Weaver Street 91 Playland - New Rochelle -Yonkers Main Street, Huguenot Street, Palmer Avenue, Cedar Street, River Street, Boston Post Road While the predominant travel mode by customers to IKEA home furnishings stores is expected to be the private automobile, the good public transportation system available will encourage some retail customers from Manhattan and the Bronx to choose that mode. Most likely, those that do would come from Manhattan, where the auto ownership rate per household is relatively low, 0.25 autos per household. 3.9-47 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14,2000 On a typical Saturday, the IKEA Elizabeth store attracts about 16 percent of its visitors from Manhattan, with roughly one-third taking advantage of the free weekend shuttle bus service from the Port Authority Bus Terminal. Due to the higher travel cost, it is expected that the Manhattan transit mode share to New Rochelle would be lower, approximately 80 percent of the transit mode share of the Elizabeth store or 26 percent. This would be equivalent to 5.6 percent of the total visitors. In the south Bronx transit mode share to New Rochelle is estimated to be about half the transit mode share from Manhattan or 13 percent. Together, the Manhattan and Bronx transit trips would comprise an estimated 7 percent of the total visitor trips, compared with 5.7 percent of the total visitor trips at IKEA Elizabeth. See Appendix G.2 for more information on transit mode share from Manhattan and the Bronx. During a "sale week" the proposed Retail Center store would be expected to attract about 5,849 visitors on a Friday and 20,186 visitors on a Saturday. This would result in about 400 and 1,400 public transportation round trips per day on a Friday and Saturday, respectively. This would result in an estimated 45 passenger trips during both the peak weekday arrival and departure activity hours and 190 and 170 passenger trips during the peak weekend arrival and departure activity hours, respectively. To address both the employee and customer public transportation demand locally, the Applicant would provide a shuttle van or bus service between the New Rochelle railroad station and the proposed Retail Center at half-hour intervals; the shuttle would be scheduled to meet midday and weekend Metro-North trains arriving from Manhattan and the Bronx. The New Rochelle railroad station is served by both Metro-North and Amtrak. This station area in downtown New Rochelle is also served by several Westchester County bus routes with connections to many surrounding communities as well as the IRT #2 and #5 subway lines in the Bronx. A Surface Transportation Center is planned near the railroad station. The New Rochelle railroad station was chosen as the shuttle bus destination over the closer station in the Village of Larchmont, because it would provide convenient connections not only to Metro North, but also to more local bus services. 3.9.21 Pedestrians The proposed Retail Center would be expected to attract only a small number of walk trips. Most of these walk trips would be related to employees traveling by public transportation during the off-hours when the shuttle van or shuttle bus service is not running, and from the MacLeay Apartments. Employees and other pedestrians walking to or from the Retail Center would use Fifth Avenue from the east or west. The closest railroad station and business area are located about 0.6-mile from the Retail Center Area in the Village of Larchmont. There is a 3.5 to 4.0 foot wide sidewalk on the south side of Fifth Avenue in the Town of Mamaroneck between Valley Place and Madison Avenue. In most sections, the sidewalk is constructed of asphalt. Once pedestrians are in the vicinity of Madison Avenue and New Jefferson Street, there is a network of lightly used sidewalks and crosswalks connecting to the railroad station and the Palmer Road business district of Larchmont. The sidewalks range in width from 4 to 8 feet. In New Rochelle, there is a 4-foot sidewalk on the north side of the Fifth Avenue, along the edge of City Park, between Valley Place and Portman Road. This narrow sidewalk is in very poor condition and is a safety hazard at some points. There is also a paved strip between the 3.9-48 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 sidewalk and curb varying in width from 3.0 to 5.5 feet. The section of sidewalk in the front of the McLeay Houses widens to 6 feet. Between Portman Road and Potter Avenue, the 4 foot sidewalk adjacent to the City Park parking lot is in very good condition. On the south side of Fifth Avenue between Valley Place and Portman Road, there is an existing sidewalk that ranges from a 2 foot wide dirt path to an 8 foot wide concrete sidewalk. Most of this sidewalk is comprised of a 4 foot wide asphalt walkway. This sidewalk on the south side would be entirely replaced as part of the proposed Retail Center. Once pedestrians are in the vicinity of Fifth and Potter Avenues, there is a network of sidewalks radiating south along Potter Avenue, west along Fifth Avenue and north along Pinebrook Road. These sidewalks have a minimum width of 4 feet. All sidewalks and crosswalks in the immediate area of the proposed Retail Center are lightly used. Observed volumes range from 10 to 25 persons per hour. The existing level of service is LOS A throughout the network. The sidewalks and crosswalks could easily accommodate an additional 15 to 30 walk trips per hour by employees and 20 to 70 walk trips per hour by customers of the proposed Retail Center. The level of service would remain at LOS A. As part of the Retail Center Project and the associated reconstruction of Fifth Avenue, the sidewalk along the north side of the street at the edge of William Flowers Park would be replaced. Residents of the MacLeay Apartments, located directly across Fifth Avenue would have easy access to the proposed Retail Center. A crosswalk would be provided across the west leg of Fifth Avenue at Valley Place with connections to sidewalks on both sides of Fifth Avenue as well as to a new sidewalk on Valley Place, along the perimeter the Redevelopment Area. 3.9.22 Operating Plan for Special Events The proposed Retail Center is expected to attract additional visitors and, hence, higher traffic volumes during its Grand Opening event. This condition would likely attract visitors at rate greater than during peak sales periods. Parking The available 1,572 spaces of on-site parking could handle the expected visitor demand during the peak sales periods, which occur annually, but may not be able to satisfy the parking demand during the Grand Opening event. As a contingency measure, during the Grand Opening, the Applicant would arrange for overflow weekend parking at the public parking garage adjacent to New Roc City. A free shuttle bus service would be provided between New Roc City and the proposed Retail Center. If parking demand was higher than expected on a Saturday and/or Sunday afternoon, contingency trail blazer signs would be uncovered to direct incoming traffic, using the New England Thruway (1-95), Interchange 16, to park at the overflow parking facility in New Roc City. The Applicant would arrange for the parking at New Roc City to be free on weekend of the Grand Opening by reimbursing the City of New Rochelle for its lost parking revenue. These proposed measures would be subject to discussion between the Applicant and the City of New Rochelle. 3.9-49 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Traffic Management The Grand Opening event could attract more visitor traffic than can be accommodated by the mitigation measures proposed in Section 3.9.13. Hence, additional contingency measures would need to be taken. To manage the increased traffic demand during the Grand Opening, the Applicant would arrange with the City of New Rochelle, the Village of Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck to station additional police officers at key intersections to direct traffic. The municipalities would be reimbursed for the additional cost by the Applicant. These additional police services could be required at up to ten study area intersections during the Grand Opening, as follows: 1. Fifth Avenue and Portman Road [NR] 2. Fifth Avenue and Valley Place [NR] 3. Fifth Avenue and North Avenue [NR] 4. Chatsworth Avenue and Palmer Avenue [LR] 5. Madison Avenue and New Jefferson Street/I-95 Interchange 17 [MT] 6. Lincoln Avenue and North Avenue [NR] 7. Fifth Avenue and Potter Avenue [NR] 8. Garden Street and Cedar Street [NR] 9. Quaker Ridge Road and Weaver Street [NR] 10. Quaker Ridge Road and North Avenue [NR] The proposed mitigation measures would be subject to discussion between the Applicant, the City of New Rochelle or other municipalities with jurisdiction over each intersection. 3.9.23 Intersection Capacity Analysis Summaries This section compiles the intersection capacity analysis summary tables for the Existing Conditions, No-Build Conditions, Build Conditions and Build Conditions with Mitigation, as follows: • Table 3.9-19 1999 Existing Conditions -- Signalized Intersections • Table 3.9-20 1999 Existing Conditions -- Unsignalized Intersections • Table 3.9-21 2002 No Build Conditions -- Signalized Intersections • Table 3.9-22 2002 No Build Conditions -- Unsignalized Intersections • Table 3.9-23 2002 Build Conditions -- Signalized Intersections • Table 3.9-24 2002 Build Conditions -- Unsignalized Intersections • Table 3.9-25 Weekday PM Peak Hour -- Mitigated Signalized Intersections • Table 3.9-26 Weekday PM Peak Hour -- Mitigated Unsignalized Intersections • Table 3.9-27 Saturday Midday Peak Hour-- Mitigated Signalized Intersections • Table 3.9-28 Saturday Midday Peak Hour-- Mitigated Unsignalized Intersections • Table 3.9-29 Saturday PM Peak Hour -- Mitigated Signalized Intersections • Table 3.9-30 Saturday PM Peak Hour -- Mitigated Unsignalized Intersections 3.9-50 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-19 1999 Existing Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Fifth Avenue EB-L A 3.7 0.06 A 3.9 0.07 A 3.6 0.03 and EB-T A 4.1 0.19 A 4.1 0.19 A 4.1 0.19 Portman EB-R A 3.6 0.04 A 3.5 0.02 A 3.5 0.02 Road WB-LTR A 4.7 0.33 A 4.3 0.24 A 4.1 0.18 (1) NB-LTR C 31.3 0.22 C 30.6 0.13 C 30.7 0.14 SB-LTR C 31.7 0.25 C 30.1 0.07 C 30.3 0.09 overall A 8.2 0.31 A 6.4 0.22 A 6.9 0.18 Fifth Avenue EB-L C 23.0 0.14 C 22.6 0.09 C 22.7 0.11 and EB-TR C 23.9 0.24 C 23.5 0.19 C 23.3 0.17 Pinebrook WB-LT C 24.0 0.25 C 23.2 0.17 C 23.1 0.15 Road WB-R A 2.5 0.38 A 2.2 0.26 A 2.0 0.20 (3) NB-LTR D 42.9 0.08 D 42.8 0.08 D 42.7 0.07 SB-LT C 22.1 0.60 C 20.1 0.50 B 19.6 0.47 SB-R B 16.1 0.12 B 15.7 0.08 B 15.9 0.10 overall B 15.3 0.42 B 14.9 0.34 B 15.6 0.32 Fifth Avenue EB-LTR D 47.2 0.63 D 42.5 0.52 D 46.2 0.62 and WB-LTR D 48.3 0.66 D 41.9 0.48 D 44.5 0.57 North NB-L A 4.9 0.17 A 4.7 0.13 A 4.6 0.12 Avenue NB-TR B 11.9 0.77 A 6.1 0.42 A 6.4 0.46 (4) SB-L A 4.6 0.12 A 4.4 0.08 A 4.5 0.10 SB-TR A 6.9 0.52 A 8.0 0.60 A 7.0 0.52 overall B 14.9 0.74 B 12.1 0.59 B 13.0 0.54 Chatsworth EB-LTR C 33.1 0.54 C 32.8 0.52 C 33.9 0.57 Avenue WB-LTR D 44.2 0.71 D 41.2 0.59 D 47.9 0.78 and NB-L F * 1.82 F * 1.78 F * 1.57 Palmer NB-TR C 30.0 0.52 C 32.5 0.60 C 31.8 0.57 Avenue SB-LTR D 46.0 0.87 D 39.1 0.79 C 34.1 0.68 (5) overall F * 1.19 F * 1.11 F * 1.10 LOS: Level of Service; Delay in Seconds/Vehicle; V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-51 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-19(Continued) 1999 Existing Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Chatsworth EB-L C 30.2 0.55 C 23.1 0.33 C 24.4 0.39 Avenue EB-T C 21.1 0.22 C 22.2 0.33 C 22.6 0.36 and EB-R B 19.6 0.04 B 19.4 0.02 B 19.2 0.00 Myrtle Blvd. WB-L D 35.6 0.76 C 25.4 0.53 D 35.7 0.75 (6) WB-TR F 330.4 1.16 D 42.4 0.86 D 44.5 0.88 NB-L C 24.8 0.02 C 24.7 0.02 C 24.8 0.03 NB-TR C 28.7 0.43 C 29.1 0.46 C 29.0 0.46 SB-LT C 28.2 0.80 B 19.2 0.55 C 21.9 0.66 SB-R B 14.2 0.09 B 14.0 0.07 B 14.1 0.07 overall F 127.6 0.96 C 29.3 0.69 C 31.7 0.76 Murray EB-LTR D 40.5 0.13 D 39.9 0.05 D 39.9 0.04 Avenue EB-R F * 1.89 D 52.2 0.67 D 53.5 0.68 and NB-L A 5.1 0.30 A 4.2 0.29 A 4.2 0.27 Myrtle NB-TR A 3.6 0.16 A 3.5 0.14 A 3.6 0.15 Boulevard SB-LTR C 27.6 0.41 C 26.2 0.27 C 26.4 0.30 (7) overall F * 0.62 B 17.6 0.41 B 18.3 0.41 Lincoln EB-L E 59.7 0.80 C 32.6 0.37 C 32.3 0.35 Avenue EB-TR C 34.0 0.49 C 33.4 0.45 D 36.0 0.58 and WB-L C 29.8 0.11 C 30.2 0.16 C 30.8 0.20 North WB-TR C 32.2 0.36 C 30.0 0.16 C 30.0 0.15 Avenue NB-L B 12.5 0.54 C 26.6 0.73 B 12.5 0.54 (8) NB-TR B 18.1 0.79 B 11.3 0.55 B 10.6 0.50 SB-L A 7.2 0.04 A 7.1 0.02 A 7.1 0.02 SB-TR B 15.9 0.74 B 18.8 0.80 B 13.9 0.66 overall C 22.2 0.79 B 20.0 0.70 B 17.7 0.64 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-52 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-19 (Continued) 1999 Existing Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Fifth Avenue EB-T B 15.1 0.16 B 15.5 0.22 B 15.4 0.20 and EB-R B 19.9 0.58 B 17.6 0.43 B 18.0 0.46 Potter WB-L B 18.1 0.46 B 15.4 0.20 B 14.9 0.14 Avenue WB-T B 15.6 0.23 B 15.0 0.16 B 15.0 0.15 (9) NB-L C 20.4 0.60 B 17.6 0.44 B 16.6 0.34 NB-R B 15.9 0.26 B 15.6 0.22 B 15.5 0.21 overall B 18.4 0.59 B 16.6 0.43 B 16.4 0.40 Main EB-L B 15.3 0.34 B 15.0 0.31 B 14.7 0.28 Street EB-T B 15.1 0.33 B 15.6 0.39 B 15.6 0.38 and EB-R B 13.9 0.19 B 13.0 0.08 B 13.2 0.09 Echo NB-TR C 28.7 0.45 C 28.5 0.44 C 30.0 0.55 Avenue SB-LT C 26,6 0.69 C 31.3 0.67 D 48.8 0.82 (11) overall C 21.8 0.49 C 21.3 0.47 C 24.3 0.54 Huguenot WB-L B 17.3 0.37 B 17.3 0.37 B 16.5 0.30 Street WB-T B 17.1 0.37 B 17.4 0.39 B 17.2 0.38 and WB-R B 17.3 0.37 B 17.0 0.34 B 16.2 0.26 River NB-LT C 21.3 0.52 B 19.8 0.40 C 20.3 0.44 Street SB-TR B 19.2 0.34 B 18.1 0.22 B 18.5 0.27 (12) overall B 18.7 0.44 B 18.0 0.39 B 18.1 0.41 Hutch. SB WB-L C 24.2 0.38 D 35.5 0.77 D 41.2 0.82 Exit Ramp WB-R C 23.0 0.21 C 23.8 0.33 C 24.0 0.35 and NB-T A 6.7 0.47 A 7.0 0.50 A 6.9 0.50 Weaver SB-T A 6.7 0.47 A 6.4 0.43 A 6.4 0.43 Street (14) overall A 9.5 0.45 B 13.8 0.57 B 15.4 0.58 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio " : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-53 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-19 (Continued) 1999 Existing Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Quaker EB-L C 33.8 0.60 C 32.3 0.53 C 31.3 0.47 Ridge Road EB-R E 64.5 0.89 C 34.5 0.61 C 34.3 0.60 and NB-LT A 9.6 0.55 A 9.8 0.57 A 9.0 0.52 Weaver SB-TR D 53.2 0.94 D 39.8 0.90 D 35.1 0.87 Street (16) overall D 39.9 0.64 C 27.8 0.58 C 25.7 0.54 Ramada EB-L C 27.9 0.55 C 25.0 0.30 C 25.2 0.32 Plaza EB-R A 0.1 0.35 A 0.1 0.19 A 0.1 0.23 and NB-T B 11.6 0.34 B 11.3 0.31 B 11.2 0.30 River Street (20) overall B 13.5 0.42 B 12.3 0.31 B 11.8 0.31 Pierce Street EB-LR B 19.6 0.50 B 17.5 0.23 B 18.0 0.31 and NB-LT A 8.0 0.48 A 7.2 0.36 A 7.9 0.46 Potter SB-TR B 11.9 0.70 A 8.4 0.51 A 7.8 0.43 Avenue (21) overall B 11.2 0.64 A 8.7 0.37 A 9.0 0.40 Petersville EB-L C 32.8 0.51 C 29.6 0.24 C 29.1 0.19 Road EB-TR C 31.3 0.41 C 29.6 0.25 C 29.6 0.25 and WB-LT C 28.7 0.16 C 28.9 0.17 C 28.4 0.13 Palmer WB-R C 30.6 0.34 C 30.2 0.31 C 29.9 0.28 Avenue NB-LT C 33.5 0.55 C 31.5 0.39 C 31.3 0.37 (22) SB-LTR A 9.8 0.40 A 8.4 0.22 A 8.2 0.19 overall C 22.7 0.43 C 22.3 0.25 C 22.3 0.21 Stratton EB-T A 8.8 0.11 A 8.8 0.11 A 8.7 0.10 Road EB-R B 10.1 0.32 A 9.6 0.25 A 9.9 0.29 and WB-L A 9.5 0.70 A 5.0 0.37 A 5.0 0.37 Pinebrook WB-T A 4.0 0.19 A 3.8 0.11 A 3.9 0.10 Boulevard NB-L D 41.9 0.79 C 27.2 0.46 C 29.2 0.57 (25) NB-R D 40.5 0.75 C 27.8 0.49 C 29.4 0.56 overall B 16.8 0.50 B 11.6 0.30 B 12.8 0.33 LOS: Level of Service; Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle; V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-54 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-19 (Continued) 1999 Existing Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Stratton EB-LT B 15.0 0.47 B 13.3 0.28 B 13.2 0.27 Road EB-R B 11.8 0.07 B 12.1 0.12 B 12.0 0.10 and WB-LTR B 12.9 0.23 B 12.1 0.11 B 12.1 0.11 Weaver NB-LTR B 19.0 0.70 C 24.7 0.82 C 20.3 0.74 Street SB-LT B 16.7 0.60 B 15.3 0.51 B 15.0 0.49 (26) overall B 16.9 0.59 B 19.6 0.55 B 17.1 0.51 Chatsworth EB-L C 30.6 0.36 C 34.8 0.58 C 34.4 0.57 Avenue EB-TR C 29.8 0.31 C 31.7 0.47 C 31.6 0.46 and WB-LTR C 28.3 0.18 C 28.9 0.23 C 28.8 0.22 Boston Post NB-LTR C 28.6 0.75 C 25.5 0.66 C 28.5 0.75 Road SB-LTR C 24.7 0.64 C 24.9 0.65 C 25.0 0.65 (27) overall C 27.2 0.46 C 27.1 0.52 C 28.0 0.53 New EB-LTR E 65.1 0.73 D 54.3 0.58 D 53.1 0.55 Rochelle WB-L D 42.8 0.73 D 41.9 0.71 D 48.2 0.81 Road WB-LT C 32.3 0.28 C 31.5 0.21 C 31.6 0.21 and WB-R B 14.8 0.35 B 12.7 0.28 B 14.1 0.29 California NB-LT D 47.0 0.51 D 52.5 0.60 D 45.8 0.42 Road NB-R D 43.3 0.18 D 44.6 0.04 D 41.9 0.03 (28) SB-LTR D 51.8 0.71 D 49.9 0.72 D 54.7 0.75 overall D 39.4 0.68 D 38.7 0.67 D 41.0 0.67 Eastchester WB-L C 34.8 0.13 D 35.2 0.19 C 35.0 0.16 Road WB-R C 27.1 0.86 B 15.6 0.63 B 15.3 0.61 and NB-TR D 35.8 0.79 C 26.0 0.55 C 24.9 0.50 Pelhamdale SB-L C 20.1 0.83 A 4.2 0.47 A 6.5 0.63 Road SB-T A 1.6 0.27 A 1.4 0.15 A 1.6 0.26 (29) overall C 22.1 0.82 B 12.4 0.55 B 11.1 0.63 LOS: Level of Service Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-55 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS r z * < o 1— r- m . . %, 0 o m ET CO o E o o cD W < v v S Cn v < 7• ? C)) o 0 Jv of -) 71 C < v 7 N S 3 7 (D () _a D 7 �• S W D ° �- CD V)• 3a) ° c o a_ -0 co o coC vCD Q CD o om El o C ,s0- a CD IS) O n < °—' ' c c o c Qm ° Qcn A < (D a) M � cn5v � Z co •a • wo 7 ° ° cncnz * m ° Wzzzr* * omo ° ocoz * < m ° cr' zzmm Or X o e• 3 cCD co w 00 co co m r_ CO co co W 0o h m r_ W CO 0o 00 ca °° w w W w o co co " CS ° �_ m C 0 o x a S ° N -rtu cn CO DDD00 C) wwwOC) OC) C) 00oom C) w > C) OO 0 c3 •• v "0 (D 0 — _ _ _ NJ cn NJ _ A CO y 0) p N - NN W OD (fl -> NCNJiODCOPN CO AA � NACO � vv � COcn CD 7. C. (0 Q- CS .« CO O O W O O) :4 N CO A R Co CP CO O O v CA "J CO CP A v OCP A Jv Ia) = = CD IN ° ill 0`<_ °cam ow c ▪ O Q (u O OOOOO O 0000000 O 00000 O 00000 < J2 - la 13CO C n O A N CD "l CO �J N N O -J A "1 �1 -I "I CP -I A "1 -.1 A O Co I.1 N r► CO o <n c O) CD — — COA O O () — CD CO C? (n N --4 — co (0 O CO O -J — Q) co C7 m 1 n) Q) w v CD n C) Q. Q CD n COcn DDDOC) C) wwwwC) C) O w ww000 C) wDDOC) O cn c �' c CT --- - - - 71 C a y fD cO off) fl N 4 o = AO (rAO NJ -x ---- _ NJNA —> —> -4AACP N � JOCP W 0 ty CD t1 N CO CO CO CO - NJ v NJ CO O Co - ^4 A - CO O a) O A CD C O vvOOCA CO 'co • - CONJAO N C9 -' N NN Er O= ff y 1 C Q", Cn J2 Cl) ,O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O < y C C' A N) -% in iv -- A - 0) 010) CP CP 0) NJ0) �J � 3 C) CP AO "JCA -A CO CDC a) 0) (0CA• CP CP NCOAO � CO C.D00010) a) J' JL ca"" I— Q 7 CO DDDOC) C) wwww0C) C) CO wwCoO CO wIcOC) 0 0 corn �la o C1 C (D D '-'' ' M C -a A W N -A .a .a N W O -A - -X A - A _a _a -1 - (n) W -ci 3 =': N AOCPNO N Cb - - COOAA CO � vA -' (fl v CD . COA � 0. o OCPOOO o Co CAa) vAO -> COACOO �J O -.JOO -JO Jv = `< o`< CCD SU C '0 -, O. O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O < A „-1 A NOO -JCD CD NNNCDA0) -J A A A (PON CP ONCDCA -> NN --1 CO "Js (P — v O --> CPCPCPCPOJ co NO (P0) C.O A (POD - O0) C) � ', 0 C) Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-19 (Continued) 1999 Existing Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Weaver Street EB-LTR C 20.6 0.58 B 19.0 0.50 C 21.2 0.61 and WB-LTR F 1.75 C 21.6 0.63 C 32.1 0.81 Myrtle NB-LTR D 36.2 0.77 C 25.9 0.51 C 24.8 0.42 Boulevard SB-LTR C 23.7 0.32 C 22.2 0.14 C 22.2 0.14 (34) overall F * 1.08 C 21.6 0.45 C 26.0 0.50 Quaker Ridge WB-L E 56.0 0.86 D 37.0 0.63 D 44.0 0.77 Road WB-LR C 34.3 0.49 C 34.9 0.57 C 33.0 0.47 and NB-TR B 15.8 0.50 B 13.5 0.48 B 12.6 0.40 North Avenue SB-L E 56.4 0.90 C 26.3 0.74 C 20.2 0.68 (35) SB-T B 11.4 0.53 A 9.6 0.42 A 9.8 0.43 overall C 28.9 1.02 B 20.0 0.84 C 20.4 0.82 Huguenot WB-L B 11.4 0.22 B 10.8 0.14 B 10.7 0.12 Street WB-T B 14.0 0.54 B 12.9 0.42 B 12.9 0.43 S and WB-R North Avenue NB-L B 16.0 0.62 B 12.8 0.40 B 13.9 0.48 C 31.8 0.66 C 27.5 0.66 C 26.9 0.58 (36) NB-T C 20.4 0.54 C 20.4 0.54 C 24.4 0.70 SB-T C 24.7 0.55 C 22.9 0.37 C 24.1 0.50 SB-R C 31.3 0.73 C 25.9 0.57 C 27.1 0.62 overall C 20.1 0.82 B 17.6 0.40 B 18.8 0.43 Main EB-L B 13.3 0.34 B 13.2 0.34 B 13.1 0.33 Street EB-LT B 13.7 0.39 B 13.9 0.41 B 13.6 0.40 and EB-R B 11.5 0.14 B 11.6 0.15 B 11.6 0.15 North Avenue NB-TR C 31.0 0.40 C 30.4 0.36 C 30.7 0.38 . (37) SB-L E 61.7 0.85 C 30.2 0.61 C 29.6 0.59 SB-T C 27.6 0.58 C 24.7 0.43 C 26.9 0.57 overall C 25.6 0.58 B 19.5 0.45 C 20.4 0.47 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio " : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right • 3.9-57 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-19 (Continued) 1999 Existing Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Mamaroneck EB-L C 25.3 0.34 C 25.5 0.35 C 26.2 0.40 Avenue EB-TR C 28.0 0.59 C 27.1 0.53 C 29.8 0.67 and WB-LT C 25.1 0.36 C 25.6 0.41 C 26.4 0.48 Mt. Pleasant WB-R C 23.2 0.16 C 23.6 0.20 C 23.9 0.21 Avenue NB-L F 143.6 1.01 F 195.2 1.05 E 61.0 0.85 (38) NB-T C 33.6 0.36 D 35.7 0.52 D 35.2 0.49 SB-L C 26.8 0.19 C 27.1 0.21 C 27.1 0.22 SB-TR D 35.6 0.69 C 30.5 0.51 C 34.2 0.65 overall D 48.1 0.73 E 55.0 0.66 C 33.4 0.71 Mt. Pleasant EB-L D 43.1 0.25 D 42.3 0.16 D 42.5 0.19 Avenue EB-R A 7.0 0.38 A 6.9 0.38 A 6.3 0.28 and NB-L B 14.4 0.32 B 14.6 0.33 B 14.4 0.31 Palmer NB-R B 13.4 0.17 B 13.0 0.15 B 13.0 0.16 Avenue SB-T D 39.0 0.47 D 39.4 0.50 D 38.9 0.46 (39) overall B 17.5 0.40 B 17.2 0.41 B 17.9 0.32 Weaver Street EB-L C 24.2 0.69 B 19.2 0.59 B 17.0 0.55 and EB-T B 13.6 0.46 B 14.4 0.53 B 13.4 0.44 Palmer WB-LTR C 22.5 0.79 D 46.5 0.94 C 25.9 0.84 Avenue NB-LTR C 21.1 0.74 B 18.5 0.66 B 18.0 0.64 (40) SB-LTR B 18.5 0.67 B 16.8 0.59 B 15.4 0.48 overall B 19.8 0.77 C 25.0 0.80 B 18.8 0.74 Depot Way EB-L C 24.5 0.33 C 23.4 0.17 C 23.6 0.20 East EB-R C 25.8 0.47 C 23.2 0.13 C 23.5 0.18 and NB-LT A 4.2 0.29 A 4.1 0.26 A 4.0 0.23 Palmer SB-TR A 5.6 0.52 A 5.7 0.53 A 5.8 0.54 Avenue (41) overall A 7.5 0.51 A 5.9 0.47 A 6.4 0.48 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-58 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-19 (Continued) 1999 Existing Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Depot Way EB-L C 24.0 0.09 C 24.5 0.14 C 23.8 0.06 West EB-R C 25.3 0.25 C 24.2 0.12 C 24.4 0.14 and WB-LTR C 24.5 0.15 C 25.5 0.28 C 24.3 0.13 Palmer NB-LT A 9.4 0.42 A 9.3 0.41 A 9.6 0.45 Avenue SB-TR A 8.6 0.33 A 8.7 0.35 A 8.3 0.28 (42) overall B 11.6 0.37 B 11.6 0.37 B 3.9.7 0.36 Larchmont EB-LTR E 72.3 0.93 E 75.3 0.85 F 100.2 0.92 Avenue WB-L F 617.7 1.35 F 934.0 1.44 F * 1.95 and WB-R D 43.4 0.34 E 72.7 0.84 F 87.3 0.89 Palmer NB-T D 43.6 0.79 D 45.1 0.76 D 46.2 0.77 Avenue NB-R C 31.2 0.11 C 31.7 0.16 C 31.4 0.13 (43) SB-L C 22.0 0.24 C 22.5 0.32 C 22.3 0.26 SB-T C 23.0 0.43 C 24.2 0.51 C 22.9 0.43 overall E 75.0 0.74 F 98.0 0.67 F * 0.67 Pinebrook WB-LR C 25.1 0.42 C 25.6 0.47 C 25.7 0.49 Drive NB-T A 4.3 0.29 A 4.4 0.33 A 4.3 0.30 and NB-R A 3.5 0.05 A 3.5 0.06 A 3.5 0.06 Palmer SB-LT A 5.0 0.44 A 4.7 0.39 A 4.6 0.37 Avenue (44) overall A 6.7 0.44 A 6.9 0.31 A 7.0 0.31 Weaver EB-L C 27.0 0.46 C 26.1 0.40 C 25.5 0.35 Street EB-TR C 25.2 0.34 C 26.0 0.41 C 25.1 0.33 and WB-L C 27.4 0.48 C 24.6 0.25 C 24.5 0.25 Boston Post WB-TR C 24.8 0.29 C 24.4 0.25 C 23.5 0.15 Road NB-L C 26.0 0.41 C 27.4 0.57 C 25.2 0.38 (45) NB-TR C 21.1 0.54 C 23.1 0.65 C 22.0 0.60 SB-L B 15.7 0.16 B 17.4 0.16 B 19.4 0.33 SB-TR C 26.2 0.77 C 22.5 0.63 C 24.8 0.72 overall C 24.4 0.83 C 21.0 0.46 C 21.0 0.44 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle; V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-59 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-19(Continued) 1999 Existing Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Larchmont EB-LTR D 36.0 0.47 D 36.8 0.53 D 38.7 0.62 Avenue WB-LTR D 35.0 0.38 D 36.2 0.49 D 35.6 0.44 and NB-LTR C 25.3 0.63 C 28.9 0.74 C 27.4 0.70 Boston Post SB-LTR C 24.9 0.61 C 26.6 0.69 C 30.2 0.78 Road (46) overall C 27.7 0.38 C 30.0 0.61 C 31.3 0.64 Beach EB-LTR C 20.7 0.26 C 20.6 0.24 C 20.6 0.24 Avenue WB-LTR C 21.8 0.40 C 20.4 0.24 C 20.3 0.23 and NB-LTR A 6.7 0.44 A 6.0 0.31 A 6.4 0.38 Boston Post SB-LTR A 6.5 0.41 A 6.5 0.41 A 6.2 0.35 Road (47) overall A 8.3 0.43 A 8.0 0.37 A 8.1 0.35 LOS: Level of Service Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-60 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-20 1999 Existing Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Unsignalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Critical Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Movement LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Fifth Avenue WB-L A 7.8 A 7.9 A 7.7 and NB-L B 14.0 B 11.6 B 11.1 Valley Place (2) Madison Avenue EB-L A 8.2 A 7.7 A 7.7 and WB-L A 9.1 A 8.3 A 8.2 New Jefferson St./ 1-95 NB-LTR F * C 23.6 D 28.3 Interchange (10) SB-LT F 167.9 C 22.9 D 32.1 Garden Street EB-L A 9.2 A 8.1 A 8.4 and SB-L F * F * F * 1-95 Interchange (13) Hutchinson Avenue NB-TR A 9.2 A 9.5 A 8.6 and WB-L F 157.1 F * F 52.3 Weaver Street (15) Murray Avenue NB-L A 8.9 A 8.8 A 9.1 and WB-L D 30.9 F 62.5 F 119.8 Weaver Street (17) Chatsworth Avenue EB-L A 8.2 A 7.9 A 8.4 and WB-L A 7.9 A 8.1 A 8.0 New Jefferson Street NB-LTR C 24.8 C 18.6 C 21.9 (18) SB-LTR B 14.1 B 14.4 C 19.2 Garden Street EB-L A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 and NB-TR B 14.4 B 14.6 C 16.5 Cedar Street (19) SB-LT F * F * F * Beechmont Drive EB-L B 11.8 A 8.1 A 8.0 and Pinebrook Blvd. West (23a) LOS = Level of Service Delay = Delay in SecondsNehicle * = Delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-61 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-20 (Continued) 1999 Existing Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Unsignalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Critical Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Movement LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Beechmont Drive WB-L A 8.9 A 8.4 A 8.0 and NB-L B 10.0 F 59.4 C 21.7 Pinebrook Blvd. SB-LT A 10.0 D 25.4 C 20.4 East (23b) Quaker Ridge Road SB-LTR B 11.8 B 10.7 B 10.7 and Pinebrook Blvd. West(24a) Quaker Ridge Road EB-L A 9.0 A 8.5 A 8.9 and NB-R A 9.9 A 9.6 A 9.7 Pinebrook Blvd. SB-R B 10.1 B 10.0 B 10.4 East (24b) • Winans Street NB-L A 9.9 A 9.8 A 9.1 and SB-L A 9.4 A 9.3 A 9.4 Boston Post Road EB-LTR C 20.9 D 26.2 C 19.9 (48) WB-LTR D 25.1 C 21.4 C 20.8 LOS = Level of Service Delay = Delay in SecondsNehicle * = Delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-62 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-21 2002 No Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Fifth EB-L A 3.7 0.07 A 3.7 0.07 A 3.6 0.03 Avenue EB-T A 4.2 0.21 A 4.3 0.23 A 4.2 0.23 and EB-R A 3.6 0.04 A 3.5 0.02 A 3.5 0.02 Portman Road WB-LTR A 4.9 0.37 A 4.5 0.28 A 4.2 0.21 (1) NB-LTR C 31.4 0.23 C 30.6 0.13 C 30.7 0.14 SB-LTR C 31.8 0.26 C 30.1 0.07 C 30.3 0.09 overall A 8.2 0.35 A 6.2 0.25 A 6.6 0.21 Fifth EB-L C 23.1 0.15 C 22.7 0.11 C 22.8 0.12 Avenue EB-TR C 24.4 0.29 C 23.9 0.24 C 23.7 0.21 and WB-LT C 24.3 0.28 C 23.6 0.20 C 23.4 0.18 Pinebrook WB-R A 2.7 0.42 A 2.3 0.32 A 2.2 0.25 Road NB-LTR D 42.9 0.08 D 42.8 0.08 D 43.1 0.12 (3) SB-LT C 24.5 0.68 C 22.2 0.60 C 21.4 0.57 SB-R B 16.1 0.12 B 15.7 0.08 B 15.9 0.10 overall B 16.3 0.47 B 15.8 0.41 B 16.2 0.39 Fifth EB-LTR D 52.4 0.71 D 46.3 0.62 D 53.7 0.73 Avenue WB-LTR E 57.3 0.76 D 48.2 0.64 E 55.7 0.74 and NB-L A 5.3 0.25 A 5.0 0.19 A 5.0 0.20 North Avenue NB-TR B 18.5 0.88 A 6.7 0.50 A 7.4 0.56 (4) SB-L A 5.1 0.19 A 4.5 0.11 A 4.7 0.13 SB-TR A 8.4 0.63 B 10.9 0.74 A 9.7 0.69 overall B 19.2 0.85 B 14.3 0.72 B 15.6 0.70 Chatsworth EB-LTR C 33.4 0.55 C 33.1 0.54 C 34.1 0.59 Avenue WB-LTR D 44.2 0.70 D 42.5 0.64 D 49.6 0.80 and NB-L F * 2.02 F 2.15 F * 1.84 Palmer NB-TR C 32.0 0.61 D 36.1 0.70 D 35.0 0.68 Avenue SB-LTR E 74.9 0.96 F 92.5 0.93 D 47.5 0.87 (5) overall F * 1.28 F * 1.29 F * 1.23 LOS: Level of Service Delay in SecondsNehicle; V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-63 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-21 (Continued) 2002 No Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Chatsworth EB-L C 34.9 0.61 C 22.72 0.30 C 23.3 0.34 Avenue EB-T C 21.2 0.23 C 2.4 0.34 C 22.7 0.37 and EB-R B 19.6 0.04 B 19.4 0.02 B 19.2 0.00 Myrtle WB-L D 38.6 0.79 C 28.0 0.61 D 52.8 0.86 Boulevard WB-TR F 391.4 1.19 D 46.6 0.89 D 51.6 0.91 (6) NB-L C 24.8 0.03 C 24.7 0.03 C 24.8 0.03 NB-TR C 28.8 0.44 C 29.3 0.48 C 29.2 0.47 SB-LT C 30.4 0.83 B 19.6 0.57 C 22.6 0.68 SB-R B 14.2 0.09 B 14.0 0.07 B 14.1 0.08 overall F 148.8 0.99 C 30.5 0.71 D 36.0 0.78 Murray Avenue EB-LTR D 40.5 0.13 D 39.9 0.05 D 39.9 0.04 and EB-R F 1.95 E 56.2 0.71 E 58.0 0.73 Myrtle NB-L A 5.2 0.31 A 4.6 0.31 A 4.7 0.29 Boulevard NB-TR A 3.6 0.17 A 3.5 0.14 A 3.6 0.16 (7) SB-LTR C 27.7 0.43 C 26.3 0.28 C 26.5 0.31 overall F * 0.64 B 18.5 0.43 B 19.3 0.42 Lincoln EB-L E 72.1 0.85 C 33.6 0.44 C 33.1 0.40 Avenue EB-TR D 35.5 0.56 D 35.3 0.56 D 39.7 0.69 and WB-L C 29.9 0.12 C 31.2 0.22 C 32.5 0.30 North WB-TR C 32.3 0.37 C 30.1 0.16 C 30.0 0.15 Avenue NB-L C 31.7 0.80 D 38.5 0.82 C 21.8 0.72 (8) NB-TR D 38.2 0.95 B 14.1 0.68 B 12.7 0.62 SB-L A 7.3 0.05 A 7.1 0.03 A 7.1 0.02 SB-TR C 26.7 0.89 F 100.6 1.02 C 24.2 0.87 overall D 35.1 0.92 E 57.4 0.88 C 23.3 0.82 LOS: Level of Service Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-64 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-21 (Continued) 2002 No Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Fifth Avenue EB-T B 15.1 0.17 B 15.6 0.22 B 15.4 0.21 and EB-R C 23.1 0.69 B 19.6 0.56 C 20.7 0.61 Potter WB-L B 19.7 0.55 B 16.5 0.31 B 15.8 0.23 Avenue WB-T B 15.7 0.24 B 15.1 0.16 B 15.0 0.15 (9) NB-L C 22.4 0.68 B 19.4 0.56 B 17.9 0.46 NB-R B 16.2 0.29 B 16.2 0.29 B 16.1 0.28 overall C 20.2 0.68 B 17.9 0.56 B 17.7 0.53 Main EB-L B 15.4 0.35 B 15.1 0.32 B 14.8 0.29 Street EB-T B 15.7 0.39 B 16.4 0.46 B 16.4 0.45 and EB-R B 14.0 0.20 B 13.1 0.08 B 13.2 0.09 Echo NB-TR C 29.1 0.49 C 29.0 0.48 C 30.7 0.59 Avenue SB-LT C 27.4 0.72 C 27.9 0.52 D 41.7 0.59 (11) overall C 22.1 0.54 C 21.9 0.53 C 26.7 0.63 Huguenot WB-L B 17.8 0.42 B 17.9 0.42 B 17.0 0.35 Street WB-T B 17.8 0.43 B 18.2 0.47 B 18.0 0.45 and WB-R B 17.9 0.42 B 17.6 0.40 B 16.7 0.32 River NB-LT C 21.9 0.55 B 20.0 0.41 C 20.5 0.46 Street SB-TR B 19.5 0.38 B 18.3 0.25 B 18.7 0.30 (12) overall B 19.1 0.49 B 18.5 0.44 B 18.5 0.46 Hutch. SB WB-L C 24.3 0.39 D 37.7 0.79 D 44.7 0.84 Exit Ramp WB-R C 23.0 0.22 C 23.9 0.34 C 24.1 0.37 and NB-T A 6.8 0.49 A 7.1 0.52 A 7.1 0.51 Weaver SB-T A 6.8 0.49 A 6.5 0.44 A 6.5 0.44 Street (14) overall A 9.6 0.46 B 14.4 0.59 B 16.2 0.60 LOS: Level of Service Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio '` : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-65 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-21 (Continued) 2002 No Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Quaker EB-L C 34.3 0.61 C 32.7 0.55 C 31.5 0.49 Ridge Road EB-R E 74.7 0.92 D 35.0 0.62 C 34.8 0.62 and NB-LT A 10.0 0.58 B 10.2 0.60 A 9.3 0.54 Weaver SB-TR E 69.5 0.97 D 46.9 0.93 D 39.3 0.90 Street (16) overall D 48.3 0.67 C 30.9 0.60 C 27.6 0.56 Ramada EB-L C 28.2 0.56 C 25.1 0.31 C 25.3 0.33 Plaza EB-R A 0.1 0.36 A 0.1 0.19 A 0.1 0.24 and NB-T B 11.7 0.36 B 11.4 0.32 B 11.3 0.31 River Street (20) overall B 13.6 0.43 B 12.4 0.32 B 11.9 0.32 Pierce Street EB-LR B 19.8 0.51 B 17.6 0.24 B 18.1 0.32 and NB-LT A 8.2 0.50 A 7.3 0.37 A 8.0 0.48 Potter SB-TR B 12.6 0.72 A 8.6 0.52 A 7.9 0.44 Avenue (21) overall B 11.6 0.66 A 8.8 0.44 A 9.1 0.42 Petersville EB-L D 51.3 0.82 D 54.7 0.84 D 46.2 0.78 Road EB-TR D 39.4 0.72 D 37.3 0.67 D 37.9 0.69 and WB-LT C 28.8 0.17 C 28.9 0.18 C 28.5 0.13 Palmer WB-R C 30.8 0.36 C 30.3 0.32 C 30.0 0.29 Avenue NB-LT F 88.1 1.94 F 376.5 1.45 F 328.1 1.37 (22) SB-LTR B 11.0 0.52 A 9.4 0.36 A 9.0 0.30 overall F * 0.61 F 115.8 0.50 F 111.2 0.44 Stratton EB-T A 8.8 0.12 A 8.8 0.12 A 8.8 0.10 Road EB-R B 10.2 0.33 A 9.7 0.26 A 9.9 0.29 and WB-L B 10.2 0.72 A 5.1 0.38 A 5.1 0.39 Pinebrook WB-T A 4.1 0.19 A 3.8 0.11 A 3.7 0.10 Boulevard NB-L D 44.8 0.81 C 27.4 0.48 C 29.6 0.58 (25) NB-R D 43.2 0.77 C 27.9 0.50 C 30.1 0.58 overall B 17.8 0.51 B 11.7 0.35 B 13.0 0.37 LOS: Level of Service; Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle; V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound, L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-66 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-21 (Continued) 2002 No Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Stratton EB-LT B 15.2 0.49 B 13.3 0.29 B 13.3 0.28 Road EB-R B 11.8 0.07 B 12.2 0.12 B 12.1 0.11 and WB-LTR B 12.9 0.23 B 12.1 0.11 B 12.1 0.11 Weaver NB-LTR C 20.0 0.73 C 27.4 0.86 C 21.6 0.77 Street SB-LT B 17.1 0.62 B 15.5 0.53 B 15.1 0.50 (26) overall B 17.4 0.61 C 21.1 0.57 B 17.8 0.53 Chatsworth EB-L C 30.7 0.37 D 35.6 0.60 D 35.3 0.59 Avenue EB-TR C 30.2 0.35 C 32.4 0.52 C 32.3 0.51 and WB-LTR C 28.4 0.19 C 29.0 0.25 C 29.0 0.25 Boston Post NB-LTR E 63.7 0.96 D 40.3 0.89 F 84.6 0.99 Road SB-LTR C 27.2 0.73 C 27.7 0.75 C 27.9 0.75 (27) overall D 41.6 0.57 C 33.1 0.61 D 49.5 0.66 New EB-LTR E 67.8 0.75 E 55.2 0.60 D 53.8 0.57 Rochelle WB-L D 44.1 0.75 D 42.9 0.73 D 50.8 0.83 Road WB-LT C 32.4 0.28 C 31.6 0.21 C 31.7 0.22 and WB-R B 14.9 0.36 B 12.7 0.29 B 14.2 0.30 California NB-LT D 47.5 0.53 D 53.4 0.62 D 46.0 0.44 Road NB-R D 43.3 0.18 D 44.6 0.04 D 41.9 0.03 (28) SB-LTR D 53.2 0.73 D 51.4 0.74 E 57.2 0.77 overall D 40.4 0.70 D 39.5 0.69 D 42.5 0.69 Eastchester WB-L C 34.8 0.13 D 35.3 0.20 D 35.0 0.16 Road WB-R C 31.2 0.89 B 16.0 0.64 B 15.7 0.63 and NB-TR D 38.0 0.81 C 26.5 0.57 C 25.1 0.51 Pelhamdale SB-L C 23.3 0.86 A 4.4 0.49 A 7.5 0.65 Road SB-T A 1.6 0.28 A 1.4 0.16 A 1.6 0.27 (29) overall C 24.8 0.84 B 12.7 0.57 B 11.6 0.65 LOS: Level of Service Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-67 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-21 (Continued) 2002 No Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Eastchester EB-L D 35.5 0.29 C 34.3 0.16 C 34.0 0.13 Road EB-R D 51.8 0.79 D 52.7 0.81 D 41.6 0.63 and NB-L C 26.4 0.85 B 10.2 0.59 B 11.7 0.65 North Avenue NB-T A 7.7 0.38 A 7.1 0.30 A 7.0 0.29 (30) SB-TR B 17.5 0.42 B 17.0 0.37 B 16.9 0.36 overall C 23.1 0.78 C 20.9 0.61 B 17.9 0.54 Beechmont EB-LT E 61.0 0.72 D 54.2 0.53 D 49.7 0.29 Drive WB-L D 41.9 0.51 D 41.5 0.35 D 41.5 0.34 and WB-R E 55.3 0.76 D 45.4 0.57 D 45.9 0.58 North Avenue NB-LT C 22.0 0.53 B 17.3 0.40 B 17.5 0.41 (31) SB-LTR C 26.0 0.81 B 12.1 0.44 B 12.0 0.43 overall C 30.9 0.76 C 20.0 0.47 B 19.4 0.45 Lincoln EB-LTR D 36.2 0.79 D 44.5 0.87 D 36.3 0.81 Avenue WB-L D 41.0 0.74 C 30.8 0.60 D 38.4 0.69 and WB-TR C 24.0 0.50 C 22.8 0.40 C 23.6 0.46 Memorial NB-L D 39.8 0.87 C 27.0 0.77 C 27.9 0.78 Highway NB-T B 13.0 0.38 B 12.7 0.34 B 12.5 . 0.32 (32) NB-R B 11.9 0.24 B 11.4 0.17 B 11.7 0.21 SB-LTR B 19.7 0.30 B 19.6 0.28 B 19.5 0.27 overall C 26.6 0.81 C 26.2 0.77 C 24.7 0.76 Hutch Pkwy EB-R E 65.8 0.89 C 34.8 0.64 C 34.7 0.64 and WB-R D 47.1 0.79 D 46.6 0.79 D 45.3 0.78 Mamaroneck NB-T A 7.5 0.63 A 5.4 0.38 A 5.1 0.32 Avenue SB-L A 1.9 0.22 A 0.7 0.10 A 0.6 0.07 (33) SB-T A 6.0 0.47 A 4.8 0.25 A 4.9 0.28 overall B 14.4 0.69 B 12.7 0.47 B 12.7 0.42 LOS: Level of Service Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, 1NB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-68 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS U O pd' (D I. CO N C) CO ,-- N L() (0 Co O N N Co 00 CA Ln I. Ln O C) O N La N U N. CA CO N. V V,- (O II— 'Zr CO v- up LU co I. Ln 00 CO CO -4- v- V (D (D LC) L F- 2 > 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O © O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C � CL 7 COLI COcV LC M N Ln C) N CO uU O CO CO (fl N O 7- (D (D N M M (D C) 7- CO 7- CO I 1:3n C ' Co LO Co N CO • O Co O L) 'Zr (O Co MV .- O V N- N . N CO N N 'Zr 'ZrCo r- N N •- r- Co N N ' N 7- 7- 7- Co CO N N I21. 3 t a) ad v) a c) U W '' 0 owoo 0 00 (00 < 0 mc0c00000 0 00 (000000 0 @ J ca L La O E E V Ln -4' 7- N- Ln C) C) I. Co C) Ln O M = I. O N O N. CO CO M 7- (D V a) a) CO CO V' 7- L() CO u7 Zr N d' CO •- LU V' I. Ln V' co co CO d' 7- Co N '7T41 (p > 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 0 0 0 0 06 0 0 0c 0 o e L (n73 0 d Co 2 o >, I V O I� O Co f- V CD M co r O) «) ,- O O NN V «� N. (fl O Co C a) Ta co Y d N N ' N- N. Ln CO O • O O Co Co CO co - M -4 O L() Ln O U a C (0 -a co 0 N CO N N N Co Co 7- Co N7- 7- 7- Co N N CO N 7- 7- 7- Co Co N N D N Q C 0 3 C 7 CL a) c 0 :z; ca cn Ln a. o = 0 co 0 0000 0 00 (00 < 0 c000c00000 0 cJmm ) 000 0 � c U (a � ;r mm � c �, C O Co C) CO C) C) O 7- Ln CO N- CO N (D N I- ti O 40 M CO ., co I. N. CO C (a T.' C - 0 CO 00 t` M CO In 41 C) LU O N CO co N- LU 41 C) C) M V '' V 0) (D CD () CT a N 0 > O 0 0 7- O O O O O — 0 0 0 0 0 0 — O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O coc Co t 0 Lo C y co M c d 7 Q O cu d >' 0 O 00 (fl u7 O 6D I` Lf) N N O �-- d' V (O 00 (D N '7 LO C R = N Q) 'Q * (b M * CD CO V' (O OO 7- Ln 7— Ln 7- (O c- Ln � N M 7- 7-- 00 C) N CC (U eco D •U) d (a o CV Co N CO M (� N �- M N N �. M r �- .- (`') N CO C W 0 CU d @ a) U mct 7 (n >,W = 0 ULLOU L!_ W UCO W 00 U 000200000L1 U 000000UL1.. 0 0 (D -0 R CO J c .O 0 0 0 Z _ CO O = L a 0 � H- H- H JO 0 -I - CO � F— CLJF- F- 0_ m E-, 0! CO a) � � rs C N - o mmCom > . ZWW o ab III ill ZZ &1) O) 0> iiimWmwzmm 0> �, o0 IIK ¢ W � Zc) •U o coUm 0_ w � Zco 0 o � 0) CC C (U (U (U a) — CO — 0 CD C O L O L -6 C C C O C C-) a) ca 0 a a) a� 0 _ _ aa) a) _o F— _ Lu m o = o o �jj co> Z 0 z z z U rpU * ' m J . 0 > Z J U O N 6) 6) N 00 O N N- CO O O) N O CO CO O) 10 CO O O N O 6") V (f) O o N V V CO d' N CO 4) N O N- N N CO .- V co LU V• co N- u') (` N t-- N u7 up f. V > O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ID ,--• CL C _a as = a 1 d CO 00 V V N 6) (() CO 71. Cn O O (U LID N CO CD N CO (0 O Q) (f) 6 E -0 Y (D O CO C7 N- to (` V V N (6 V M 6) CO Co c7 O CD 6 O M c`6 V 11) CD a) i R 0 N CO N N c.D CO N CO CO d' - - CO r- T- CO '- r- N N N C t ca 75_ af (1_ V) O U) V) W U) 0 0000W 000 0 OQmmO Cu cccaUmCO 0 UUQQ < ,w Z, -J (La 1— EE U..) V N- uo co .-- CO V N N co N- 6) r (D N N 't Cc) N .- V cf) N- ct N- up co >, M d N O N CD �— c 7 c 7 �t CD (f) 6) t� CD 00 �- r N Cf) V C) 3 CO > O O O O — 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OL V) u) 1:1m L Cl), = Rte) CO 7r co N N c— N CO " CO O (� O r` t (D c0 O N 'ct cf) M r_ CO `_ _ R Y U6 I` U6 M 6 O N O N N V CO o) r` N V (D O N- M M O - y (0 0 N N N N N CO N CO CO r- ,- CO r- N r- (O N — CO N N C 0 a Q N a R 7 CD C = a R„ • 0 (a U) a) � '- U V) 0 0000U O00 LU 0 < 00000 CO 0 C W UCO 0 00 < < < a) IY m -J -0a o a) a) c 1'2a; _ _ — oo ✓ 6 41.3 y C 0 (O O N- ti t N- CD LU CO 0) M N- O 'O N- N N- O O V CO O CO CO ^ C C — CO (D CO — O CO N r` N- N co co .,-- V t I� V CO ti N- co CO V CO (C) up U N — > 0 0 O O <- 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 co -O CO a- a) ' a) ' d 2 i U C c0 M0 N a 3 a) O d Oct C (3 0( T6 (f) V N Co O N- O) CD CO •- _ CD In N (D CO r` CD u) CO CO (n O co t` (.D .a R 'C m 'a Y d Q6 00 to M 6 M CD CD CO CO • V M O r 6) ch V N 6) V (D •(n oc (s 3 0 • N R 0 N N N N co N M LU V N • r' M N-- N ,- N N ,- N N N C W d U 5 a U �pcu fY 13 (J) >W c 'S 0 0000U 00O O OQmmO m UmUUm 0 UUQQ < -a co m J a) C .Q U o o - o Z :,_, c a) _ a) (s o 0 L Z CV a) 3 J ( JJI- JD is JCr -1 ( F- (s JF-. }- i- I- (u --1Ct � C ZCC -a 5 aci O (Ct3 0 m ~ m m m m m ' Q) CCI 3P CC Q 0 a) CCI m -� J -7J C) CP CO Q) N .> C p -wN. CV J0r` W m � � ZZ (I) U) o W W ZZU) o W W CDZU) ° W W ZU) o U p (00 ,,. . W • U a- .0 _ a) v) 0 o - rn ii 0 U C C a) �, ( •C �O LL -ig o Q) O C 7 C 7 a) C a) 7 a) 7 o N O2 c 7 N C CO oi C -0 C O) ` C O C 12 ca co CL c? CL > (0 co > C > (a > v o W a) v o 0 o y •C H a; @Q Q . Q aQ cs 0. Q a) Q —) >,> � Z t 0 2 2 a' 0 cn co mU • ' m _10 > Z -i Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-21 (Continued) 2002 No Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Depot Way EB-L C 24.1 0.09 C 24.6 0.16 C 23.8 0.06 West EB-R C 25.4 0.26 C 24.2 0.12 C 24.4 0.14 and WB-LTR C 24.5 0.15 C 25.6 0.29 C 24.3 0.13 Palmer NB-LT A 9.5 0.43 A 9.4 0.42 A 9.8 0.46 Avenue SB-TR A 8.7 0.34 A 8.8 0.36 A 8.3 0.29 (42) overall B 11.7 0.38 B 11.7 0.38 B 10.8 0.37 Larchmont EB-LTR E 79.6 0.88 F 82.3 0.88 F 118.0 0.95 Avenue WB-L F 670.5 1.28 F 1.51 F '' 2.13 and WB-R D 43.2 0.32 E 79.0 0.87 F 98.3 0.92 Palmer NB-T D 53.1 0.84 E 68.0 0.91 E 76.6 0.94 Avenue NB-R C 31.3 0.12 C 31.9 0.18 C 31.6 0.15 (43) SB-L C 22.8 0.27 C 23.9 0.37 C 23.6 0.30 SB-T C 24.2 0.52 C 26.4 0.61 C 24.4 0.52 overall E 79.3 0.83 F 0.92 F 1.00 Pinebrook WB-LR C 25.2 0.43 C 25.7 0.49 C 26.0 0.51 Drive NB-T A 4.5 0.34 A 4.8 0.41 A 4.7 0.38 and NB-R A 3.5 0.06 A 3.5 0.07 A 3.5 0.08 Palmer SB-LT A 5.5 0.52 A 5.3 0.49 A 5.1 0.46 Avenue (44) overall A 6.8 0.50 A 6.9 0.50 A 6.9 0.46 Weaver Street EB-L C 27.3 0.47 C 27.0 0.46 C 25.8 0.38 and EB-TR C 25.3 0.34 C 26.2 0.42 C 25.3 0.34 Boston Post WB-L C 27.7 0.49 C 25.3 0.30 C 25.2 0.30 Road WB-TR C 24.8 0.30 C 24.4 0.25 C 23.5 0.15 (45) NB-L C 27.0 0.43 C 28.5 0.60 C 24.3 0.38 NB-TR C 21.3 0.56 C 23.5 0.67 C 22.4 0.62 SB-L B 16.1 0.16 B 17.6 0.17 C 20.2 0.34 SB-TR C 27.1 0.79 C 22.9 0.64 C 25.5 0.75 overall C 25.0 0.87 C 24.1 0.83 C 24.1 0.82 LOS: Level of Service; Delay: Delay in SecondsNehicle; V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-71 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-21 (Continued) 2002 No Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Larchmont EB-LTR D 36.6 0.51 D 38.1 0.59 D 41.0 0.69 Avenue WB-LTR D 35.3 0.41 D 37.4 0.56 D 36.3 0.50 and NB-LTR C 34.3 0.84 F 150.7 1.05 E 73.4 0.98 Boston Post SB-LTR C 29.6 0.77 D 36.4 0.88 F 94.9 1.01 Road (46) overall C 32.9 0.49 E 76.8 0.60 E 73.2 0.60 Beach EB-LTR C 20.8 0.28 C 20.8 0.27 C 20.7 0.27 Avenue WB-LTR C 22.2 0.44 C 20.6 0.29 C 20.5 0.25 and NB-LTR A 8.7 0.64 A 6.5 0.41 A 6.9 0.48 Boston Post SB-LTR A 7.0 0.49 A 7.1 0.50 A 6.7 0.44 Road (47) overall A 9.2 0.59 A 8.4 0.45 A 8.4 0.42 Garden Street EB-L B 16.9 0.53 B 13.8 0.33 B 14.0 0.34 and EB-T B 15.1 0.47 B 13.9 0.35 B 14.2 0.38 1-95 WB-T B 15.8 0.52 B 12.7 0.22 B 13.9 0.36 Interchange WB-R B 12.7 0.20 B 12.1 0.13 B 12.1 0.12 (13) SB-L C 26.5 0.71 C 27.3 0.73 C 28.0 0.75 overall B 18.8 0.61 B 19.3 0.52 B 19.5 0.54 LOS: Level of Service Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio " : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-72 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-22 2002 No Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Unsignalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Critical Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Movement LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Fifth Avenue WB-L A 7.8 A 8.0 A 7.8 and NB-L B 15.0 B 12.5 B 11.8 Valley Place (2) Madison Avenue EB-L A 8.3 A 7.8 A 7.7 and WB-L A 9.2 A 8.4 A 8.3 New Jefferson St./ I-95 NB-LTR F D 31.0 D 29.6 Interchange (10) SB-LT F * C 26.3 D 34.1 Hutchinson Avenue NB-TR A 9.3 A 9.7 A 8.7 and WB-L F * F * F 69.1 Weaver Street (15) Murray Avenue NB-L A 9.0 A 8.9 A 8.8 and EB-L D 34.6 F 82.4 F 92.9 Weaver Street (17) Chatsworth Avenue EB-L A 8.2 A 7.9 A 8.4 and WB-L A 7.9 A 8.2 A 8.0 New Jefferson Street NB-LTR D 26.9 C 19.5 C 23.4 (18) SB-LTR B 14.4 B 14.8 C 19.8 Garden Street EB-L A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.6 and NB-TR C 16.2 C 16.4 C 19.3 Cedar Street (19) SB-LT F * F * F * Beechmont Drive WB-L A 8.9 A 8.5 A 8.1 and NB-L E 35.9 F * F 63.4 Pinebrook Blvd. West SB-LT F * E 44.6 D 27.9 (23a) Beechmont Drive EB-L A 8.5 A 8.2 A 8.1 and Pinebrook Blvd. East(23b) LOS: Level of Service Delay in SecondsNehicle * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-73 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-22 (Continued) 2002 No Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Unsignalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Critical Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Movement LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Quaker Ridge Road SB-LTR B 12.0 B 10.8 B 10.6 and Pinebrook Blvd. West (24a) Quaker Ridge Road EB-L A 9.0 A 8.6 A 9.0 and NB-R B 10.1 A 9.6 A 9.7 Pinebrook Blvd. SB-R B 10.0 B 10.1 B 10.5 East(24b) Winans Street NB-L B 10.8 B 10.8 A 9.9 and SB-L B 10.3 B 10.1 B 10.2 Boston Post Road EB-LTR D 31.4 E 43.0 D 28.9 (48) WB-LTR E 40.8 D 34.1 D 31.3 LOS: Level of Service Delay in SecondsNehicle * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-74 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-23 2002 Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Fifth EB-L A 3.7 0.06 A 3.7 0.63 A 3.6 0.03 Avenue EB-T A 4.5 0.29 A 6.9 0.05 A 6.4 0.56 and EB-R A 3.6 0.04 A 3.6 0.09 A 3.6 0.05 Portman WB-LTR A 4.7 0.33 A 4.8 0.23 A 4.4 0.26 Road NB-LTR D 41.1 0.67 F 1.72 F 2.47 (1) SB-LTR C 31.8 0.26 C 30.1 0.07 C 30.2 0.08 overall B 11.6 0.40 F 0.93 F 0.96 Fifth EB-L C 23.2 0.15 C 23.0 0.14 C 23.2 0.15 Avenue EB-TR C 24.8 0.32 C 26.4 0.46 C 25.6 0.39 and WB-LT C 24.4 0.29 C 25.1 0.36 C 25.1 0.35 Pinebrook WB-R A 2.7 0.41 A 2.4 0.33 A 2.2 0.26 Road NB-LTR D 42.9 0.08 D 42.8 0.08 D 43.1 0.12 (3) SB-LT C 24.5 0.68 C 22.7 0.62 C 21.8 0.58 SB-R B 16.1 0.12 B 15.7 0.08 B 15.9 0.10 overall B 16.6 0.49 B 17.9 0.51 B 18.0 0.47 Fifth EB-LTR E 55.5 0.74 E 57.9 0.77 E 70.8 0.83 Avenue WB-LTR F 99.4 0.91 F 737.4 1.37 F 770.6 1.39 and NB-L A 5.3 0.25 A 5.9 0.31 A 5.0 0.20 North NB-TR B 19.5 0.89 A 8.1 0.61 A 7.8 0.59 Avenue SB-L A 5.5 0.25 A 5.9 0.33 A 5.6 0.30 (4) SB-TR A 8.4 0.63 B 18.8 0.88 A 9.7 0.69 overall C 23.3 0.89 F 88.4 0.98 F 102.2 0.83 Chatsworth EB-LTR C 33.5 0.56 C 33.5 0.56 C 34.7 0.61 Avenue WB-LTR D 44.3 0.70 D 42.9 0.65 D 51.0 0.82 and NB-L F 2.03 F 2.14 F 1.88 Palmer NB-TR C 32.0 0.61 D 36.1 0.70 D 35.0 0.68 Avenue SB-LTR E 78.1 0.97 F 94.8 0.99 D 49.7 0.88 (5) overall F 1.29 F 1.27 F 1.26 LOS: Level of Service Delay in Seconds/Vehicle; V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-75 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-23 (Continued) 2002 Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Chatsworth EB-L C 34.9 0.61 C 22.7 0.30 C 23.3 0.34 Avenue EB-T C 21.2 0.23 C 22.4 0.34 C 22.7 0.37 and EB-R B 19.6 0.04 B 19.4 0.02 B 19.2 0.00 Myrtle WB-L D 39.7 0.80 C 30.5 0.66 D 69.9 0.92 Boulevard WB-TR F 391.4 1.19 D 46.6 0.89 D 51.6 0.91 (6) NB-L C 24.8 0.03 C 24.8 0.03 C 24.9 0.04 NB-TR C 29.3 0.48 C 32.4 0.62 C 33.2 0.65 SB-LT C 32.6 0.85 C 22.0 0.66 C 26.9 0.77 SB-R B 14.2 0.09 B 14.0 0.07 B 14.1 0.08 overall F 147.5 1.00 C 31.5 0.76 D 39.6 0.84 Murray EB-LTR D 40.5 0.13 D 39.9 0.05 D 39.9 0.04 Avenue EB-R F '` 2.02 F 184.1 1.01 F 184.1 1.01 and NB-L A 5.3 0.32 A 4.9 0.36 A 5.0 0.35 Myrtle NB-TR A 3.6 0.17 A 3.6 0.15 A 3.7 0.18 Boulevard SB-LTR C 27.8 0.43 C 26.4 0.30 C 26.7 0.33 (7) overall F 0.66 D 41.6 0.51 D 41.2 0.50 Lincoln EB-L F 90.9 0.90 D 37.6 0.60 D 35.3 0.53 Avenue EB-TR D 35.5 0.56 D 35.3 0.56 D 39.7 . 0.69 and WB-L C 29.9 0.12 C 31.2 0.22 C 32.5 0.30 North WB-TR C 32.3 0.37 C 30.1 0.16 C 30.0 0.15 Avenue NB-L C 33.3 0.81 D 49.4 0.85 C 25.9 0.75 (8) NB-TR D 38.2 0.95 B 14.1 0.68 B 12.7 0.62 SB-L A 7.3 0.05 A 7.1 0.03 A 7.1 0.02 SB-TR C 28.1 0.90 F 151.6 1.06 C 29.7 0.91 overall D 36.9 0.93 F 80.8 0.92 C 26.1 0.84 LOS: Level of Service Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-76 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-23 (Continued) 2002 Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Fifth Avenue EB-T B 15.3 0.19 B 17.1 0.39 B 16.8 0.36 and EB-R C 23.1 0.69 B 19.6 0.56 C 20.7 0.61 Potter WB-L C 23.2 0.66 F 525.8 1.27 F 303.2 1.13 Avenue WB-T B 15.7 0.24 B 16.2 0.30 B 16.2 0.30 (9) NB-L C 22.4 0.68 B 19.4 0.56 B 17.9 0.46 NB-R B 17.2 0.39 D 36.8 0.87 C 29.0 0.80 overall C 20.7 0.68 F 117.4 1.07 E 74.2 0.97 Main EB-L B 15.4 0.35 B 15.3 0.34 B 14.9 0.30 Street EB-T B 15.7 0.39 B 16.4 0.46 B 16.4 0.45 and EB-R B 14.0 0.20 B 13.1 0.08 B 13.2 0.09 Echo NB-TR C 29.1 0.49 C 29.0 0.48 C 30.8 0.59 Avenue SB-LT C 27.4 0.72 C 28.2 0.73 D 42.2 0.90 (11) overall C 22.2 0.54 C 22.0 0.54 C 26.9 0.63 Huguenot WB-L B 17.8 0.42 B 17.9 0.42 B 17.0 0.35 Street WB-T B 17.8 0.43 B 18.2 0.47 B 18.0 0.45 and WB-R B 17.9 0.42 B 17.6 0.40 B 16.7 0.32 River NB-LT C 22.0 0.55 C 20.1 0.42 C 20.6 0.47 Street SB-TR B 19.6 0.38 B 18.4 0.26 B 18.8 0.31 (12) overall B 19.2 0.49 B 18.6 0.45 B 18.6 0.46 Hutch. SB WB-L C 24.5 0.41 E 61.1 0.91 F 86.3 0.96 Exit Road WB-R C 23.0 0.22 C 23.9 0.34 C 24.1 0.37 and NB-T A 6.8 0.49 A 7.1 0.52 A 7.1 0.51 Weaver SB-T A 6.9 0.49 A 6.6 0.45 A 6.6 0.45 Street (14) overall A 9.7 0.47 B 20.3 0.62 C 26.6 0.62 LOS: Level of Service; Delay: Delay in SecondsNehicle; V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-77 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-23 (Continued) 2002 Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Quaker EB-L C 34.3 0.61 C 32.7 0.55 C 31.5 0.49 Ridge Road EB-R E 74.7 0.92 D 35.0 0.62 C 34.8 0.62 and NB-LT B 10.2 0.59 B 11.1 0.64 A 10.0 0.58 Weaver SB-TR F 81.2 0.99 F 88.1 1.00 E 57.5 0.95 Street (16) overall D 52.9 0.68 D 48.0 0.64 D 35.2 0.59 Ramada EB-L C 29.8 0.65 C 30.0 0.65 C 29.5 0.63 Plaza EB-R A 0.1 0.37 A 0.1 0.20 A 0.1 0.25 and NB-T B 11.7 0.36 B 11.4 0.32 B 11.4 0.32 River Street (20) overall B 14.9 0.46 B 17.3 0.44 B 16.1 0.43 Pierce Street EB-LR B 19.8 0.51 B 17.6 0.24 B 18.1 0.32 and NB-LT A 8.8 0.56 B 13.7 0.79 B 12.7 0.76 Potter SB-TR B 14.2 0.77 C 23.2 0.88 B 16.8 0.82 Avenue (21) overall B 12.4 0.70 B 17.7 0.68 B 14.8 0.65 Petersville EB-L D 51.3 0.82 D 54.7 0.84 D 46.2 0.78 Road EB-TR D 39.4 0.72 D 37.3 0.67 D 37.9 0.69 and WB-LT C 28.8 0.17 C 28.9 0.18 C 28.5 0.13 Palmer WB-R C 30.8 0.36 C 30.3 0.32 C 30.0 0.29 Avenue NB-LT F 303.4 2.09 F * 2.06 F * 2.05 (22) SB-LTR B 11.4 0.55 B 11.5 0.56 B 10.8 0.51 overall F * 0.63 F * 0.65 F * 0.59 Stratton EB-T A 8.8 0.12 A 8.8 0.12 A 8.8 0.10 Road EB-R B 10.2 0.33 A 9.7 0.26 A 9.9 0.29 and WB-L B 10.3 0.72 A 5.1 0.38 A 5.1 0.39 Pinebrook WB-T A 4.1 0.19 A 3.8 0.11 A 3.7 0.10 Boulevard NB-L D 44.8 0.81 C 27.4 0.48 C 29.6 0.58 (25) NB-R D 43.7 0.78 C 28.3 0.52 C 30.5 0.59 overall B I 17.9 0.51 B 11.8 0.35 B 13.1 0.37 LOS: Level of Service; Delay: Delay in SecondsNehicle; V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-78 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-23 (Continued) 2002 Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Stratton EB-LT B 15.3 0.49 B 13.4 0.29 B 13.3 0.29 Road EB-R B 11.8 0.07 B 12.2 0.12 B 12.1 0.11 and WB-LTR B 12.9 0.23 B 12.1 0.11 B 12.1 0.11 Weaver NB-LTR C 20.1 0.73 C 28.3 0.86 C 22.3 0.79 Street SB-LT B 17.2 0.63 B 15.7 0.54 B 15.3 0.52 (26) overall B 17.5 0.61 C 21.5 0.58 B 18.2 0.54 Chatsworth EB-L C 30.8 0.38 D 36.1 0.62 D 35.8 0.61 Avenue EB-TR C 30.2 0.35 C 32.5 0.52 C 32.4 0.51 and WB-LTR C 28.4 0.19 C 29.0 0.25 C 29.0 0.25 Boston Post NB-LTR E 64.3 0.97 D 41.7 0.90 F 92.2 1.00 Road SB-LTR C 27.2 0.73 C 27.8 0.75 C 28.0 0.75 (27) overall D 41.8 0.57 C 33.7 0.62 D 52.3 0.66 New EB-LTR E 67.8 0.75 E 55.2 0.60 D 53.8 0.57 Rochelle WB-L D 45.8 0.78 D 49.5 0.82 E 72.9 0.93 Road WB-LT C 32.4 0.28 C 31.6 0.21 C 31.7 0.22 and WB-R B 14.9 0.36 B 12.7 0.29 B 14.2 0.30 California NB-LT D 47.5 0.53 D 53.4 0.62 D 46.0 0.44 Road NB-R D 43.9 0.24 D 47.3 0.33 D 44.1 0.26 (28) SB-LTR D 53.2 0.73 D 51.4 0.74 E 57.2 0.77 overall D 40.9 0.71 D 42.0 0.73 D 50.6 0.73 Eastchester WB-L C 34.8 0.13 D 35.3 0.20 D 35.0 0.16 Road WB-R C 34.1 0.90 B 17.7 0.70 B 17.5 0.70 and NB-TR D 38.0 0.81 C 26.5 0.57 C 25.1 0.51 Pelhamdale SB-L C 25.1 0.88 A 5.6 0.55 A 9.6 0.71 Road SB-T A 1.6 0.28 A 1.4 0.16 A 1.6 0.27 (29) overall C 26.3 0.85 B 13.5 0.60 B 12.9 0.69 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio '` : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-79 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS o 0 COO I- N- O CO O) 0) d O CC) N- CO 0) O M O) N •c- N- O 'Cr CO N N- O N N 0 ,- N- N- co co (0 N co (O d' V V co CO In N- CO N N CO CO N- CO O CO d' I- 4: O O O O O O ddc ci d O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ci ci ci C C O L C CL = O C n C6 = CC O Ln O CO N- Ln Ln v- Ln CC) N- O Ln 0) Ln I- Ln O I- CO (c, OCO 'a Y d' O CO t` O CA Cfl C:O N (A N- O V CO N �- (A (A 4 i O N II 30 CO d c- N 'ct 4 4 c- - V in N N S ,- N CO d N- ta) � ) ( C.wCO Ill CO C 00 0 CO Q in 0 0 0 0 m CO CO 0 w U U 0) 0) 0) 0 00 < < < CO ca It a w o Ra w U U CO 0) r CO L 'Cr n COC7 Ln COOO CO00 . L- rCC) V N- 'COCC) CO00 N 0) CO O CO N- C) . E R j — Cin CA (c) co CO CO Ln CO in d V in O) I"- d' N- CO ,- N 0) CO 1- CO .- N d' O ID O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O a "0 = L O CU N = CC M CO O N '- CO N Lf) O CO CO r C`0 I� Ln CA I- 4 CO N- CO CO d' 00 c0 CC) c >' >' dCO � O d ( c\i O V V c\i -'- OdOLn dc\i y C 0 aCp Cl) CO 6) •- co in V N- N CO t N N rCO CO d 0 C C L d0 0 N p • QO Y a ''^^ Q N IZ •, o y U) 0 0LLCQm 0 000mm 0 L1- 000:10) m00 0 00 < < < 0W O V i J N c 0 O d (O m c0 CO COO) N N N I,- V N N- N N- N N- CO V O M 0) 0) CO N CO 0) U o0 C 0) co (-31M d - V N CO CO CO d CO N- Ln N- Ln CO ti CO L- Ln 0) M N CO CO CO N- CC) N d 0a N C y 5 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O CO - CO Co CO N a_ 7 Q pC >+ O C4 in o) co. (0 Lfl O O O) CC) N O d' Co N co N OCA N- CC) CO in 0) O d' Q as▪ _ a) 73 Y d in in N- in in N 1- O) Ln V O CO - O) ti in t� d' o 'a (� -Y 0 CO in CO r- N CO V LU N N CO coV N d' r N CC) d' t` - C CO �, a w c C)0 cu � a ° m ce -a 0 QwUQm 0 WOwoo 0 00000) 0) 0) 0 W0 < < < co 03 ( '- J U) ' C ,O CO (-.-2. O - O CN N o c JCCJF- � to � -1 � J � To � - JI � � Lo r � I- JH co cta a) ac, N R O m CO CO CO m a) m CO CO m J N -� CO m m m m 'J U) m m 03 m CO 4) 13 C O 2 w � wwzzm 'o wz � 'o m � zzz �m 'o wzcncn 'o a) o L0oc°� "' Q in m () CO 0 o a) LL CO U CCD U C O p :7, n o C o (o @ N O > N O t d > a > o C a O N d a o , M N CO H N � � @ � CO � 0 @ � V > CO aa) a)0) @ (B � CO J Q o �ru o H a) tCo a) J < S o @ Q • >, Z t C w 0 CO 0 I Ci) CO (U Z Z 00 5 * z J Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-23 (Continued) 2002 Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Weaver Street EB-LTR C 21.1 0.60 C 22.5 0.65 C 25.4 0.74 and WB-LTR F 1.85 D 42.1 0.91 F 164.8 1.05 Myrtle NB-LTR D 39.4 0.81 C 25.1 0.45 C 24.8 0.42 Boulevard SB-LTR C 23.8 0.33 C 21.9 0.11 C 22.2 0.13 (34) overall F * 1.13 C 32.2 0.57 F 83.2 0.62 Quaker Ridge WB-L E 61.6 0.89 D 37.7 0.65 D 45.9 0.79 Road WB-LR C 34.7 0.51 D 35.8 0.60 C 33.4 0.49 and NB-TR B 16.0 0.51 B 13.6 0.49 B 12.9 0.42 North Avenue SB-L F 85.9 0.96 C 33.0 0.80 C 26.2 0.75 (35) SB-T B 11.7 0.55 A 9.9 0.45 B 10.0 0.46 overall C 34.3 1.08 C 21.1 0.91 C 21.6 0.89 Huguenot WB-L B 11.5 0.23 B 10.9 0.15 B 10.8 0.13 Street WB-T B 15.2 0.62 B 13.6 0.50 B 13.7 0.51 and WB-R B 17.2 0.66 B 13.1 0.43 B 14.2 0.52 North Avenue NB-L D 36.1 0.72 C 31.0 0.71 C 30.0 0.64 (36) NB-T C 21.0 0.57 C 21.0 0.57 C 25.9 0.74 SB-T C 25.1 0.57 C 23.2 0.40 C 24.6 0.53 SB-R F 108.4 1.00 D 38.1 0.82 D 46.6 0.88 overall C 32.3 0.95 C 21.1 0.80 C 23.3 0.90 Main EB-L B 13.6 0.38 B 13.4 0.37 B 13.3 0.35 Street EB-LT B 14.3 0.46 B 14.6 0.49 B 14.4 0.47 and EB-R B 11.6 0.14 B 11.7 0.16 B 11.6 0.15 North Avenue NB-TR C 31.2 0.43 C 30.6 0.38 C 30.9 0.40 (37) SB-L F 107.1 0.97 D 35.4 0.71 C 34.1 0.69 SB-T C 29.5 0.67 C 25.0 0.46 C 27.6 0.60 overall C 32.1 0.66 C 20.3 0.54 C 21.1 0.52 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio " : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-81 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-23 (Continued) 2002 Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Mamaroneck EB-L C 25.5 0.36 C 25.8 0.37 C 26.5 0.42 Avenue EB-TR C 28.5 0.61 C 27.9 0.58 C 31.2 0.72 and WB-LT C 25.2 0.37 C 25.8 0.43 C 26.6 0.50 Mt. Pleasant WB-R C 23.3 0.17 C 23.7 0.21 C 23.8 0.22 Avenue NB-L F 290.8 1.06 F 428.6 1.20 F 144.0 1.00 (38) NB-T C 33.7 0.37 D 36.1 0.54 D 35.4 0.50 SB-L C 26.9 0.20 C 27.2 0.22 C 27.2 0.22 SB-TR D 36.6 0.71 C 30.8 0.52 C 34.9 0.67 overall E 60.0 0.76 F 98.1 0.72 D 45.5 0.78 Mt. Pleasant EB-L D 43.5 0.30 D 43.6 0.31 D 43.5 0.31 Avenue EB-R A 7.1 0.39 A 7.0 0.39 A 6.4 0.29 and NB-L B 14.6 0.34 B 15.1 0.38 B 14.9 0.36 Palmer NB-R B 13.5 0.17 B 13.0 0.16 B 13.0 0.16 Avenue SB-T D 39.2 0.49 D 39.7 0.52 D 39.1 0.48 (39) overall B 17.8 0.41 B 18.2 0.42 B 18.7 0.38 Weaver Street EB-L C 32.9 0.77 C 33.5 0.75 C 26.6 0.71 and EB-T B 13.7 0.47 B 14.6 0.55 B 13.5 0.45 Palmer WB-LTR C 24.6 0.82 E 66.8 0.97 C 28.7 0.86 Avenue NB-LTR C 22.9 0.78 C 21.5 0.74 C 20.7 0.73 (40) SB-LTR B 19.6 0.71 B 18.6 0.68 B 16.1 0.54 overall C 21.7 0.80 C 32.2 0.86 C 21.0 0.80 Depot Way EB-L C 24.5 0.34 C 23.5 0.17 C 23.6 0.20 East EB-R C 26.0 0.48 C 23.3 0.14 C 23.6 0.19 and NB-LT A 4.3 0.30 A 4.2 0.27 A 4.1 0.25 Palmer SB-TR A 5.8 0.54 A 6.0 0.56 A 6.1 0.57 Avenue (41) overall A 7.6 0.53 A 6.1 0.50 A 6.5 0.51 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-82 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS U O E. p o co ,t CO OO O CO Ln CO N v LI) Co (N O CO CO M (0 CO v O Ln CO N v LO CO (6 (NI O I-- 1- CO CO 0) - Cr) 0) - CO LC) O LC) CO O V szt CO CO M ,- CO (0 CO N- I•- 00000 O ON 00000 0000 O 00000000 r- cu• 0 R= R co 4 CO O .,,t. co O co co co. M ON- Ln O CO CO N LC) ct d MCO N O N W Y d M4 4 O) O CO * 00 (O ,- CO .4 * (O �:• co LC) (p• Ll) Ln LC) M N O U t 0 4 , a) 0 NNN ,__ 0) NCONN N NNNNNNNN N N CU t _ O (1) ° n- ti a v) co 0 000 < < m ti * tL W 000 U- 0 < < < < 00000000 0 w N J Q as w E U (0 N 0) d1"-- -0) CO s- N- � CO 1- s- N - 0)0) c-- 1 O (0 N O LC) O ti N- LC) 0) u r CV COCOf) OOO) ,- M (O 0) t O 10 ct CO (0 (0s- (0 0) () E 1 co 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Q li) 73 M d '(4 2 ca coN co10 O) 1� cocoO O O) 4 N coLn co0) O N COd' CO I� O (N _ G (C Y 0 N N N Osri •- ONO * ai CO CO N N * N M O N N N N N N • N N U a c4 N 0 d' ( cu < o ra c +' (a N cnCC 4 m � O 000 < < m w * WW000 U- 0 < < < Q 000000030 0 a) a o• c) I J a) c U d �; - m M m coco c d - 0 0) (0 LO CO V CO CO CO N V N N- N CO CO 'Cr CO N O N- d Cr) O CO CO CO 0) co o > O) 41 .a > O N •'- V co co 00 N CO 00 - N LC) CO "sr CO O U0 10 V CO CO I- LC) .-- N- CO Ch N L 00000 O O 00000 O 0000 O 00000000 ‘- V d L M c .� IZ 3 ja O Q (C O ni •- -t N (0 Ln N ' M CON CON CO CO N� CO O ct s- s- O is Q (C 2 (C Ln Ln In Ln co O ca ;� 'C Y y V' L() V' 6j • r CA M M N V (3) LC) .cr M L1) (p 1� Lf) N- d' N- (fl N- LC) C (U C 0 d m 0 NNN T- N- 1 V L0MNN N- N NN (VNNNs- N N cW a) 0 ?tea (' w CC d ca En 0 000 < < CO U111- 000 (..) 0 LU 0 < < < Q 000000030 0 U L. o -0713 -2 nl a) (6 O „ J wwmmm > Ca ZZ ((0 (mn a) c6 c6 > w 17 mthmzIT mcmnm a) c v ov' Q C7 z cn o w o cn o w z w o � o a 0 CI3 >` a) � 0 o � _c- o U. a C T 4- .0 O -0 , O > L O O a) a) O O _ O O T a) 0 O L V > N a) c 7 a) 7 O a) O 7 a) a) 0- (moo L(7 > (� E co Q H N C c N c "O E c M Q > c E c cO 2 a c O a) 7 _ F•- P. a) 0CL< NQ � d < � c6 � a.. < w � (nn � Ja > W O C O J d O In u Z a) m 0 a) U �• m J J O > Z J Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-23 (Continued) 2002 Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Signalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Lane Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Larchmont EB-LTR D 36.6 0.51 D 38.1 0.59 D 41.0 0.69 Avenue WB-LTR D 35.3 0.41 D 37.4 0.56 D 36.3 0.50 and NB-LTR C 34.4 0.84 F 152.4 1.05 E 73.4 0.98 Boston Post SB-LTR C 29.6 0.77 D 36.5 0.88 F 96.0 1.01 Road (46) overall C 32.9 0.49 E 77.5 0.60 E 73.6 0.60 Beach EB-LTR C 20.8 0.28 C 20.8 0.27 C 20.7 0.27 Avenue WB-LTR C 22.2 0.44 C 20.6 0.29 C 20.5 0.25 and NB-LTR A 8.7 0.64 A 6.5 0.41 A 6.9 0.48 Boston Post SB-LTR A 7.0 0.49 A 7.1 0.51 A 6.7 0.44 Road (47) overall A 9.3 0.59 A 8.4 0.45 A 8.4 0.43 Garden Street EB-L B 17.8 0.56 B 13.8 0.33 B 14.0 0.34 and EB-T B 14.5 0.41 B 13.9 0.35 B 14.2 0.38 1-95 WB-T B 15.9 0.53 B 12.7 0.22 B 13.9 0.36 Interchange WB-R B 12.2 0.14 B 12.1 0.13 B 12.1 0.12 (13) SB-L C 30.6 0.80 C 30.6 0.80 C 31.1 0.81 overall C 20.8 0.66 C 21.0 0.54 C 21.0 0.57 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-84 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-24 2002 Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Unsignalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Critical Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Movement LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Fifth Avenue WB-L A 7.9 A 8.5 A 8.3 and NB-LR C 15.1 D 26.2 C 24.2 Valley Place (2) Madison Avenue EB-L A 8.1 A 8.0 A 8.0 and WB-L A 10.0 B 10.4 B 10.3 New Jefferson St./ I-95 NB-LTR F * F 121.0 F * Interchange (10) SB-LT F * F 60.7 F 94.7 Hutchinson Avenue NB-TR A 9.9 A 9.8 A 8.9 and WB-L F * F * F 105.8 Weaver Street (15) Murray Avenue NB-L A 8.7 A 9.1 A 8.9 and EB-L D 32.6 F * F * Weaver Street (17) Chatsworth Avenue EB-L A 8.2 A 7.9 A 8.4 and WB-L A 8.0 A 8.2 A 8.0 New Jefferson Street NB-LTR D 27.3 C 19.6 C 23.4 (18) SB-LTR B 14.9 B 14.8 C 19.8 Garden Street EB-L A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.6 and NB-TR C 19.2 B 14.8 C 16.5 Cedar Street (19) SB-LT F * F * F * Beechmont Drive WB-L A 8.9 A 8.5 A 8.1 and NB-L E 35.9 F * F 79.5 Pinebrook Blvd. West SB-LT F * F 50.3 D 29.7 (23a) Beechmont Drive EB-L A 8.6 A 8.3 A 8.2 and Pinebrook Blvd. East (23b) LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-85 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-24 (Continued) 2002 Build Condition - Intersection Analysis Summary Unsignalized Intersections Weekday PM Saturday Midday Saturday PM Intersection Critical Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Movement LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Quaker Ridge Road SB-LTR B 12.3 B 10.8 B 10.7 and Pinebrook Blvd. West (24a) Quaker Ridge Road EB-L A 9.1 A 8.6 A 9.0 and NB-R B 10.0 A 9.6 A 9.7 Pinebrook Blvd. SB-R B 10.2 B 10.1 B 10.5 East (24b) Winans Street NB-L B 10.8 B 10.8 A 9.9 and SB-L B 10.3 B 10.1 B 10.2 Boston Post Road EB-LTR D 31.4 E 43.1 D 29.0 (48) WB-LTR E 40.8 D 34.2 D 31.4 Fifth Avenue WB-L A 8.3 B 13.6 B 11.8 and Main Entrance Fifth Avenue NB-LR B 11.8 B 14.4 C 13.8 and Main Exit LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-86 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 • Table 3.9-25 Weekday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Signalized Intersections No Build Build Build Condition with Intersection Lane Condition Condition Mitigation Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Fifth EB-LT A 3.7 0.07 A 3.7 0.06 A 4.7 0.33 Avenue EB-R A 4.2 0.21 A 4.5 0.29 A 3.6 0.03 and WB-L A 3.6 0.04 A 3.6 0.04 A 3.5 0.02 Portman WB-TR A 4.9 0.37 A 4.7 0.33 A 4.5 0.28 Road NB-LTR C 31.4 0.23 D 41.1 0.67 C 34.5 0.52 (1) SB-LTR C 31.8 0.26 C 31.8 0.26 C 31.7 0.26 overall A 8.2 0.35 B 11.6 0.40 B 10.1 0.37 Fifth EB-LTR D 52.4 0.71 E 55.5 0.74 D 41.8 0.60 Avenue WB-LTR E 57.3 0.76 F 99.4 0.91 D 37.2 0.40 and NB-L A 5.3 0.25 A 5.3 0.25 A 7.3 0.28 North NB-TR B 18.5 0.88 B 19.5 0.89 C 34.2 0.95 Avenue SB-L A 5.1 0.19 A 5.5 0.25 A 7.7 0.29 (4) SB-TR A 8.4 0.63 A 8.4 0.63 B 11.6 0.67 overall B 19.2 0.85 C 23.3 0.89 C 25.9 0.88 • Chatsworth EB-LTR C 33.4 0.55 C 33.5 0.56 D 35.4 0.59 Avenue WB-LTR D 44.2 0.70 D 44.3 0.70 D 48.2 0.76 and NB-L F * 2.02 F * 2.03 F * 1.87 Palmer NB-TR C 32.0 0.61 C 32.0 0.61 C 30.1 0.58 Avenue SB-LTR E 74.9 0.96 E 78.1 0.97 D 53.6 0.92 (5) overall F * 1.28 F * 1.29 F * 1.26 Murray EB-LTR D 40.5 0.13 D 40.5 0.13 C 27.1 0.05 Avenue EB-R F * 1.95 F * 2.02 D 47.7 0.82 and NB-L A 5.2 0.31 A 5.3 0.32 B 11.9 0.46 Myrtle NB-TR A 3.6 0.17 A 3.6 0.17 A 9.7 0.22 Boulevard SB-LTR C 27.7 0.43 C 27.8 0.43 C 27.8 0.43 (7) overall F * 0.64 F * 0.66 C 26.4 0.66 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right S 3.9-87 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-35 (Continued) Weekday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Signalized Intersections No Build Condition Build Condition Build Condition with Intersection Lane Mitigation Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Lincoln EB-L E 72.1 0.85 F 90.9 0.90 E 62.4 0.82 Avenue EB-TR D 35.5 0.56 D 35.5 0.56 C 35.0 0.55 and WB-L C 29.9 0.12 C 29.9 0.12 C 29.5 0.11 North WB-TR C 32.3 0.37 C 32.3 0.37 C 32.0 0.37 Avenue NB-L C 31.7 0.80 C 33.3 0.81 D 44.7 0.85 (8) NB-TR D 38.2 0.95 D 38.2 0.95 D 49.6 0.97 SB-L A 7.3 0.05 A 7.3 0.05 A 8.0 0.05 SB-TR C 26.7 0.89 C 28.1 0.90 C 33.5 0.92 overall D 35.1 0.92 D 36.9 0.93 D 41.9 0.92 Fifth Avenue EB-T B 15.1 0.17 B 15.3 0.19 - -and EB-R C 23.1 0.69 C 23.1 0.69 - - - Potter WB-L B 19.7 0.55 C 23.2 0.66 - - - Avenue WB-T B 15.7 0.24 B 15.7 0.24 - - - (9) NB-L C 22.4 0.68 C 22.4 0.68 - - - NB-R B 16.2 0.29 B 17.2 0.39 - - - overall C 20.2 0.68 C 20.7 0.68 - - - Hutch. SB WB-L C 24.3 0.39 C 24.5 0.41 - - - Exit Ramp WB-R C 23.0 0.22 C 23.0 0.22 - -and NB-T A 6.8 0.49 A 6.8 0.49 - - - Weaver SB-T A 6.8 0.49 A 6.9 0.49 - - - Street (14) overall A 9.6 0.46 A 9.7 0.47 - - - Quaker EB-L C 34.3 0.61 C 34.3 0.61 C 30.0 0.53 Ridge Rd EB-R E 74.7 0.92 E 74.7 0.92 D 43.1 0.80 and NB-LT A 10.0 0.58 B 10.2 0.59 B 12.4 0.62 Weaver SB-TR E 69.5 0.97 F 81.2 0.99 C 32.2 0.88 Street (16) overall D 48.3 0.67 D 52.9 0.68 C 28.0 0.68 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio " : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-88 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-25 (Continued) Weekday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Signalized Intersections No Build Condition Build Condition Build Condition with Intersection Lane Mitigation Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Petersville EB-L D 51.3 0.82 D 51.3 0.82 D 36.9 0.70 Road EB-TR D 39.4 0.72 D 39.4 0.72 C 32.5 0.62 and WB-LT C 28.8 0.17 C 28.8 0.17 C 35.7 0.14 Palmer WB-R C 30.8 0.36 C 30.8 0.36 C 27.4 0.31 Avenue NB-LT F 88.1 1.94 F 303.4 2.09 B 13.4 0.59 (22) SB-LTR B 11.0 0.52 B 11.4 0.55 C 33.4 0.88 overall F 0.61 F '` 0.63 C 27.6 0.86 Chatsworth EB-L C 30.7 0.37 C 30.8 0.38 C 32.5 0.40 Avenue EB-TR C 30.2 0.35 C 30.2 0.35 C 31.8 0.36 and WB-LTR C 28.4 0.19 C 28.4 0.19 C 30.1 0.22 Boston Post NB-LTR E 63.7 0.96 E 64.3 0.97 C 29.7 0.80 Road SB-LTR C 27.2 0.73 C 27.2 0.73 C 23.7 0.65 (27) overall D 41.6 0.57 D 41.8 0.57 C 27.6 0.52 New EB-LTR E 67.8 0.75 E 67.8 0.75 - - - Rochelle WB-L D 44.1 0.75 D 45.8 0.78 - - - Road WB-LT C 32.4 0.28 C 32.4 0.28 - -and WB-R B 14.9 0.36 B 14.9 0.36 - - - California NB-LT D 47.5 0.53 D 47.5 0.53 - - - Road NB-R D 43.3 0.18 D 43.9 0.24 - - - (28) SB-LTR D 53.2 0.73 D 53.2 0.73 - - - overall D 40.4 0.7 D 40.9 0.71 - - - Eastchester EB-L D 35.5 0.29 D 35.5 0.29 C 34.7 0.28 Road EB-R D 51.8 0.79 E 55.9 0.83 D 51.1 0.80 and NB-L C 26.4 0.85 C 31.8 0.88 C 30.3 0.87 North NB-T A 7.7 0.38 A 7.8 0.39 A 8.2 0.39 Avenue SB-TR B 17.5 0.42 B 17.6 0.42 B 19.5 0.44 (30) overall C 23.1 0.78 C 25.0 0.82 C 24.7 0.79 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio " : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-89 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-25 (Continued) Weekday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Signalized Intersections No Build Condition Build Condition Build Condition with Intersection Lane Mitigation Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Lincoln EB-LTR D 36.2 0.79 D 39.6 0.82 - - - Avenue WB-L D 41.0 0.74 D 45.2 0.77 - -and WB-TR C 24.0 0.50 C 24.3 0.52 - - - Memorial NB-L D 39.8 0.87 D 40.2 0.87 - -Highway NB-T B 13.0 0.38 B 13.0 0.38 - - - (32) NB-R B 11.9 0.24 B 11.9 0.24 - - - SB-LTR B 19.7 0.30 B 19.7 0.30 - - - overall C 26.6 0.81 C 27.6 0.83 - - - Weaver Street EB-LTR C 21.1 0.60 C 21.1 0.60 D 39.9 0.82 and WB-LTR F " 1.83 F 1.85 C 32.7 0.87 Myrtle NB-LTR D 38.0 0.79 D 39.4 0.81 D 49.7 0.86 Boulevard SB-LTR C 23.8 0.33 C 23.8 0.33 C 26.4 0.34 (34) overall F " 1.19 F * 1.13 D 37.0 0.98 Quaker Ridge WB-L E 61.6 0.89 E 61.6 0.89 D 54.5 0.86 Road WB-LR C 34.5 0.50 C 34.7 0.51 C 33.7 0.49 and NB-TR B 16.0 0.51 B 16.0 0.51 B 19.5 0.56 North Avenue SB-L E 78.9 0.95 F 85.9 0.96 D 40.9 0.90 (35) SB-T B 11.7 0.55 B 11.7 0.55 B 12.4 0.56 overall C 25.1 1.07 C 34.3 1.08 C 27.8 1.00 Mamaroneck EB-L C 25.5 0.36 C 25.5 0.36 C 30.1 0.44 Avenue EB-TR C 28.4 0.60 C 28.5 0.61 C 34.5 0.72 and WB-LT C 25.2 0.37 C 25.2 0.37 C 29.6 0.46 Mt. Pleasant WB-R C 23.3 0.17 C 23.3 0.17 C 27.0 0.20 Avenue NB-L F 176.0 1.04 F 290.8 1.06 D 54.8 0.87 (38) NB-T C 33.7 0.37 C 33.7 0.37 C 29.4 0.30 SB-L C 26.9 0.20 C 26.9 0.20 C 26.9 0.20 SB-TR D 36.6 0.71 D 36.6 0.71 D 36.6 0.71 overall D 53.8 0.75 E 60.0 0.76 D 36.3 0.76 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio " : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-90 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-25 (Continued) Weekday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Signalized Intersections No Build Condition Build Condition Build Condition with Intersection Lane Mitigation Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Larchmont EB-LTR D 36.6 0.51 D 36.6 0.51 - - - Avenue WB-LTR D 35.3 0.41 D 35.3 0.41 - -and NB-LTR C 34.3 0.84 C 34.4 0.84 - - - Boston Post SB-LTR C 29.6 0.77 C 29.6 0.77 - - - Road (46) overall C 32.9 0.49 C 32.9 0.49 - - - LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-91 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-26 Weekday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Unsignalized Intersections No Build Build Condition Build Condition Intersection Critical Condition with Mitigation Movement LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Fifth Avenue EB-T n/c n/c n/c n/c B 11.3 and EB-R n/c n/c n/c n/c A 8.9 Valley Place (2) WB-LT A 7.8 A 7.9 B 11.7 NB-LR C 15.0 C 15.1 B 19.7 Madison Avenue EB-LT A 8.3 A 8.1 A 9.5 and EB-R n/c n/c n/c n/c A 8.6 New Jefferson St./ I-95 WB-L A 9.2 A 10.0 C 20.9 Int. (10) WB-TR n/c n/c n/c n/c A 9.6 NB-LTR F * F * C 24.9 SB-LT F * F * C 24.4 SB-R n/c n/c n/c n/c C 22.9 Hutchinson Avenue NB-TR n/c n/c n/c n/c B 10.1 and SB-L A 9.3 A 9.9 B 14.9 Weaver Street(15) WB-LR F * F * D 41.6 Murray Avenue NB-LT A 9.0 A 8.7 B 13.4 and SB-TR n/c n/c n/c n/c C 23.7 Weaver Street (17) EB-L D 34.6 D 32.6 B 18.8 Garden Street EB-L A 7.5 A 7.5 B 15.3 and EB-R n/c n/c n/c n/c C . 25.9 Cedar Street(19) NB-TR C 16.2 C 19.2 C 29.3 SB-LT F * F * C 24.5 Beechmont Drive EB-TR n/c n/c n/c n/c D 41.7 and WB-L A 8.9 A 8.9 B 18.0 Pinebrook Blvd. West WB-T n/c n/c n/c n/c B 15.6 (23a) NB-L E 35.9 E 35.9 B 15.4 SB-LT F * F * C 29.7 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle * : Delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right n/c: Non-Critical Movement under unsignalized capacity analysis 3.9-92 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-27 Saturday Midday Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Signalized Intersections No Build Build Build Condition with Intersection Lane Condition Condition Mitigation Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Fifth EB-LT A 3.7 0.07 A 3.7 0.63 C 26.0 0.86 Avenue EB-R A 4.3 0.23 A 6.9 0.05 A 9.2 0.07 and WB-L A 3.5 0.02 A 3.6 0.09 A 9.8 0.14 Portman WB-TR A 4.5 0.28 A 4.8 0.23 B 10.7 0.29 Road NB-LTR C 30.6 0.13 * * 1.72 D 43.5 0.84 (1) SB-LTR C 30.1 0.07 C 30.1 0.07 C 20.8 0.04 overall A 6.2 0.25 F * 0.93 C 26.2 0.86 Fifth EB-LTR D 46.3 0.62 E 57.9 0.77 D 45.1 0.67 Avenue WB-LTR D 48.2 0.64 F * 1.37 D 46.2 0.74 and NB-L A 5.0 0.19 A 5.9 0.31 A 8.3 0.36 North NB-TR A 6.7 0.50 A 8.1 0.61 B 11.1 0.65 Avenue SB-L A 4.5 0.11 A 5.9 0.33 A 8.1 0.37 (4) SB-TR B 10.9 0.74 B 18.8 0.88 C 32.0 0.94 overall B 14.3 0.72 F 88.4 0.98 C 25.9 0.89 Chatsworth EB-LTR C 33.1 0.54 C 33.5 0.56 D 35.5 0.59 Avenue WB-LTR D 42.5 0.64 D 42.9 0.65 D 46.5 0.71 and NB-L F * 2.15 F 2.14 F * 2.04 Palmer NB-TR D 36.1 0.70 D 36.1 0.70 C 33.6 0.67 Avenue SB-LTR F 92.5 0.93 F 94.8 0.99 E 64.4 0.95 (5) overall F * 1.29 F * 1.27 F * 1.30 Murray EB-LTR D 39.9 0.05 D 39.9 0.05 C 30.6 0.02 Avenue EB-R E 56.2 0.71 F 184.1 1.01 D 35.3 0.50 and NB-L A 4.6 0.31 A 4.9 0.36 A 9.3 0.45 Myrtle NB-TR A 3.5 0.14 A 3.6 0.15 A 7.4 0.18 Boulevard SB-LTR C 26.3 0.28 C 26.4 0.30 C 26.4 0.30 (7) overall B I 18.5 0.43 D 41.6 0.51 B 18.4 0.51 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle; V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-93 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-27(Continued) Saturday Midday Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Signalized Intersections No Build Build Build Condition with Intersection Lane Condition Condition Mitigation Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Lincoln EB-L C 33.6 0.44 D 37.6 0.60 D 50.5 0.73 Avenue EB-TR D 35.3 0.56 D 35.3 0.56 D 43.6 0.67 and WB-L C 31.2 0.22 C 31.2 0.22 D 37.0 0.32 North WB-TR C 30.1 0.16 C 30.1 0.16 C 34.5 0.19 Avenue NB-L D 38.5 0.82 D 49.4 0.85 C 24.4 0.75 (8) NB-TR B 14.1 0.68 B 14.1 0.68 B 11.1 0.64 SB-L A 7.1 0.03 A 7.1 0.03 A 5.7 0.02 SB-TR F 100.6 1.02 F 151.6 1.06 E 72.9 1.00 overall E 57.4 0.88 F 80.8 0.92 D 45.7 0.94 Fifth Avenue EB-T B 15.6 0.22 B 17.1 0.39 C 21.2 0.48 and EB-R B 19.6 0.56 B 19.6 0.56 C 26.6 0.69 Potter WB-L B 16.5 0.31 F 525.8 1.27 D 37.1 0.86 Avenue WB-T B 15.1 0.16 B 16.2 0.30 B 10.2 0.21 (9) NB-L B 19.4 0.56 B 19.4 0.56 C 33.9 0.77 NB-R B 16.2 0.29 D 36.8 0.87 B 18.2 0.73 overall B 17.9 0.56 F 117.4 1.07 C 25.3 0.71 Hutch. SB WB-L D 37.7 0.79 E 61.1 0.91 D 36.1 0.82 Exit Ramp WB-R C 23.9 0.34 C 23.9 0.34 C 20.6 0.30 and NB-T A 7.1 0.52 A 7.1 0.52 A 9.9 0.58 Weaver SB-T A 6.5 0.44 A 6.6 0.45 A 8.8 0.48 Street (14) overall B 14.4 0.59 B 20.3 0.62 B 16.8 0.66 Quaker EB-L C 32.7 0.55 C 32.7 0.55 C 31.4 0.52 Ridge Rd EB-R D 35.0 0.62 D 35.0 0.62 C 33.3 0.59 and NB-LT B 10.2 0.60 B 11.1 0.64 B 11.9 0.65 Weaver SB-TR D 46.9 0.93 F 88.1 1.00 C 27.0 0.85 Street (16) overall C 30.9 0.60 D 48.0 0.64 C 23.0 0.64 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-94 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-27 (Continued) Saturday Midday Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Signalized Intersections No Build Build Build Condition with Intersection Lane Condition Condition Mitigation Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Petersville EB-L D 54.7 0.84 D 54.7 0.84 D 43.7 0.77 Road EB-TR D 37.3 0.67 D 37.3 0.67 C 34.0 0.62 and WB-LT C 28.9 0.18 C 28.9 0.18 C 27.4 0.17 Palmer WB-R C 30.3 0.32 C 30.3 0.32 C 28.7 0.29 Avenue NB-LT F 376.5 1.45 F * 2.06 B 16.2 0.71 (22) SB-LTR A 9.4 0.36 B 11.5 0.56 C 25.4 0.81 overall F 115.8 0.50 F * 0.65 C 25.3 0.83 Chatsworth EB-L D 35.6 0.60 D 36.1 0.62 - - - Avenue EB-TR C 32.4 0.52 C 32.5 0.52 - -and WB-LTR C 29.0 0.25 C 29.0 0.25 - - - Boston Post NB-LTR D 40.3 0.89 D 41.7 0.90 - - - Road SB-LTR C 27.7 0.75 C 27.8 0.75 - - - (27) overall C 33.1 0.61 C 33.7 0.62 - - - New EB-LTR E 55.2 0.60 E 55.2 0.60 - - - Rochelle WB-L D 42.9 0.73 D 49.5 0.82 - - - Road WB-LT C 31.6 0.21 C 31.6 0.21 - -and WB-R B 12.7 0.29 B 12.7 0.29 - - - California NB-LT D 53.4 0.62 D 53.4 0.62 - - - Road NB-R D 44.6 0.04 D 47.3 0.33 - - - (28) SB-LTR D 51.4 0.74 D 51.4 0.74 - - - overall D 39.5 0.69 D 42.0 0.73 - - - Eastchester EB-L C 34.3 0.16 C 34.3 0.16 C 31.1 0.14 Road EB-R D 52.7 0.81 F 93.6 0.95 D 50.2 0.82 and NB-L B 10.2 0.59 B 13.0 0.69 B 16.9 0.73 North NB-T A 7.1 0.30 A 7.2 0.31 A 8.9 0.33 Avenue SB-TR B 17.0 0.37 B 17.1 0.38 B 19.7 0.41 (30) overall C 20.9 0.61 C 30.6 0.65 C 23.5 0.66 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-95 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-27 (Continued) Saturday Midday Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Signalized Intersections No Build Build Build Condition with Intersection Lane Condition Condition Mitigation Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Lincoln EB-LTR D 44.5 0.87 F 84.3 0.97 D 52.2 0.91 Avenue WB-L C 30.8 0.60 D 44.7 0.71 C 29.8 0.60 and WB-TR C 22.8 0.40 C 23.5 0.46 C 22.0 0.44 Memorial NB-L C 27.0 0.77 B 27.9 0.78 C 34.2 0.82 Highway NB-T B 12.7 0.34 B 12.7 0.34 B 14.0 0.36 (32) NB-R B 11.4 0.17 B 11.4 0.17 B 12.5 0.18 SB-LTR B 19.6 0.28 B 19.6 0.28 C 21.1 0.30 overall C 26.2 0.77 D 37.7 0.82 C 30.2 0.83 Weaver Street EB-LTR C 22.4 0.65 C 22.5 0.65 C 24.7 0.71 and WB-LTR C 32.0 0.84 D 42.1 0.91 C 26.0 0.78 Myrtle NB-LTR C 24.7 0.41 C 25.1 0.45 C 25.1 0.45 Boulevard SB-LTR C 21.9 0.11 C 21.9 0.11 C 21.9 0.11 (34) overall C 27.3 0.57 C 32.2 0.57 C 25.3 0.51 Quaker Ridge WB-L D 37.7 0.65 D 37.7 0.65 - - - Road WB-LR D 35.4 0.59 D 35.8 0.60 - -and NB-TR B 13.6 0.49 B 13.6 0.49 - - - North Avenue SB-L C 30.3 0.77 C 33.0 0.80 - - - (35) SB-T A 9.8 0.43 A 9.9 0.45 - - - overall C 20.7 0.89 C 21.1 0.91 - - - Mamaroneck EB-L C 25.8 0.37 C 25.8 0.37 C 31.6 0.48 Avenue EB-TR C 27.4 0.55 C 27.9 0.58 C 34.9 0.70 and WB-LT C 25.8 0.43 C 25.8 0.43 C 31.5 0.55 Mt. Pleasant WB-R C 23.7 0.21 C 23.7 0.21 C 28.2 0.25 Avenue NB-L F 239.2 1.08 F 428.6 1.20 D 49.0 0.85 (38) NB-T D 36.1 0.54 D 36.1 0.54 C 27.5 0.38 SB-L C 27.2 0.22 C 27.2 0.22 C 29.6 0.25 SB-TR C 30.8 0.52 C 30.8 0.52 C 34.3 0.58 overall E 62.4 0.68 F 98.1 0.72 D 35.3 0.72 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-96 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-27 (Continued) Saturday Midday Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Signalized Intersections No Build Build Build Condition with Intersection Lane Condition Condition Mitigation Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Larchmont EB-LTR D 38.1 0.59 D 38.1 0.59 D 42.4 0.68 Avenue WB-LTR D 37.4 0.56 D 37.4 0.56 D 41.1 0.64 and NB-LTR F 150.7 1.05 F 152.4 1.05 E 69.7 0.98 Boston Post SB-LTR D 36.4 0.88 D 36.5 0.88 C 30.4 0.82 Road (46) overall E 76.8 0.60 E 77.5 0.60 D 47.0 0.59 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio " : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-97 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-28 Saturday Midday Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Unsignalized Intersections No Build Build Build Condition Intersection Critical Condition Condition with Mitigation Movement LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Fifth Avenue EB-T n/c n/c n/c n/c B 10.5 and EB-R n/c n/c n/c n/c A 8.1 Valley Place (2) WB-LT A 8.0 A 8.5 B 13.9 NB-LR B 12.5 D 26.2 C 28.2 Madison Avenue EB-LT A 7.8 A 8.0 C 22.7 and EB-R n/c n/c n/c n/c C 24.8 New Jefferson St./ I-95 WB-L A 8.4 B 10.4 C 34.9 Int. (10) WB-TR n/c n/c n/c n/c B 19.7 NB-LTR D 31.0 F 121.0 D 39.7 SB-LT C 26.3 F 60.7 D 44.2 SB-R n/c n/c n/c n/c D 42.8 Hutch. South S/R NB-TR n/c n/c n/c n/c B 17.0 and SB-L A 9.7 A 9.8 B 10.6 Weaver Street (15) WB-LR F * F * D 49.9 Murray Avenue NB-LT A 8.9 A 9.1 B 10.4 and SB-TR n/c n/c n/c n/c B 19.4 Weaver Street(17) EB-L D 82.4 F * C 24.9 Garden Street EB-L A 7.5 A 7.5 B 19.1 and EB-R n/c n/c n/c n/c C 28.8 Cedar Street(19) NB-TR C 16.4 B 14.8 C 31.3 SB-LT F * F * C 20.7 Beechmont Drive EB-TR n/c n/c n/c n/c C 28.0 and WB-L A 8.5 A 8.5 B 16.3 Pinebrook Blvd. West WB-T n/c n/c n/c n/c B 15.7 (23a) NB-L F F B 16.0 SB-LT E 44.6 F 50.3 C 25.4 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in SecondsNehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right n/c: Non-Critical Movement under unsignalized capacity analysis 3.9-98 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-29 Saturday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Signalized Intersections No Build Build Build Condition with Intersection Lane Condition Condition Mitigation Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Fifth EB-LT A 3.6 0.03 A 3.6 0.03 B 18.3 0.71 Avenue EB-R A 4.2 0.23 A 6.4 0.56 B 10.2 0.06 and WB-L A 3.5 0.02 A 3.6 0.05 B 10.5 0.09 Portman WB-TR A 4.2 0.21 A 4.4 0.26 B 11.6 0.27 Road NB-LTR C 30.7 0.14 2.47 D 40.2 0.85 (1) SB-LTR C 30.3 0.09 C 30.2 0.08 B 17.7 0.04 overall A 6.6 0.21 F 0.96 C 22.8 0.77 Fifth EB-LTR D 53.7 0.73 E 70.8 0.83 C 34.3 0.51 Avenue WB-LTR E 55.7 0.74 F 770.6 1.39 C 33.5 0.47 and NB-L A 5.0 0.20 A 5.0 0.20 A 9.6 0.26 North NB-TR A 7.4 0.56 A 7.8 0.59 B 14.9 0.68 Avenue SB-L A 4.7 0.13 A 5.6 0.30 B 11.0 0.40 (4) SB-TR A 9.7 0.69 A 9.7 0.69 B 19.4 0.80 overall B 15.6 0.70 F 102.2 0.83 B 19.9 0.71 Chatsworth EB-LTR C 34.1 0.59 C 34.7 0.61 - - - Avenue WB-LTR D 49.6 0.80 D 51.0 0.82 - -and NB-L F * 1.84 F 1.88 - - - Palmer NB-TR D 35.0 0.68 D 35.0 0.68 - - - Avenue SB-LTR D 47.5 0.87 D 49.7 0.88 - - - (5) overall F 1.23 F 1.26 - - - Murray EB-LTR D 39.9 0.04 D 39.9 0.04 C 30.6 0.02 Avenue EB-R E 58.0 0.73 F 184.1 1.01 D 35.3 0.50 and NB-L A 4.7 0.29 A 5.0 0.35 A 9.3 0.44 Myrtle NB-TR A 3.6 0.16 A 3.7 0.18 A 7.5 0.21 Boulevard SB-LTR C 26.5 0.31 C 26.7 0.33 C 26.7 0.33 (7) overall B 19.3 0.42 D 41.2 0.5 B 18.6 0.50 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio * : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-99 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-29 (Continued) Saturday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Signalized Intersections No Build Build Build Condition with Intersection Lane Condition Condition Mitigation Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Lincoln EB-L C 33.1 0.40 D 35.3 0.53 - - - Avenue EB-TR D 39.7 0.69 D 39.7 0.69 - -and WB-L C 32.5 0.30 C 32.5 0.30 - - - North WB-TR C 30.0 0.15 C 30.0 0.15 - - - Avenue NB-L C 21.8 0.72 C 25.9 0.75 - - - (8) NB-TR B 12.7 0.62 B 12.7 0.62 - - - SB-L A 7.1 0.02 A 7.1 0.02 - - - SB-TR C 24.2 0.87 C 29.7 0.91 - - - overall C 23.3 0.82 C 26.1 0.84 - - - Fifth Avenue EB-T B 15.4 0.21 B 16.8 0.36 C 20.4 0.41 and EB-R C 20.7 0.61 C 20.7 0.61 C 26.7 0.70 Potter WB-L B 15.8 0.23 F 303.2 1.13 C 34.9 0.85 Avenue WB-T B 15.0 0.15 B 16.2 0.30 B 10.4 0.24 (9) NB-L B 17.9 0.46 B 17.9 0.46 C 27.1 0.61 NB-R B 16.1 0.28 C 29.0 0.80 B 15.6 0.65 overall B 17.7 0.53 E 74.2 0.97 C 23.1 0.67 Hutch. SB WB-L D 44.7 0.84 F 86.3 0.96 C 30.5 0.76 Exit Ramp WB-R C 24.1 0.37 C 24.1 0.37 C 20.5 0.29 and NB-T A 7.1 0.51 A 7.1 0.51 A 9.7 0.56 Weaver SB-T A 6.5 0.44 A 6.6 0.45 A 8.8 0.49 Street (14) overall B 16.2 0.60 C 26,6 0.62 B 15.1 0.62 Quaker EB-L C 31.5 0.49 C 31.5 0.49 C 30.7 0.53 Ridge Rd EB-R C 34.8 0.62 C 34.8 0.62 D 35.1 0.67 and NB-LT A 9.3 0.54 A 10.0 0.58 B 12.9 0.67 Weaver SB-TR D 39.3 0.90 E 57.5 0.95 D 36.4 0.91 Street (16) overall C 27.6 0.56 D 35.2 0.59 C 27.8 0.67 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, VVB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-100 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS 0_ CD E p CO V N ti V N v- L() 4) (fl V N Ln N- CD O (0 O N- CO R N y U ti (D ,-- N CD I N- (fl 4) N O N- CD Lf) CO N N4) CO N- N 1 1 1 1 1 1 I- v' 000000 O OOOOO O 0000000 O 'a ,-- C c C O O_ y - ti O CO O CO 'Zr CO CO M CO r O o0 O V O N N O E c N O V (D oO CD '- CO O) V O O Ln CD M O N o) f- f- CO t. a) o ..;-7. p co CO N N c- N N CO CO CO 4) N CO U) LC) N r- V V Ln V O• U) 'O a _ U) ii.i C CO O ❑ 000 (00 0 ❑ 00 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (0 ❑ ❑ W ❑ 1 i 1 1 i La L Q .) co 0) CO 0) L() .- O) Ln O Ln CD N- co N O v. (JD N CO CO I- N- O CO O) d U N- CD - N O 4) 4) CD Ln N O f- CD Ln O) N CO V N N- N- '- N- N- co CO CD 00 5 O O O O N O O 0 0 6 w- O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O a m c L E o °' E LA "a '++ (?,,,T' N O Ln O 00 00 V O N O CO CO 0) f- N O '- N CD O — LU O CO N 3 C '- 6 (D f- 00 O * O * Ln N 6) N CO N CO N r'- V CD V N- O V O) (0 •• N- O '� 0) :--- --1::"? N 0 m 0 p 'Zr co N co r- M M N 6) N Ln L() f- M c- V 'cJ' Lcp L!o M V i-- N O a) N 0 0 co E 0 T LIZ 'w c c O ❑ ❑ UUWc U- ❑ UUu- U ❑ ❑ WUm ❑ ❑ W 0 0 ❑ CO < m U -a � a 0 J o c VL0 iom oz O) Oc .N 00 CO CO O) N- O 'Zr O ,- 4) O) 4) CD N- CO N O 'Zr CO I"- O) CO CO U) 6) CD V o CD o N = La U 5. N- CD '- N CO CO V UD 4) N O N- Co L.6 o0 N co •V O f- CD - CD CD N CO 4) (B CO 0. M0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O c d (n c _o O Q L. N a a 12 OQ N :E 2 .3 .4= cN O L(U O O N CO CO O CD O Ln CO 00 N- N O Q) N Ln O CD N- O 0) O F- a N D N D f- O OouP N O V N- O CO O ' V D f I` N V CD I` c COmC0V 00 4) n V V L 'Zr T ' -- < CW CI) 0 o '71- CO 0) 4• Z om CC (/) as W c as 0 ❑ ❑ UULI- Q LL ❑ UULi- U 0 0000000W a U ❑ mQm CO � ° U o 0 o o -;=• c m J1_ JLL JIY E3 i H - H. co H J JLLJQ CO � f -� F m ? : a o f > m O m on m m i J 0 (0 , J J J 5 J (0 m 1 Q O (0 (0m (0 ' a) D U O S . . Q � � wW � Zcm > ww � zcwn > w > 5ZZw 'o WwZZu-) >o .� ° QUm � w E w ca 3 cn .c "- a) U) U O o) CL 0 LI- E _ - o c o 2 O -c O o N ca CI)ii O 0 >, N 0 O -c @o cv c�aI� 3 o 0eat co m F- °j � � � � QN 76 Q co o � � Z Doti n, ( � N 4,7) r: mZQM J _� � Z c o. o U co ca a) 0 m W 0 _I > * Z _I U O 8 .0 (0 Co N c- CO N CO O t- O CO Ln CO N V N Lf) N c- N r` CO 2 N .- U CO c-- UO CO CO N N Co (fl V rt V 1 1 1 1 1 UO CO (D N 00 V N (0 N- I- F- a: > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 'p ,- c C C L O p .o , N N (O CO c- N N Co O 00 CO U) N- — O CO 0) CD N C) N pC .- co (h c- M N O c- - I- r V O ' ' , ' , ' N N - CO O I- 4 N- ;., 0 y p ' N CO .- N N N N N N CO .qt co N V CO N CO CO t a U cCO O CD CD U U co co U U U m U U U 1 U ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ W QI- U 0) O CO C) N — c- O 71- 40 N CO N 0) 0) N UO CO O) N N O N O O N f- CO CO CO LU N- Co N N CD N- O .1- (D N- t N V CO 4 N- 6 N O Lo N CO c- U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O — 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O — 0 0 0 O '� f4 a. E "a _� c- 0 40 C) Ln c- 40 O 'V' CO. CO N N O V CD N O CO Lf) N (D CO q 't N O U) ��, E cn '- "O a) N- 0) 4 CO N r C) 0) 4) v V N Co Ln C) N O O - O (D C7 V Ln N- V 6 -a z 0 m O p 'ct Lf) N N c- v- — N N -- N N CD ' M N r'- N N Co N N CO N CO 'Ct C U y a.(i) 0 U o iii 55 (1) c o m 0 ❑ W 00030303 U OL- UU LL ❑ UCO0C 0 0000U- 000 0 17) a) Et = c < 0 • • c o _ c N c9 U ' _ _ _ CD CO CD N CD V CD N- M N CD CO N LO CO N CD Cid N Co O N Co @ mm 0 •N U CO CO V f- CO N N fes- N- C) Co — (O N- V r` 't CO 't CO -Cr N CO Ln N (0 N U > 1 a NS C > 0000000 O OOOO O OOOOO O 00000000 O @ -a ch ' Y a) O C it (n a p a) d Qa a ' '«+ CO 4 COC) U) N- u) N V Ln C7 UO ) coLCO U) 7r CD CO V 't N O LU I-- w5 6) R@ m a D CO CO N- N ,- C) 4 U 6 4 N Co U) CO N CoO - CO O D CO r` L) r V dO 1/.5F- a cp CO Co N N r- r- v- N N CO N N V V CoCN N N CoN N CD CO N COCO coO C w ZV .7` da � m Cr >,W 7 O 0 U U c 0 00 m U O W O O ❑ ❑ U O O O Q U 0 0 0 U W ❑ U 0 U a - c a) - C a ( JeL Q' — CCCCCCC — � � — Q' f- — N @ o _cL Z f- J ~ 0 J @ J J J J Lia -� � � � H �Ob � � � � � � � ZD' m � � n> zzzLu m > mmzm > Ca U) o UJL Z2C6 CO: GOa°° o a) 1315 ou) „ Q U o @ U • m t aa)) u) 0 o � a) IL C @ >, o D 7 a) C O a ° O _ ''' C ` @ a) @ a) @ u@i @ O >'` O O r o C a o 3 > > o @a) ca -0 H yC @ cu m y N N �>, co N o me Q co (cD N C N N co--cs,) > a) j -C O • Z 0 Z JO ❑• > Z J Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-29 (Continued) Saturday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Signalized Intersections No Build Condition Build Condition Build Condition with Intersection Lane Mitigation Group LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Larchmont EB-LTR D 41.0 0.69 D 41.0 0.69 D 52.8 0.82 Avenue WB-LTR D 36.3 0.50 D 36.3 0.50 D 41.5 0.63 and NB-LTR E 73.4 0.98 E 73.4 0.98 D 36.9 0.88 Boston Post SB-LTR F 94.9 1.01 F 96.0 1.01 D 40.2 0.91 Road (46) overall E 73.2 0.60 E 73.6 0.60 D 41.1 0.58 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio " : Saturated Flow Condition, delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right 3.9-103 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Transportation and Traffic September 14, 2000 Table 3.9-30 Saturday PM Peak Hour-Analysis Summary Mitigated Unsignalized Intersections No Build Build Build Condition Intersection Critical Condition Condition with Mitigation Movement LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Fifth Avenue EB-T n/c n/c n/c n/c B 10.6 and EB-R n/c n/c n/c n/c A 8.1 Valley Place (2) WB-LT A 7.8 A 8.3 B 12.0 NB-LR B 11.8 C 24.2 C 23.9 Madison Avenue EB-LT A 7.7 A 8.0 C 22.7 and EB-R n/c n/c n/c n/c C 27.0 New Jefferson St./ I-95 WB-L A 8.3 B 10.3 C 32.1 Int. (10) WB-TR n/c n/c n/c n/c B 19.9 NB-LTR D 29.6 F C 34.5 SB-LT D 34.1 F 94.7 D 43.4 SB-R n/c n/c n/c n/c D 40.7 Hutchinson Avenue NB-TR n/c n/c n/c n/c A 7.5 and SB-L A 8.7 A 8.9 B 10.7 Weaver Street (15) WB-LR F 69.1 F 105.8 C 29.4 Murray Avenue NB-LT A 8.8 A 8.9 B 13.3 and SB-TR n/c n/c n/c n/c C 20.1 Weaver Street (17) EB-L F 92.9 F * C 21.7 Garden Street EB-L A 7.6 A 7.6 C 23.0 and EB-R n/c n/c n/c n/c C 34.3 Cedar Street (19) NB-TR C 19.3 C 16.5 B 13.5 SB-LT F * F * E 75.4 Beechmont Drive EB-TR n/c n/c n/c n/c C 22.8 and WB-L A 8.1 A 8.1 B 15.7 Pinebrook Blvd. West WB-T n/c n/c n/c n/c B 15.7 (23a) NB-L F 63.4 F 79.5 B 15.6 SB-LT D 27.9 D 29.7 C 26.0 LOS: Level of Service Delay: Delay in Seconds/Vehicle * : Delay can not be calculated NB: Northbound, SB: Southbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound L: Left, T: Through, R: Right n/c: Non-Critical Movement under unsignalized capacity analysis 3.9-104 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Air Quality September 14, 2000 3.10 Air Quality 3.10.1 Existing Conditions Background Air Quality With the enactment and later revisions to the Federal Clean Air Act (1990), each state was required to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) in order to provide a regulatory framework in which to implement requirements of the Act. The New York SIP adopted ambient air quality standards (AAQS) from a list of seven criteria pollutants established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). These pollutants were selected by the USEPA based on a list of pollutants of primary concern nationwide. Attainment of the AAQS is required under the Act, and each State has a designated time period in which to bring non-conforming areas into compliance. The AAQS establish levels to protect the health (primary standard) and welfare (secondary standard) of the general public with an adequate margin of safety. On September 16, 1997, the USEPA revised the standard for particulate matter, changing the standard from a limit on inhalable particulates (PM10) to a limit on respirable particulates (PM2.5). However, the PM25 standard was remanded in a court decision in 1999; the Court stating that the USEPA had not provided adequate scientific evidence to substantiate the health impacts claimed due to PM2.5. Therefore, the current PM,0 standard is applicable, and the Retail Center Project study area is considered to be in attainment with the PM,o standard. New York State is divided into nine Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR) based on geographic location. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has a network of ambient air monitoring stations located throughout the State in each of the AQCR's in order to evaluate the attainment status of each region with respect to the SIP. The Redevelopment Area is located in New Rochelle, in the southeast portion of Westchester County, which lies within the southern portion of the Region 3 AQCR. The Region 3 AQCR includes the following counties: Rockland, Orange, Putnam, Westchester, Sullivan, Dutchess, and Ulster. The federal criteria pollutants currently monitored within the Region 3 AQCR include: sulfur dioxide, ozone, total suspended particulates, inhalable particulates and lead, in addition to several non-criteria pollutants. The remaining criteria pollutants, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide are not monitored in the Region 3 AQCR, but are monitored in the Region 2 AQCR, which includes the five boroughs of New York City. Although there are no available ambient air quality monitoring data within New Rochelle, regional state monitoring data are available to characterize the Redevelopment Area. Data from the NYSDEC 1998 annual air quality report, which is the latest year of published data, are compiled in Table 3.10-1 from the closest ambient air monitoring stations located in the Region 2 and Region 3 AQCRs. Table 3.10-1 lists ambient air quality concentrations according to associated State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) which are the same as the Federal Standards. These data provide information on existing background air quality levels. Use of the regional data to represent the Redevelopment Area site provides a reasonable evaluation of local air quality, since the NYSDEC monitors are located to characterize regional ambient air quality. 3.10-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Air Quality September 14, 2000 Table 3.10-1 Regional Air Quality Data Summary Air Quality Monitoring Pollutant Period Concentration(') Standard (2) Location White Plains Ozone(03) Annual 0.023 ppm 8-Hour 0.09 ppm 0.08 ppm Mt. Ninham Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual 0.003 ppm 0.03 ppm 24-Hour 0.014 ppm 0.14 ppm 3-Hour 0.023 ppm 0.50 ppm Botanical Gardens Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual 0.030 ppm 0.05 ppm Mt. Vernon Total Suspended Particulates Annual 33µg/m3 75 µg/m3 24-Hour 76µg/m3 260 pg/m3 Suffern Inhalable Particulates(PM10)(5) Annual 21 µg/m3 50µg/m3 24-Hour 45 µg/m3 150µg/m3 Botanical Gardens Carbon Monoxide(CO) Annual 0.7 ppm (3) 8-Hour 4.7 ppm 9 Ppm 1-Hour 3.2 ppm 35 ppm Mamaroneck(4) Lead (Pb) Annual 0.03µg/m3 Quarterly 0.03µg/m3 1.5µg/m3 (1) The listed concentration for all short term standards (i.e., less than annual), except ozone, is the second highest recorded value, since the air quality standard allows one exceedance of the standard on a calendar year basis, with the exception of leas. For ozone the listed concentration is the fourth highest recorded concentration to correspond to the revised NAAQS. (2) The primary standard is listed in the table for all pollutants. The secondary 24-hour TSP standard is 150 µg/m3 and secondary TSP annual standard is 60 µg/m3. (3) The CO monitoring data is from background monitoring stations. (4) Monitoring was discontinued in 1995; therefore,the listed concentration is from 1995. (5) The PM(25) standard was remanded in a court decision in 1999; therefore, the current PM(1o) standard holds and the Retail Center Project study area is considered to be in attainment with the PM(1o)standard. - The Region 3 AQCR meets the AAQS for all criteria pollutants except ozone. The trend in the air quality has shown no significant change, but has been approximately the same over the last few years for most pollutants, with the exception of SO2. The SO2 annual concentrations measured at the Mt. Ninham monitor have increased by approximately 15 percent each year from 1994 to 1997, but decreased slightly between 1997 and 1998. The proposed Retail Center Project would have no significant impacts on local or regional SO2 emissions, so there is no concern with adversely impacting the air quality from SO2 emissions. It should be noted that high ozone levels are found throughout the northeastern United States, and non-attainment of the standard is more of a regional than a local problem, and cannot be resolved without coordinated regional air pollution control programs. The State of New York and surrounding states have developed coordinated regulatory programs to work towards bringing the region into compliance with the ozone standards. The proposed Retail Center Project is not regionally significant, and therefore should not interfere with the state or federal Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) or any of the associated ongoing programs to bring the area into compliance with the ozone AAQS. 3.10-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Air Quality September 14,2000 Vehicle Generated Air Quality Impacts — Existing Conditions The primary pollutants associated with vehicular exhaust emissions are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon monoxide (CO). Since short term exposure to elevated CO concentrations can have acute health impacts, state and federal AAQS have been developed for ambient CO concentrations to protect the health and welfare of the general public with an adequate margin of safety. There are no short term health standards (currently enforced) for NO2 and HC, since the primary concern with these pollutants is their role in the photochemical reactions that lead to the formation of secondary pollutants known as ozone (03) and "smog" which are known lung and eye irritants. Since 03 and smog formation is a slow process which occurs outside the primary impact area of the Retail Center Project, these pollutants are only reviewed on a regional (mesoscale) basis for "regionally significant" projects. Because the Retail Center Project is not regionally significant, it is "exempt" from the EPA's conformity rules and thus it is not required to be part of the "regional emissions analysis or part of the TIP"; therefore, a mesoscale air quality analysis is not required (see Appendix H for definition of regionally significant projects). Because the Retail Center Project is not a regionally significant project, all air quality impact analyses focus on local (microscale) air quality impacts and documenting compliance with the CO AAQS. During the Retail Center Project scoping meeting, thirty-nine intersections were identified, where the Lead Agency requested a traffic impact analysis be conducted. Based upon the results of the traffic impact analysis, the Traffic Engineer identified 10 intersections that would be most affected by Retail Center Project-generated traffic. These intersections were then ranked based on traffic volumes, intersection delays, and level of service (LOS) in accordance with New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) criteria to select the three intersections with the highest potential air quality impacts. In addition, since one of the initial thirty-nine intersections is an intersection that is included in the SIP, the NYSDOT criteria requires this intersection to be included in the air quality impact analysis. Therefore the following four intersections were selected for inclusion in the microscale air quality impact analysis (Figure 3.10-1): 1. Fifth Avenue and Portman Road 2. Fifth Avenue and Valley Place 3. Madison Avenue/New Jefferson/I-95 Ramps 4. Huguenot Street (US 1) / North Avenue The intersection of Fifth Avenue and Potter Avenue was not included in the detailed air quality analysis, because of the following reasons: a) with mitigation, the intersection has lower impacts than the intersections of Fifth Avenue and Portman Road and Madison Avenue/New Jefferson/I-95 Ramps; b) there are limited receptors surrounding the intersection; and c) there are no direct impacts from the proposed Retail Center parking lot at the intersection. 3.10-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Air Quality September 14, 2000 Information on the traffic volumes, vehicle delays, and level of service for No-Build and Build Year (2002) traffic was compiled for each of the above-listed intersections. These data are provided in Appendix H for the weekday PM peak hour, Saturday midday peak hour, and Saturday PM peak hour. Because the Saturday midday peak hour has the highest overall traffic volumes and traffic impacts associated with the proposed Retail Center Project, this period was selected for use in the microscale air quality impact analysis. In order to evaluate the significance of future air quality impacts associated with construction of the proposed Retail Center Project, existing air quality levels at the above-listed intersections were predicted following the NYSDOT Level I air quality analysis procedures. The Level I air quality analysis requires computing vehicular CO emissions and modeling the impact from the emissions at the closest public receptors. Vehicular emissions were predicted using the EPA MOBILE5b mobile source emission factor model for the existing year 2000. The MOBILE5b emission factors were then used in the EPA's CAL3QHC intersection air quality model to predict ambient CO concentrations. Vehicle emissions from free flow and idling vehicles entering and exiting the New England Thruway were averaged together based on average speed run data collected by the Traffic Engineer. These average emissions were included in the air quality impact analysis for the closest intersections. All assumptions used in the Level analysis are outlined in Appendix H. To predict worst case air quality concentrations, the closest sidewalks, parking areas, commercial structures, residences, recreational areas, and bus stops were used as receptors. Where there were no sidewalks or other receptors within the immediate vicinity of the intersection, receptors were placed at the closest building setbacks from the primary roadway. Peak 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations were predicted for comparison to the AAQS. In order to evaluate total CO concentrations at each intersection, the predicted peak air quality concentrations are summed with background CO concentrations representative of the Retail Center Project site. Background CO concentrations used in the air quality analysis for existing conditions were 3.7 ppm (1-hour) and 2.6 ppm (8-hour). Air quality impacts were modeled assuming neutral atmospheric stability conditions (Class D) and a 1 meter per second wind speed, which is representative of worst case dispersion conditions for urban areas. The predicted existing air quality concentrations within the vicinity of each intersection, including background concentrations, are presented in Table 3.10-2. All predicted existing air quality concentrations were well below the AAQS. Table 3.10-2 Existing Condition Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 1-Hour(1.2)CO 8-Hour(1,2)CO Intersection Analysis Concentration Concentration Period (ppm) (ppm) Fifth Avenue and Portman Road Sat Midday 4.8 3.4 _ Fifth Avenue and Valley Place Sat Midday 4.7 3.3 _ Madison Avenue/New Jefferson/I-95 Ramps Sat Midday 4.9 3.4 Huguenot and North Avenue Sat Midday 9.4 6.6 (1) All CO concentrations include a background concentration of 3.7 ppm(1-hr)and 2.6 ppm (8-hour). (2) The AAQS for carbon monoxide are: 35 ppm(1-hr)and 9 ppm (8-hr). 3.10-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS <f-V71----1- 7. r / 1' �t�� ';rip ag, i n. ✓ trS c�� Q Ju/ •V/ J o / l Cm O �••! n a , -' / a Ismiss �� Q / 41;4: s / Ro Y =c,ip, 6�/ 2 /o ‘N, 4,r,/,'/� /VE !Nj AIR \VCJ n Sea 4001*- NI�. \\ • £ 1 ,t100• \ \ J�'~ v 125 l-_,A 1V .1'.< `�'r., - : Y �i 2 Q trt AJ EOGE S 0(;------' ,�.c`G�, 17!LI A..e. OY Raim l :� \ 1NG C �/ )---,\ -W and (�\ 70 :I; Aor 4, :,, tech•. , ` m Pg0 Sch .,, , *4, ) ' Hug enot tt7 . , .n t� DR �V-) r` PARK �• * .� aa( /\ v�j� '° e 1 -- ,,,.........„1„. 6S t V � � „,.., �:./Sq/P�� �aC.r�y\V J D t't �` I.`' .NS 1OV t pP„ .,, if „, •I"=Pa k'\ \ rs' /� ' �� \ \\��� ♦ ; /�� ® hat-•oy Av • J ` v2 )\� g Dna a wens o ►N-'. /t / {a $ 7.l� Rp a �l til J,S , \\ y ,�4 bJ �C✓ „ifkl1 .5 ilfao t C I., �� • 1 , 5_ och �4 ' ' / )' se -. C: -';\ ay Ow J 3 y L :.ly aJ it. ..,�_ ;Rp0„5;'4 \�� JE • ights G `P y9� `t\(,_\ J-\` N �V/ � '> JWr -k ' '�' P / o O ♦ '� 1 4y�csWER f�� i� , j�rl .. . 71 1 ,60y 2\� �� ~ P. k t HAM /-♦ &`- -2i / /^'(�� t~ � ,,Ca`T A���� v� \��%/ \�4. ;:• j�6J O � ,L� �. Vr_�pO.- t •L2f1 tF�^- a.ke in - s /t �i �� 7 ,m Ho 1.4074,-014� Avei68 1 ,t \ ��4.� \t ` ca ^, / i . 1,1�yl�� ',steJ� 1 ' .az e , ;:/ �/ U It\ \\�� - r u—....---\. = a' ,r��! A� �/L,//J V,t!5 l \� �e"�1 --� �`J� -.10„) �'arki't -�-65 y ;tn "' e \ ��o�\\/// ,-'., �;r /r / {_a;- �- ,, . L ice;. 4 \ A / ` 1l Premium }, a I �„ �'_�'t i� 1i i E 't J Vit/✓' (� �\\c-',"•‘ 1"_,, trA / ' �Millpmd �♦ 725 0Me a[ AVE alL /,g \ rmOf r/:, \� :liffo,..,1:k c 1� 084 j . a�.. r< ,O °ti,+►••. ��� tCA�• . 4/ ` yam'--\34 S • e� oo r ? ' / `,('' s,...,,,,,::,_ Loo ' v� r � � tLa/// ar 5� , V �� Fno Park II x _'en F 7G- f ae G T‘tif '''/4'1 � F°Stcci y.', fafz t� r7 r;. X � Table us roN 1q �C\v �� w 3 lgu t *'..;' Rock br Sen WASNN �, •t e b el 9 a r: � \ l// & kTd •s?: l� 8eci a acht is . : ..--- U lcn o L `St 4. ,, ' ' ,'/ �` .•f OA-, .;6 rrison 1/ �c, 3 \��`�� M'4 ,�TJ\sh Stn //o� -- , Oc), 1r �+ ` Eeauforf° ! al'r N y 4i .- y \ y 14. :‘,' r so` P'X a. it �=z--'`,..----- \:,��� �t �� 55 // oQ�o•�,:Lt\` Echo .:�� i. rem'Um 1 opt ` •. s ;tyl'.. �;:e3� Duck cit Pt 1 1 Cemetery c' ` oo ' 1 ✓ , �, Pt a ( - i i• os �� =Echo Tiay �. (m ` Cemetery s- �G�oy sn�itY � BaiEey 22 Hicks 1 _ �, Dung �� '‘1..1' '•;'?3 6 6 Ledge / /� v Sch r tjRock ,eS Kt �' `yY H ), p } ;-/' g �yR.:\i.e11 a`�Qi��\ v i/ u'T 4, S of .-aEc2ho a. zs ,,_,_9( , e,,,, e_., ' 'q ..,)A., 1, / �' £L OLL: E'o F ,( C l` ,t4GS v l?� „, . �”; �2 oc , LL k� of �� ,�. 4 / Legend i h O 1/ ` �/. ire ' a t1C4.,./1 P =���3t5374 95 'r.I A„-i., \V,gl-.sed ... t 01 4 • / O Analyzed Intersection ' /r fferron \ Cem _..(4A. i \a.•,w?r-',i Park °' N Figure 3.10-1 : Traffic Intersections Included in Air Quality Analysis W E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York s Source: N.Y.S.D.O.T. Mount Vernon Quadrangle Map 9916 Fig 3.10-1 AQSA TMA 06/13/00 Scale: 1 Inch=2,000 Feet Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, NY 10516(914) 265-4400, Fax: 265-4418 Air Quality September 14,2000 3.10.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions - No-Build Condition In order to evaluate the significance of future air quality impacts associated with construction of the proposed Retail Center Project, air quality levels without the Retail Center Project were modeled for comparison to Retail Center Project Build impacts. A Level I air quality analysis was performed for the four selected intersections following the same procedures as outlined under existing conditions. Vehicular emissions were predicted using the EPA MOBILE5b mobile source emission factor model for Build Year 2002. The MOBILE5b emission factors were then used in the EPA's CAL3QHC intersection air quality model to predict ambient CO concentrations. Future No-Build projected traffic volumes and intersection capacity analyses were used in the air quality impact analysis. All assumptions used in the Level I analysis are outlined in Appendix H. The predicted No-Build air quality concentrations within the vicinity of each intersection, including background concentrations, are presented in Table 3.10-3. All predicted No-Build air quality concentrations were well below the AAQS. The air quality concentrations decreased from the predicted existing conditions, due to decrease in vehicular emissions associated with retirement of older vehicles on the roadways that are replaced with newer vehicles that are designed to meet newer more stringent emission standards. Table 3.10-3 2002 No-Build Condition Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 1-Hour(1'2)CO 8-Hour (1.2)CO Intersection Analysis Concentration Concentration Period (ppm) (ppm) Fifth Avenue and Portman Road Sat Midday 4.7 3.3 Fifth Avenue and Valley Place Sat Midday 4.5 3.2 Madison Avenue/New Jefferson/I-95 Ramps Sat Midday 4.7 3.3 Huguenot and North Avenue Sat Midday 8.7 6.1 (1) All CO concentrations include a background concentration of 3.7 ppm (1-hr) and 2.6 ppm (8-hour). (2) The AAQS for carbon monoxide are:35 ppm(1-hr) and 9 ppm (8-hr). 3.10.3 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions - Build Condition A traffic analysis was prepared to evaluate the impact of the proposed Retail Center Project along the primary access routes to and from the Retail Center site. Using data prepared as part of the traffic analysis, a microscale air quality impact analysis was performed in accordance with procedures published by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) as outlined in the document titled "Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 1.A: Air Quality, (Draft revisions dated June, 1999)". This guidance document provides criteria for determining the potential for a project to have an adverse local air quality impact, and for selecting the intersections which may have the highest impact. The guidance document also provides procedures on how to conduct a Level I microscale air quality impact analysis. 3.10-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Air Quality September 14, 2000 In accordance with the NYSDOT criteria, the three intersections with the lowest level of service, highest traffic delays, or largest increase in the proposed Retail Center Project Build traffic should be selected for analysis using the Level I air quality impact analysis procedures. If the Level I analysis demonstrates acceptable air quality conditions at the three intersections with the worst case traffic conditions, then the remaining intersections do not require a Level I analysis, since impacts at the remaining intersections should be lower. At the intersections adjacent to the Retail Center Project site, vehicular emissions from the parking areas closest to the intersection were included in the analysis. Vehicles entering and exiting the proposed Retail Center site and traveling within the proposed parking lot were modeled at an average travel speed of 15 mph. Each exiting and entering vehicle was assumed to idle for 1-minute, and idling emissions were added to the freeflow emissions. The travel distance was assumed to be 1-1/2 times the distance between the proposed Retail Center site entrance and the center of the proposed parking lot for cars entering and looking for a parking space. For cars exiting the proposed parking lot, the travel distance was assumed to be 1/2 the distance between the proposed Retail Center site exit and the center of the parking lot, assuming cars would leave through the closest exit. Vehicles idling in queue at the proposed Retail Center site exits were modeled separately; however, freeflow emissions from vehicles entering the proposed Retail Center site were included with the parking lot emissions. The proposed parking lot was modeled with the adjacent intersection using the same CAL3QHC model run by entering the length and width of the parking lot as a roadway link. A Level I air quality analysis was performed for the four selected intersections following the same procedures as outlined under existing conditions. Vehicular emissions were predicted using the EPA MOBILE5b mobile source emission factor model for Build Year 2002. Proposed Retail Center site-generated traffic were modeled separately from existing traffic, assuming 0 percent cold starts and 0 percent hot starts for the arriving vehicles, and 100 percent cold and 0 percent hot starts for the departing vehicles. The MOBILE5b emission factors were then used in the EPA's CAL3QHC intersection air quality model to predict ambient CO concentrations for comparison to the AAQS and NYSDOT criteria. Future proposed Retail Center Build-projected traffic volumes and intersection capacity analyses were used in the air quality impact analysis. All assumptions used in the Level I analysis are outlined in Appendix H. The predicted Retail Center Project Build air quality concentrations within the vicinity of each intersection (without mitigation), including background concentrations, are presented in Table 3.10-4. All predicted Retail Center Build air quality concentrations were well below the AAQS. However, because No-Build concentrations are low at the three receptor sites located at Fifth Avenue and Portman Road, Fifth Avenue and Valley Place, and Madison Avenue/New Jefferson/ 1-95 Ramps, and Build concentrations result in an increase of more than 0.5 ppm, (the de-minimus value), the proposed Retail Center Project would result in a significant impact at these locations. 3.10-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Air Quality September 14, 2000 Table 3.10-4 2002 Build Condition Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations(Without Mitigation) 1-Hour(1.2)CO 8-Hour(1,2)CO Intersection Analysis Concentration Concentration Period (ppm) (ppm) Fifth Avenue and Portman Road Sat Midday 8.5 6.0 Fifth Avenue and Valley Place Sat Midday 6.7 4.7 Madison Avenue/New Jefferson/I-95 Ramps Sat Midday 5.9 4.1 Huguenot and North Avenue Sat Midday 8.7 6.1 (1) All CO concentrations include a background concentration of 3.7 ppm (1-hr) and 2.6 ppm (8-hour). (2) The AAQS for carbon monoxide are: 35 ppm(1-hr) and 9 ppm (8-hr). Mitigation measures were examined at each of these locations. Traffic signals were proposed at the Fifth Avenue and Valley Place intersection and Madison Avenue / New Jefferson/I-95 Ramps. Because the volume of traffic along Fifth Avenue at Valley Place and Madison Avenue/New Jefferson/I-95 Ramps results in significant delays without a traffic signal and because the predicted 8-hour CO concentrations under Build Conditions increased by more than 0.5 ppm (SIP de-minimus criteria), mitigative measures were evaluated at the unsignalized intersections. As a traffic mitigation measure, traffic signals are proposed at each of these intersections. Signal timing changes were also proposed at the Fifth Avenue and Portman Road intersection. The predicted CO concentrations with the proposed mitigation measures in place are presented in Table 3.10-5. The air quality impacts predicted with mitigation are higher than without mitigation. This is due to the use of default emission rates at 5 mph when unmitigated, since the model cannot accurately predict vehicle delays for intersections over capacity. Table 3.10-5 2002 Build Condition Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (With Mitigation) 1-Hour(1'2)CO 8-Hour(1,2)CO Intersection Analysis Concentration Concentration Period (ppm) (ppm) Fifth Avenue and Portman Road Sat Midday 9.8 6.9 Fifth Avenue and Valley Place Sat Midday 7.5 5.3 Madison Avenue/New Jefferson/I-95 Ramps Sat Midday 7.8 5.5 (1) All CO concentrations include a background concentration of 3.7 ppm (1-hr)and 2.6 ppm (8-hour). (2) The AAQS for carbon monoxide are: 35 ppm(1-hr) and 9 ppm (8-hr). The predicted CO concentrations with mitigation still exceed the 0.5 ppm SIP de-minimus criteria at all three intersections. At these three locations, the Retail Center Project could have a significant impact, even though the predicted CO concentrations are still well below the AAQS. There are no practicable mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce pollutant levels to within the 0.5 ppm de-minimus criteria. Because existing traffic volumes are extremely low, any activity in the area that increases traffic activity will result in an exceedance of the de-minimus criteria. 3.10-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Air Quality September 14, 2000 It should be noted that the predicted CO concentrations are worst case air quality impacts, using conservative modeling methods, summed with worst case background CO concentrations in order to ensure that the AAQS would be attained. These concentrations are not representative of average conditions. 3.10.4 Operational Air Quality Impacts The proposed Retail Center Project would include equipment that uses natural gas for hot water, heating, and other miscellaneous sources. Operation of this equipment would generate byproducts of natural gas combustion (primarily NOx and CO). These sources are similar to sources used in many residential homes, but are larger in size. Air emissions from this equipment are considered to be insignificant, since the heat input rating of the equipment is below the NYSDEC insignificant source thresholds. Also, the Retail Center Project would result in the removal of 66 structures in the Redevelopment Area, many of which use older, less efficient heating equipment. These source operations are generally considered to have no significant air quality impact; therefore, air quality impacts were not quantified. 3.10.5 Construction Air Quality Impacts Construction activities on the proposed Retail Center Project site would have a potential impact on the local air quality through generation of fugitive or airborne dust. Demolition of existing structures would be required, which can be a source of fugitive dust if not controlled properly. Fugitive dust is also generated during ground clearing and excavation activities as earth moving equipment modifies the land form to its final elevation. Throughout the construction period, passage of delivery trucks and other vehicles over temporary dirt roads and other exposed soil surfaces also generates fugitive dust. Products of fuel combustion are also generated by construction equipment; however, these emissions are generally insignificant in comparison to vehicular emissions from adjacent roadways and businesses if the equipment is properly maintained and the engines tuned. Construction related impacts would vary based on the proximity of the activities to the adjacent properties and the type and amount of construction equipment used for each Retail Center Project phase. However, to address construction related activities, measures have been proposed for each type of construction activity to minimize the overall effect on the air quality. If such measures are properly applied, adverse air quality impacts should be largely eliminated; therefore, a quantitative impact analysis related to construction activities has not been performed. 3.10.6 Mitigation Measures Mitigative Measures for Vehicular Generated Emissions As part of the New York SIP, the NYSDEC requires that projects that trigger the conduct of a Level I air quality impact analysis (such as the proposed Retail Center Project) demonstrate that they will not exceed the AAQS. In addition, for projects located in Westchester and Nassau Counties, if the air quality impact analysis shows a significant impact (i.e., increase in the 8-hour CO concentration between No-Build and Build Conditions exceeds 0.5 ppm), mitigative 3.10-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Air Quality September 14,2000 measures to reduce the severity of the air quality impact and insure attainment and maintenance of the AAQS must be examined. Mitigative measures to lessen the potential air quality impacts have been proposed for the Retail Center Project; however, there are no mitigative measures that are practical or feasible which will reduce air quality impacts below the NYSDEC 0.5 ppm de-minimus criteria. Since all predicted CO concentrations with the proposed mitigative measures are well below the AAQS, the Retail Center Project would be in conformance with the SIP. Dust Control Measures During Construction Activities Dust generation is a short term impact associated with most construction projects that involve demolition and/or soil disturbance. Methods that would be used to control dust include minimizing the area of the proposed Retail Center Project site which is subject to disturbance at any one time, use of mulch or other temporary covers on exposed soil areas, limiting the movement of trucks and construction equipment over exposed soil surfaces and covering haul trucks. During dry weather conditions, spraying water on unpaved areas subject to heavy construction vehicle traffic will help control dust. Paved areas should also be kept clear of loose dirt that can be re-entrained into the air during vehicle passage. The use of stone tracking pads or tire washing stations at access points to the site will greatly lessen the tracking of soil onto adjacent roadways. Proper control of fugitive dust generation is essential during demolition of structures. Prior to demolition of structures, adequate wetting procedures to prevent the spreading of dust should be employed. Covered chutes should be used when dropping materials from elevated structures. All debris should be thoroughly wet down before loading and while dumping into trucks and other containers. Toppling of walls should also be avoided. When freezing temperatures preclude the use of water to prevent the spread of dust, alternative measures should be evaluated. Haul vehicles should always be covered to prevent dust emissions while in transit to the disposal site. With minimal site maintenance and careful attention to demolition activities, impacts from fugitive dust can be maintained below the state or federal AAQS at off-site properties. Although exhaust emissions from construction equipment are not as significant as fugitive dust generation, particulates from diesel exhaust emission should also be controlled through proper tuning of the vehicles engine and maintenance of the air pollution controls. This will minimize additional contribution to site-generated particulate emissions during construction. 3.10-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Noise September 14,2000 3.11 Noise 3.11.1 Existing Conditions Noise Characteristics Noise can be defined as undesirable or "unwanted sound." Even though noise is somewhat subjective, it affects the full range of human activities and must be considered in local and regional planning. Most of the sounds heard in the environment are not composed of a single frequency, but are a band of frequencies, each with a different intensity or level. Levels of noise are measured in units called decibels. It should be noted that a one decibel change in noise is the smallest change detectable by the human ear under suitable laboratory conditions. However, under normal conditions, a change in noise level of two or three decibels is required for most people to notice a difference. Tables 3.11-1 and 3.11-2 show community perception of noise change and response to increased levels. Environmental noise is considered with regard to several factors, including level - which relates to perceived loudness of a noise - but also its character, duration, time of day and frequency of occurrence. The level of a noise is measured and expressed in decibels (dB). Commonly, a standardized A-weighting is applied to sound levels to correct for certain characteristics of human hearing. The A-weighted sound level (dBA) is useful for gauging and comparing the subjective loudness of sounds. Since dBA describes a noise level at just one instant and since ambient noise levels are constantly varying, other ways of describing noise levels, especially over extended periods, are needed. Commonly used descriptors include L10, Lso, Leq, LMax, and Ldn. L10 represents the noise level exceeded ten percent of the time during the period of measurement. It is normally taken as the mean of the peak noise levels during the passage of vehicles on a roadway. Similarly, L90 represents the noise level exceeded ninety percent of the time during the period of measurement. The equivalent noise level, or Leq, is defined as the level of continuous sound containing the same amount of acoustical energy as the fluctuating sound over the same period. Leq is used in the prediction of future noise levels, by logarithmically adding the contributions from new noise sources to the existing levels, and in relating annoyances to increased noise levels. Leq is being increasingly recognized as an adequate noise measure by national and international regulatory agencies. LMax is the maximum sound level recorded during a noise monitoring period. This measurement generally reflects short-term impulsive noise sources such as honking horns. The day-night sound level, Ldn, is a noise rating developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for specifications of community noise from all sources. The Ldn includes a weighting penalty of 10 dBA added to sound levels occurring between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. For periods of peak traffic operation, the Leg is approximately equal to the 24-hour Ldn. 3.11-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 TABLE 3.11-1 Perception of Changes in Noise Levels Change Average Ability to Perceive Changes in Noise Levels (dBA) Human Perception of Change 2-3 Barely perceptible 5 Readily Noticeable 10 A doubling or halving of the loudness of sound 20 A dramatic change 40 Difference between a faintly audible sound and a very loud sound Source: Bolt Baranek and Neuman, Inc. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Report No. PB-222-703. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, June 1973. TABLE 3.11-2 Community Response to Increases in Noise Levels Estimated Community Response Change (dBA) Category Description 0 None No observed reaction 5 Little Sporadic complaints 10 Medium Widespread complaints 15 Strong Threats of community action 20 Very strong Vigorous community action SOURCE: International Standard Organization, Noise Assessment with Respect to Community Reactions, 150/TC 43. (New York: United Nations, November 1969.) Applicable Noise Standards The New Rochelle Code (Section 213, Article II) establishes sound level standards for the City. The New Rochelle Code prohibits the operation of any device which exceeds the levels shown in Table 3.11-3. The neighboring Town of Mamaroneck's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 141 of the Town Code) does not specify maximum allowable sound levels for different zoning districts or activities, but rather prohibits "unnecessary noise" which is defined as "all noises that menace the health or disturb the peace and quiet of the Town (are prohibited) at any time of the day or night." Neither municipality has code provisions, which explicitly deal with the effects of aggregate traffic due to a project. Noise from construction activity is regulated under Section 213-22 of the New Rochelle Code. The proposed Retail Center Project would be required to comply with the provisions of the City Code. The Code establishes the following noise limitations for a manufacturing district, which currently apply to the Redevelopment Area: "During a 24 hour period, noise levels shall not exceed 80 db(A) when measured at the construction site boundary." 3.11-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14,2000 TABLE 3.11-3 Applicable New Rochelle Noise Standards USE Standard MOTOR VEHICLES: Vehicles> 10,000 lbs<35 mph 86 dBA Vehicles> 10,000 lbs>35 mph 90 dBA Other vehicles <35 mph 76 dBA Other vehicles>35 mph 82 dBA Stationary motor vehicle(s)on public highway> 10,000 lbs 88 dBA Refuse-collecting vehicles 80 dBA RECEIVING LAND USES: Manufacturing districts 70 dBA for a 24 hour duration M-1 district at residential district boundary L10 of 60 dBA M-1 district at commercial district boundary L10 of 65 dBA Residential district between 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM 65 dBA or L10 of 60 dBA Residential district between 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM 55 dBA or L10 of 50 dBA CONSTRUCTION SITES: In Manufacturing districts-during a 24 hour period 80 dBA In residential districts-between 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM L10 of 70 dBA at 400 feet In residential districts-between 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM L10 of 55 dBA at 400 feet SOURCE: New Rochelle Code, Section 213,Article II In addition, the New Rochelle Code prohibits "unreasonable noise" between the hours of 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM. Unreasonable noise is defined in the Code, as follows: "Any excessive or unreasonably loud sound made with the intent to or which recklessly creates a risk of disturbing the peace, comfort, or repose of a reasonable person of normal sensitivities, injuring or endangering the health or safety of a reasonable person of normal sensitivities, or causing injury to plant or animal life or damage to property or business." FHWA and NYSDOT Guidelines The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise guidelines recommend exterior design noise levels for various land uses exposed to noise generated by vehicular traffic from highways. The FHWA noise guidelines are shown in Table 3.11-4. Given the proximity of Interstate 95, these guidelines are relevant for comparative purposes. 3.11-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 As described in Table 3.11-4, the Redevelopment Area includes lands that would fit into FHWA Categories B and C. The FHWA establishes an exterior design noise level of 67 dBA (Leq) for Category B lands, and 72 dBA (Leq) for Category C lands. However, noise levels approaching these levels are also regulated. The definition of "approaching" is 1 dBA below the design noise level or 66 dBA for Category B areas and 71 dBA for Category C areas. The FHWA recommends use of noise abatement measures for areas where the recommended noise levels are exceeded. TABLE 3.11-4 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Category Noise Abatement Criteria Description of Activity Category L10 Leq A 60 57 Tracts of land for which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and which serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could include amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks, open spaces, or historic districts that are dedicated or recognized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet. B (Exterior) 70 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds (Exterior) active sports areas, and parks that are not included in Category A, and residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C (Exterior) 75 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Category A or B above. D* -- -- For requirements on underdeveloped lands, see paragraphs 11a and c of Federal Aid Highway Program Manual Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3. E (Interior) 55 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals,and auditoriums. SOURCE: FHWA Report "A Field Review of Highway Traffic Noise Impact Identification and Mitigation Decision-making Processes". *FHWA Report does not identify any noise abatement threshold for Category(interior or exterior). Leq is the average sound pressure level measured in decibels over a select time period. L,o is the upper ten percent of the sound pressure level measured in decibels over any select period of time. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) utilizes noise impact criteria based on the FHWA criteria. NYSDOT criteria are primarily applied to highway projects. Two criteria are used by NYSDOT to assess impacts: 1) whether future noise levels are projected to exceed the National Abatement Criteria (NAC); and 2) whether there is a substantial increase (considered to be six dBA) over existing noise levels. As shown in Table 3.11-4, the NAC establishes absolute noise level thresholds for land use categories. The Leq thresholds for Category B and C are 67 and 72 dBA, respectively. 3.11-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 Noise Monitoring Methodology Noise monitoring locations were identified based on projected increases in traffic volumes and existing sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area. As specified in the DEIS scope, existing noise levels were monitored at appropriate locations in the vicinity of intersections projected to experience a doubling of traffic in terms of passenger car equivalents (PCEs) resulting from the proposed Retail Center. This screening methodology is consistent with the procedures described in the New York City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual. A doubling of PCEs, absent any other changes would result in a 3 dBA increase in noise levels, and was used for screening purposes to determine possible receptor locations. They include the following (numbers correspond to those identified in Chapter 3.9 of the DEIS, Transportation and Traffic): • (1) Fifth Avenue & Portman Road, New Rochelle; • (2) Fifth Avenue &Valley Place / MacLeay Apartment Buildings, New Rochelle; • (9) Fifth Avenue & Potter Avenue (and single family residence at 15 Potter Avenue) New Rochelle; • (10) Madison Avenue & New Jefferson Street / 1-95 Interchange 17, Mamaroneck; and • (22) Petersville Road, and Palmer Avenue, New Rochelle. Potentially sensitive noise receptors include a variety of land uses, including residences, churches, community facilities (parks, schools), hospitals, day care centers, nursing homes, and senior residence facilities. Noise monitoring was conducted at the following receptor locations in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area: • (A) Holy Light Apostolic Church / Lemke Park, Lemke Place, New Rochelle; • (B) Murray Avenue School at Murray Avenue and Forest Avenue, Mamaroneck; • (C) Chatsworth Gardens Apartment Building / Memorial Park, Chatsworth Avenue & Murray Avenue, Mamaroneck; • (D) William Flower Park (baseball field), Fifth Avenue, New Rochelle; and • (E) Apartment Building, 35 Chatsworth Avenue, Mamaroneck. The existing and future PCEs were calculated for each noise monitoring location in the following manner (vehicle classification data derived from the traffic study): Each heavy truck or bus = 85 PCEs Each medium truck = 16 PCEs Each automobile or light truck = 1 PCE The noise monitoring methodology was reviewed and the monitoring locations were accepted by the City of New Rochelle prior to conducting the noise monitoring. The noise monitoring program is described in a Technical Memorandum to the City of New Rochelle found in Appendix 0. The locations of the noise monitoring sites are shown on Figure 3.11-1. 3.11-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 A Quest M-29 logging noise analyzer with a windscreen was used to monitor existing ambient noise levels at ten locations within a one mile radius of the Redevelopment Area. Nine of the ten monitoring locations were situated within the one-half mile secondary land use study area. One additional monitoring location (Site B) was at the Murray Avenue School in the Town of Mamaroneck, located approximately one mile northeast from the Redevelopment Area. Measurements were recorded between 15 and 20 minutes in length to establish a representative interval. Noise levels were monitored during the days and times shown in Table 3.11-5. The noise monitoring was conducted during fair weather conditions with no precipitation and low wind speeds of 10 mph or less. Noise monitoring equipment was calibrated before each use. A tripod was utilized to stabilize the noise monitoring equipment while in use. The tripod was placed a minimum of three feet away from any sound reflecting surface. Noise monitoring was conducted by TMA environmental personnel with professional experience in operating noise monitoring equipment. Noise levels were monitored at or as close as possible to the locations of potential receptors. At intersections where a doubling of PCEs is projected, noise levels were monitored from an adjacent sidewalk, at a distance of approximately 25 feet from the road where possible. At sensitive receptor locations, noise levels were monitored at or near the point where the sensitive receptors (court yards, play areas, doorways) are and will be exposed to traffic noise. TABLE 3.11-5 Noise Monitoring Times Time Period Date Hours Midday Wednesday, March 15, 2000 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM Evening` Wednesday, March 15, 2000 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM Night Tuesday, March 14, 2000 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM Midday* Saturday, March 18,2000 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM Evening Saturday, March 18, 2000 4:00 to 7:00 PM *Noise monitoring occurred during peak hour traffic on local roads. Existing Noise Sources Sources of noise in the Redevelopment Area include the following: • Vehicular noise caused by automobile and truck traffic on Interstate-95 (the most dominant - noise source); • Vehicular noise caused by automobile, bus, and truck traffic on Fifth Avenue; • School bus noise from buses entering and exiting the parking lots in or adjacent to the Redevelopment Area during weekday early mornings, midday, and afternoons; • Train traffic on the railroad line adjacent to Interstate-95; • Commercial and industrial land uses; and • Pedestrian activity along sidewalks and park areas. 3.11-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS .._ y • PO a ... fl e `-, `_ROAO r �� N atQ // r 5NE r p r_. LANOSQOWN o PO \� \+� , ! c- RO r Country CtubORC 0 !Okw,' <°R • zO % .•0 z ‘;=.± SE P ��0 �� OP1 O ' Jt P P i 0P IgIi E900pOSb� ��• PO0P ¢tT •QA I O G E51 Oe < a y0P �G} 0 S791.- Rlv - �3 a l* r�.irtta o f �C P P 2 0,10:°t 8�E� • ' 4P0 CR 5 .RJGS� 90 O4• y � • SS v Sa A. Q 0°JYEiP �QP�t�t� �• i E° i ,� . 1 P �� • 00 QSORQ a 'P <A. " • P L OSPm 11 Q ^Y 4a • c JE>,'• P0P00 $CfRA ! POPO .agCH)'L'O•,• , 900 •O��POP\,yg „/�OY�Pp'JO < Au ° P 14, o'o • P' jDF'y 't• i 0� \ Q�'POSE ty.A. PP�,0CEN I o v • N P P 0 d'o e J/00 o i C4ES �P o, _ ySy�9F _ •v H , y 8 `�S Tye / y0 SE G UE 4 F y v+ r O' j 6lgC '11,,, C\ P1 _? • If Co N SPEC 2 m ~ I: p C. C p `� ^•5 6CH0 ',op O. 't•\YY C•t LOAD ac �.. i AJ ,"‘s.. 1,, OJ.1. l ,� j r Q� b$�0 .SETON • ', PiE 't,- 0 `t`' �P° g4'lL t. gqi �O U C T p1 � W O 0 ° C �G R ' �• J �°a�`e/ RI q • G� <9 G �POki; •'',Oy�°° TJP �� , HILL it'..' y a V E s�-c7 t o '` , 1 0^� o Os •, - fo o -00 °S • Rlo�\• v+\LDwoo• ,Z, o _-''( �x to. .4" / e `� k‘49X1. O W "' n J fE 3• ° 0 OD Q ,R OE 9p r ` !�. oqti aJE �+ A' a P P 0)N `� OaO 't g '� P vo ? 10D� - A`E O0 y51 YP JO �A `` 125 G a J �c t o y S P,jJtL 1F: IL �. 4°. • �? J' YY\ A C O ORES m BAOO N Jam• • 'J. 4, v \" D EAl'� 0•C 'Y J� 9S'p-, p• G .,EN V E PJE •O� • PJE o I F _ GLEN t �•z 't.'.4, ,� Vi- IN { c -p„, t • ,Ge O. 0 L SIN' yao., /9 40`'‘) � 0 1yF- Fyv -P • l is ; 3 e • j� `y� v MOUN \ yyE o. ED SALo St A P �yy o0 ry SON m i i/ o m m m z�► �• C j j--A �jp a 0 A°c P° x p• o ,y,9. '//����, // ` �O'$ Y�t' jA\ '� z oo cs0 1 4...i. S' .// �� PP c RO /(l' •, ,-/ PPS' F 3taO \\ GAgfN y OF! /+Oq rEr / P \ Q ` 0'e<FL�( \rte/1 PPI - JE C!A , .- !''O\//�1\\�) 1/ RD fGyy �OAOR0`y0?R, • _ '•. /J O ,$�O4- \ •4 P AO/ P' rn �-SP1 z l �P �7 O /,/ �oF`o t�,Pob ��RE O P E E �y tt8 a QIP \`N �� v «. Location Key �m ROAD ' aO tiP E� Tr40sO °PPk\� VSO e j a� X0• 0 J 44. -r po/vy 1 ,' !� 5 " Pt- _ ' Q O P4/4 �Py' Sa,P�yw • P=t aw P OQ0 ,P�Ga 1P „,,..N.„`Q9 �' 'CiCjL I� ts oRIJ4 �cQP Q �� ss \g ° a PCD Intersections Projected to have aQ,FRL•°" Il "�� . �`\ H°YT > AJEP `F /1:- ,d**1 Qyo. P° 4 ,��" 9QDoubling of Passenger Car Equivalents PY =� YEo dD •F "` -- * ,P° F ' �CIRC NPRO,- `\ ?► W 0 4LF T ,�O -aLE•P00 P� �Qyy C7C 6'pl 1 Fifth Avenue and Portman Road BAa \ pD ` A J/J///� A. PaP Q,, ``'r ". o O N �- �jp 'Q• R.IYy PLACE ARK // .�1,� tr J t ✓/ JP G y '1,s, i` 9'TI I [� Fifth Avenue and ValleyPlace/MacLeayApartments �•NT Q�V 4 0 \ n Ll m-1.- •:' eP �CH�O�ya q� 4� s� P ,4• m Z -91..-64• 1 -, °I`A \ ` a ® �„F o �� �� L� O9 Fifth Avenue and Potter Avenue o -.• Ee¢ 1~ •` e- 9, = 'N� `� �\ / ,�,,o` SoUNo .o`�P soy t E S ECS EYI^ ,� z PSS \ r SS F• £��� 4'4' .� 4' Q q 'l 10 Madison Avenue and New Jefferson Street/I-95 c�\a E ey P E Py \ �� n / �/ p�N�9` JESAN' !\ qy � oP z PJ JE F \ E 00 ,.S • s- 0 R PJ OQ•0POy4.0 © Petersville Road, Potter Avenue and Palmer Avenue yER z t P p '��N ��'.^..., ��� �/' P4 PS i 1 p� - �9��� 9� 0� •1UYVESANT o� P o A� 3 44 HIyY`� ONOQES'( z.� ", AVEo N`v /.I J z /0 o OYIO0i 5 a'P ...--�.�'Nip> .. 0`y yS O Ct Io Sensitive Noise Receptorst Y E VOOoli ���° Q SSP°° P1` ,�� y1NC°5 gD FA] it a PJ ''� ,S, PP - ¢ 1 0 SE 9c SP''A a x Tc'3. Holy Light Apolistic Church/Lemke Park r 74 C ''''‘11' ' v� G 4. •RTLACT E S sa AN •-r,,. v4+ s• v m b0 t E © Murray Avenue School `4000\,ENSRoo" x� . . �T 0' 1 P°RD o- °•030 0 o m A. 9sr Pos MANOR' E R O 1 W o\ -,.. cc WAY < 9 h © Apartment Building and Park AR" 0 „PL � '^r 0A [v QT < ~ 6 0' / °� Y��P y s�P°° ? N11, °°o Z CHUM > ,E H°�N '4 + � I . 1 0 s 1�. / eP -" m o yQ' ER� po JO OS D William Flower Park E w90 T E OCUM tS PO ` AVE DEJARO yE pL // \Nf\Eye NCE4 A Z ` \ OP lG Sti _❑ D O� 4 2 AJgL ST• SO w SPE o_ !i e'ELM®<QE Apartment Building �� �,yORE1pIC CI .1.. Jti ® 1".% 00 oN s 7' 9G Y P � 0 . . • CHE "� \:,PO osr !Fa PYE / ` �` ZC E¢ 5 ,• Ty�B°5 A PL Orq ct`P • � •\ °°e i , DE NE tLD 7 0 000llt..,\,-, . !F 0.. c .. ,4 -Nwt PY �l j f • • N�__, , 4 Redevelopment Area o /4 /P �, _• oAK f\fSH Q J O�/ n 4 II ERAS �.... ) One Half Mile/Secondary Land Use Study Area ''',-.• HAMILt° s,PPy�4y , �o �, S 11 <� o� a al 3 .0 '� - wo° fHE'C.:11117111 QBD oFgPFyTi 0°J v !/ \ J E v�ehONS •F'LONQ RQ Q n / A 0 1, nZ SEy P[ 5 �.t_ e J1AL P' Alb FER IN O -• -A / E i Se' 0 04 .� _ GUI• PL AYE o de Y S PEd .... O. Q� PJ N ,„,,, ti -P t�\O PLAZA 04 'y • WI LAI'1E�... ON S CIA < 5 ZE HOR1 . < �AA1PN �P� ARott off, ,`4.7,4,4:P� "i,5 SSQP 0 'y 1•�' LE AY,E<�`/ N Figure 3.11-1 : Noise Monitoring Locations W E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Base Map: NYSDOT Planimetric Map, Mount Vernon, 1990 S Scale: 1" =Approx 1,000' Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(914)265-4400 Fax(914)264-4418 File 9916 Fig PNML TMA 06/13/00 Noise September 14, 2000 The primary sources of noise noted at each monitoring location are identified below: • Site 1 - Truck and car traffic on Fifth Avenue, idling vehicles, pedestrian activity • Site 2 - School bus traffic in and out of Valley Place, truck and car traffic on Fifth Avenue, pedestrian activity, vehicle noise from 1-95 • Site 9 -Truck and car traffic on Fifth Avenue, vehicle acceleration noises at hill, vehicle noise from 1-95 • Site 10 - Vehicle noise at intersection, vehicle noise from 1-95, train noise • Site 22 - Vehicle noise at intersection, vehicle noise from 1-95, train noise • Site A - Vehicle noise from 1-95, pedestrian activity, train noise • Site B - Vehicle noise at intersection, pedestrian activity • Site C -Vehicle noise from 1-95, pedestrian activity, train noise • Site D - Pedestrian activity, vehicle noise from 1-95, birds • Site E - Vehicle noise on Chatsworth Avenue, pedestrian activity The noise levels measured during monitoring periods are shown on Table 3.11-6. Impact Criteria For the purpose of this analysis, noise impacts are considered to be significant when ambient noise levels (Leg) are projected to increase more than five dBA. As indicated on Tables 3.11-1 and 3.11-2, an increase of five dBA is a readily noticeable change in noise levels and is likely to evoke sporadic complaints from the community. 3.11-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 TABLE 3.11-6 Noise Monitoring Results -"Existing Condition" Location Day -Time Period Leg LMax L10 L90 Intersections With Projected PCE Doubling (1) Fifth Avenue& Portman Road Weekday- Midday 61.2 88.3 59 52 Weekday- Evening 62.9 72.1 68 59 Weekday- Night 62.5 79.8 63 51 Weekend-Midday 59.8 77.2 62 51 Weekend- Evening 65.5 81.3 69 52 (2) Fifth Avenue & Valley Place / Weekday- Midday 60.7 85.8 64 56 MacLeay Apartment Buildings Weekday- Evening 66.4 89.1 72 59 Weekday- Night 63.2 79.8 62 54 Weekend- Midday 59.9 74.6 54 51 Weekend- Evening 59.9 78.3 61 51 (9) Fifth Avenue& Potter Avenue Weekday- Midday 67.7 84.3 71 53 Weekday- Evening 65.2 76.1 69 58 Weekday- Night 62.0 79.8 66 51 Weekend - Midday 64.5 81.7 66 54 Weekend- Evening 68.4 91.8 69 52 (10) Madison Avenue & New Weekday- Midday 61.0 86.6 65 55 Jefferson Street/I-95 Interchange 17 Weekday- Evening 64.4 86.6 66 60 Weekday- Night 63.4 82.1 64 55 Weekend - Midday 60.9 80.2 63 53 Weekend- Evening 62.7 79.1 64 54 (22) Petersville Road, Potter Avenue, Weekday- Midday 65.6 71.6 68 63 & Palmer Avenue Weekday- Evening 69.2 90.0 73 61 Weekday- Night 65.8 82.5 69 58 Weekend- Midday 68.0 81.0 72 53 Weekend- Evening 65.5 82.8 69 54 Sensitive Receptors (A) Holy Light Apostolic Church, Weekday- Midday 65.7 78.7 69 58 Lemke Place Weekday- Evening 66.9 72.7 68 66 Weekday- Night 64.9 78.3 67 62 Weekend - Midday 62.4 74.6 64 59 Weekend- Evening 65.2 79.1 67 59 (B) Murray Avenue School at Murray Weekday- Midday 54.1 80.6 57 51 Avenue& Forest Avenue Weekday- Evening 61.1 76.2 66 59 Weekday- Night 64.2 82.5 64 51 Weekend - Midday 53.7 72.3 53 51 Weekend- Evening 65.3 85.5 62 51 (C) Chatsworth Gardens Apartment Weekday- Midday 58.1 86.6 60 52 Building and Park at Chatsworth Weekday- Evening 62.6 80.4 62 56 Avenue & Murray Avenue Weekday- Night 59.3 79.1 59 51 Weekend- Midday 59.4 91.5 59 52 Weekend- Evening 65.4 87.3 64 52 (D)William Flower Park, Fifth Avenue Weekday- Midday 55.8 89.6 58 52 Weekday- Evening 63.9 81.7 66 56 Weekday- Night 63.4 84.3 60 51 Weekend- Midday 52.7 70.8 54 57 Weekend- Evening 58.9 77.6 58 51 (E) Apartment Building, 35 Weekday- Midday 61.1 75.0 65 51 Chatsworth Avenue Weekday- Evening 64.1 83.9 68 62 Weekday- Night 60.4 82.5 63 51 Weekend- Midday 61.7 76.1 66 52 Weekend- Evening 65.5 84.3 68 52 SOURCE: Tim Miller Associates, Inc., March 2000 Time Periods: Midday- 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM; Evening-4:00 PM to 7:00 PM; Night-7:00 PM to 10:00 PM 3.11-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 As indicated in Table 3.11-6, the existing ambient noise levels (Leq) at the ten monitoring locations range from 52.7 to 69.2 dBA during the five different monitoring periods. Of the 50 Leq readings, 24 are between 60 and 65; 16 are between 65 and 70; 8 are between 55 and 60; and two are less than 55. The Lmax levels resulted from short-term sporadic noise sources such as honking horns, loud brakes, or radios. These types of impulsive noise sources are not unusual for developed and urbanized areas such as the Redevelopment Area and its environs. Each noise monitoring location is located within or adjacent to residentially zoned areas. The Leq at two of the ten noise monitoring locations currently exceeds 67 dBA during one or more of the noise monitoring periods: Location #9 and Location #22. Vehicular noise from 1-95 was a major contributor to the existing noise at each of these locations. It should be noted that noise monitoring at Location #2 occurred approximately 50 feet from the intersection of Valley Place and Fifth Avenue, while the closest residential building at the MacLeay Apartments is located approximately 200 feet from this intersection. Vehicular noise levels attenuate quickly with distance. The FHWA assumes a rate of reduction of 3.0 dBA per doubling distance from the noise source (Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, 1980). The reduction is generally greater in areas with soft ground (not paved), such as the grassed area in front of the MacLeay Apartments. Assuming a conservative rate of reduction of 3.0 dBA per doubling distance, the exterior ambient noise levels at the closest apartment building would be approximately 6.0 dBA lower than the monitored noise levels at Location #2 shown in Table 3.11-6. This reduction applies to the Existing Condition, as well as the future "No-Build" and "Build" Conditions. 3.11.2 Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions - "No-Build Condition" Noise levels at each of the monitoring locations are projected to increase with the addition of traffic due to background growth not related to the project. Future noise levels at each noise monitoring location were calculated based on projected traffic increases using the following formula: FNL = ENL + 10Log (FPCE/EPCE) Where: FNL = Future Noise Level (Leq) ENL = Existing Noise Level (Leq) FPCE = Future Passenger Car Equivalent Traffic Volume PCE = Existing Passenger Car Equivalent Traffic Volume As previously mentioned, existing and future PCEs were calculated for the weekday evening, weekend midday, and weekend evening periods based on the existing and projected traffic volumes. In addition to these three periods, the noise analysis also included the weekday midday and night periods. Because the traffic study does not provide manual traffic counts for these two additional noise monitoring periods, the ATR traffic data from roadways near the noise monitoring sites was used to determine factors to estimate the traffic volumes during these noise monitoring periods. (The additional information on ATR traffic volumes is provided in Chapter 3.9). A review of the ATR data revealed that the weekday midday traffic volumes in the vicinity of the noise monitoring sites are approximately 80 percent of the weekday evening traffic volumes. The ATR data indicates that weekday night traffic volumes in the vicinity of the noise monitoring sites are approximately 55 percent of the weekday evening traffic volumes. 3.11-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 Existing evening traffic volumes at study intersections from counts conducted on two different weekdays were compared to determine the extent of daily variations. This comparison showed that variations in weekday evening traffic volumes of up to 12 percent are expected to occur at study intersections. These variations represent noise level changes of 0.5 dBA or less, which are not perceptible to the human ear and therefore considered negligible. Traffic volumes are greatest during the weekday evening period compared to the weekday midday and weekday night periods. Thus, the weekday evening PCE numbers have been used in the noise analysis and provide a reasonable worst case scenario. Traffic counts were not collected at one of the sensitive receptor locations (noise monitoring site A, Holy Light Apostolic Church, Lemke Place). Traffic data from the nearby intersection of Pierce Street and Potter Avenue were used for the future noise level calculations at this location. Because Lemke Place is a one way street and Pierce Street is a two way street, higher traffic levels are likely to occur on Pierce Street, resulting in a more conservative analysis. The projected future noise levels in the No-Build Condition for each time period are shown in Table 3.11-7. 3.11-10 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 TABLE 3.11-7 Future Ambient Noise Levels Without the Project-"No-Build Condition" (dBA -Leg) Location Day-Time Period Existing Change No Build Intersections With Projected PCE Doubling (1) Fifth Avenue& Portman Road Weekday-Midday 61.2 0.4 61.6 Weekday-Evening 62.9 0.4 63.3 Weekday-Night 62.5 0.4 62.9 Weekend-Midday 59.8 0.6 60.4 Weekend-Evening 65.5 0.7 66.2 (2) Fifth Avenue&Valley Place/MacLeay Weekday-Midday 60.7 0.3 61.0 Apartment Buildings Weekday-Evening 66.4 0.3 66.7 Weekday-Night 63.2 0.3 63.6 Weekend-Midday 59.9 0.6 60.5 Weekend-Evening 59.9 0.7 60.6 (9) Fifth Avenue& Potter Avenue Weekday-Midday 67.7 0.5 68.2 Weekday-Evening 65.2 0.5 65.7 Weekday-Night 62.0 0.5 62.5 Weekend-Midday 64.5 0.9 65.4 Weekend-Evening 68.4 1.0 69.4 (10) Madison Avenue & New Jefferson Weekday-Midday 61.0 0.2 61.2 Street/1-95 Interchange 17 Weekday-Evening 64.4 0.2 64.6 Weekday-Night 63.4 0.2 63.6 Weekend-Midday 60.9 0.4 61.3 Weekend-Evening 62.7 0.4 63.1 (22) Petersville Road, Potter Avenue & Weekday-Midday 65.6 1.3 66.9 Palmer Avenue Weekday-Evening 69.2 1.3 70.5 Weekday-Night 65.8 1.3 67.1 Weekend-Midday 68.0 2.4 70.4 Weekend- Evening 65.5 2.6 68.1 Sensitive Receptors (A) Holy Light Apostolic Church, Lemke Weekday-Midday 65.7 0.6 66.3 Place Weekday-Evening 66.9 0.6 67.5 Weekday-Night 64.9 0.6 65.5 Weekend-Midday 62.4 0.1 62.5 Weekend-Evening 65.2 0.4 65.6 (B) Murray Avenue School at Murray Weekday-Midday 54.1 0.1 54.2 Avenue& Forest Avenue Weekday-Evening 61.1 0.1 61.2 Weekday-Night 64.2 0.1 64.3 Weekend-Midday 53.7 0.1 53.8 Weekend-Evening 65.3 0.1 65.4 (C) Chatsworth Gardens Apartment Weekday-Midday 58.1 0.1 58.2 Building and Park at Chatsworth Avenue Weekday-Evening 62.6 0.1 62.7 &Murray Avenue Weekday-Night 59.3 0.1 59.4 Weekend-Midday 59.4 0.1 59.4 Weekend-Evening 65.4 0.1 65.5 (D)William Flower Park, Fifth Avenue Weekday-Midday 55.8 0.4 56.2 Weekday-Evening 63.9 0.4 64.3 Weekday-Night 63.4 0.4 63.8 Weekend-Midday 52.7 0.6 53.3 Weekend-Evening 58.9 0.7 59.6 (E) Apartment Building, 35 Chatsworth Weekday-Midday 61.1 0.1 61.2 Avenue Weekday-Evening 64.1 0.1 64.2 Weekday-Night 60.4 0.1 60.5 Weekend-Midday 61.7 0.1 61.8 Weekend-Evening 65.5 0.1 65.6 SOURCE:Tim Miller Associates, Inc. Time Periods: Midday- 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM; Evening-4:00 PM to 7:00 PM; Night-7:00 PM to 10:00 PM 3.11-11 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 As indicated in Table 3.11-7, future noise levels in the No-Build Condition are projected to increase at these 10 locations between 0.1 and 2.6 dBA. The greatest increases are expected at Location #22 during the weekend midday and evening periods (2.4 and 2.6 dBA, respectively). As noted in Table 3.11-1, changes in ambient noise levels between 2 and 3 dBA are considered barely perceptible. Similar to the Existing Condition, the same two noise monitoring locations in the No-Build Condition are projected to have Leq levels that exceed 67 dBA Location #9 and Location #22. As described earlier, the actual exterior ambient noise levels at the MacLeay Apartment buildings would be approximately 6.0 dBA lower than the levels monitored at Location #2 as indicated in Table 3.11-7. This difference assumes a rate of reduction of 3.0 dBA per doubling distance. 3.11.3 Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions - "Build Condition" On-site and off-site noise levels are expected to increase above the future No-Build levels in the Build Condition due to increases in traffic from the proposed Retail Center Project. Hours of operation of the Retail Center are expected to be seven days per week, 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM Mondays through Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays. Off-Site Traffic With the addition of traffic resulting from the construction of the Retail Center, future off-site noise levels are expected to increase above the projected noise levels that will occur without the Retail Center Project, as previously described in Section 3.11.2. Using the same formula as the future conditions without the Retail Center Project, the projected Build Condition noise levels at the ten noise monitoring locations were calculated for each time period, and are shown in Table 3.11-8. In the Build Condition, five of the ten noise monitoring locations are projected to have Leq levels that exceed 67 dBA during one or more of the monitoring periods: Location #1, Location #2, Location #9, Location #22, and Location A. As indicated on Table 3.11-8, the future Build Condition noise levels are projected to increase between 0 and 4.7 dBA above the future No-Build Condition at the ten locations monitored. The greatest increases are expected at noise monitoring locations #1, #2 and #10 during the weekend midday and evening periods. Changes in noise levels at these sites would be perceptible but not readily noticeable, and would not result in significant impacts. A summary of the existing and projected noise levels, with and without the Proposed Actions, at each noise monitoring location is provided in Table 3.11-9. 3.11-12 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 TABLE 3.11-8 Future Ambient Noise Levels with the Project-"Build Condition" (dBA -Leq) Location Day -Time Period No Build Change Build Intersections With Projected PCE Doubling (1) Fifth Avenue& Portman Road Weekday- Midday ' 61.6 0.4 62.0 Weekday- Evening 63.3 0.4 63.6 Weekday- Night 62.9 0.6 63.5 Weekend- Midday 60.4 3.4 63.8 Weekend- Evening 66.2 3.6 69.8 (2) Fifth Avenue&Valley Place/MacLeay Weekday-Midday 61.0 2.0 63.0 Apartment Buildings Weekday- Evening 66.7 1.7 68.4 Weekday- Night 63.6 2.5 66.1 Weekend-Midday 60.5 4.4 64.9 Weekend- Evening 60.6 4.7 65.3 (9) Fifth Avenue& Potter Avenue Weekday- Midday 68.2 0.2 68.4 Weekday- Evening 65.7 0.2 65.9 Weekday- Night 62.5 0.3 62.8 Weekend- Midday 65.4 1.8 67.2 Weekend - Evening 69.4 1.9 71.3 (10) Madison Avenue & New Jefferson Weekday- Midday 61.2 1.1 62.3 Street/1-95 Interchange 17 Weekday- Evening 64.6 0.9 65.5 Weekday- Night 63.6 1.5 65.1 Weekend - Midday 61.3 3.0 64.3 Weekend- Evening 63.1 2.8 65.9 (22) Petersville Road, Potter Avenue & Weekday- Midday 66.9 0.4 67.3 Palmer Avenue Weekday- Evening 70.5 0.3 70.8 Weekday- Night 67.1 0.5 67.6 Weekend- Midday 70.4 1.2 71.6 Weekend- Evening 68.1 1.5 69.6 Sensitive Receptors (A) Holy Light Apostolic Church, Lemke Weekday- Midday 66.3 0.0 66.3 Place Weekday- Evening 67.5 0.0 67.5 Weekday- Night 65.5 0.0 65.5 Weekend- Midday 62.5 1.2 63.7 Weekend- Evening 65.6 0.9 66.5 (B) Murray Avenue School at Murray Weekday- Midday 54.2 0.1 54.3 Avenue& Forest Avenue Weekday- Evening 61.2 0.0 61.2 Weekday- Night 64.3 0.1 64.4 Weekend -Midday 53.8 0.2 54.0 Weekend- Evening 65.4 0.2 65.6 (C) Chatsworth Gardens Apartment Weekday-Midday 58.2 0.1 58.3 Building and Park at Chatsworth Avenue Weekday- Evening 62.7 0.1 62.8 & Murray Avenue Weekday- Night 59.4 0.2 59.6 Weekend-Midday 59.4 0.3 59.8 Weekend- Evening 65.5 0.3 65.8 (D)William Flower Park, Fifth Avenue Weekday-Midday 56.2 0.0 56.2 Weekday- Evening 64.3 0.0 64.3 Weekday- Night 63.8 0.0 63.8 Weekend-Midday 53.3 2.3 55.6 Weekend- Evening 59.6 2.3 61.9 (E) Apartment Building, 35 Chatsworth Weekday- Midday 61.2 0.0 61.2 Avenue Weekday- Evening 64.2 0.0 64.2 Weekday- Night 60.5 0.0 60.5 Weekend-Midday 61.8 0.0 61.8 Weekend- Evening 65.6 0.0 65.6 SOURCE: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. Time Periods: Midday- 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM; Evening-4:00 PM to 7:00 PM; Night- 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM 3.11-13 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 TABLE 3.11-9 Summary of Existing and Projected Noise Levels (dBA - Leq) Location Day -Time Period Existing No-Build Build Intersections With Projected PCE Doubling (1) Fifth Avenue & Portman Weekday- Midday 61.2 61.6 62.0 Road Weekday- Evening 62.9 63.3 63.6 Weekday- Night 62.5 62.9 63.5 Weekend- Midday 59.8 60.4 63.8 Weekend- Evening 65.5 66.2 69.8 (2) Fifth Avenue & Valley Weekday- Midday 60.7 61.0 63.0 Place/MacLeay Apartment Weekday- Evening 66.4 66.7 68.4 Buildings Weekday- Night 63.2 63.6 66.1 Weekend- Midday 59.9 60.5 64.9 Weekend- Evening 59.9 60.6 65.3 (9) Fifth Avenue & Potter Weekday- Midday 67.7 68.2 68.4 Avenue Weekday- Evening 65.2 65.7 65.9 Weekday- Night 62.0 62.5 62.8 Weekend- Midday 64.5 65.4 67.2 _ Weekend- Evening 68.4 69.4 71.3 (10) Madison Avenue & Weekday-Midday 61.0 61.2 62.3 New Jefferson Street / 1-95 Weekday- Evening 64.4 64.6 65.5 Interchange 17 ' Weekday- Night 63.4 63.6 65.1 Weekend- Midday 60.9 61.3 64.3 Weekend- Evening 62.7 63.1 65.9 (22) Petersville Road, Weekday- Midday 65.6 66.9 67.3 Potter Avenue & Palmer Weekday- Evening 69.2 70.5 70.8 Avenue Weekday- Night 65.8 67.1 67.6 Weekend- Midday 68.0 70.4 71.6 Weekend- Evening 65.5 68.1 69.6 Sensitive Receptors (A) Holy Light Apostolic Weekday- Midday 65.7 66.3 66.3 Church, Lemke Place Weekday- Evening 66.9 67.5 67.5 Weekday- Night 64.9 65.5 65.5 Weekend- Midday 62.4 62.5 63.7 Weekend- Evening 65.2 65.6 66.5 (B) Murray Avenue School Weekday- Midday 54.1 54.2 54.3 at Murray Avenue & Forest Weekday- Evening 61.1 61.2 61.2 Avenue Weekday- Night 64.2 64.3 64.4 Weekend-Midday 53.7 53.8 54.0 Weekend-Evening 65.3 65.4 65.6 (C) Chatsworth Gardens Weekday- Midday 58.1 58.2 58.3 Apartment Building and Weekday- Evening 62.6 62.7 62.8 Park at Chatsworth Avenue Weekday- Night 59.3 59.4 59.6 & Murray Avenue Weekend-Midday 59.4 59.4 59.8 Weekend-Evening 65.4 65.5 65.8 (D) William Flower Park, Weekday- Midday 55.8 56.2 56.2 Fifth Avenue Weekday- Evening 63.9 64.3 64.3 Weekday- Night 63.4 63.8 63.8 Weekend-Midday 52.7 53.3 55.6 Weekend-Evening 58.9 59.6 61.9 (E) Apartment Building, 35 Weekday-Midday 61.1 61.2 61.2 Chatsworth Avenue Weekday- Evening 64.1 64.2 64.2 Weekday- Night 60.4 60.5 60.5 Weekend-Midday 61.7 61.8 61.8 Weekend- Evening 65.5 65.6 65.6 SOURCE: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. Time Periods: Midday- 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM; Evening-4:00 PM to 7:00 PM; Night- 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM 3.11-14 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 The future Build Condition noise levels do not account for the noises currently generated by the Redevelopment Area activities that would be removed by the proposed Retail Center Project. Because the projected noise levels do not deduct for these existing sources of noise, the projected noise levels represent a worst case scenario. On-site Operational Noise On-site noise levels and noise levels at the perimeter of the Redevelopment Area are expected to increase with the introduction of customer traffic, delivery vehicles and on-site operations, such as truck loading and HVAC equipment. The discussion of on-site noise considers the impacts to existing residential properties located adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. The closest residential properties to the Redevelopment Area in the Build Condition are the MacLeay Apartment Buildings on the north side of Fifth Avenue, three single family residences on the south side of Plain Avenue near Portman Road, a two-family residence on the east side of Portman Road to the west of the Redevelopment Area, and two single family residences on Valley Place to the east of the Redevelopment Area. The three residences on Plain Avenue are the closest to the proposed loading area at a distance of approximately 200 and 300 feet. These residences are likely to be subject to the greatest sources of operational noise from trucks and trash compacting machines. In accordance with the New Rochelle's noise ordinance, the operation of the proposed Retail Center would not generate any unreasonable noise between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Truck deliveries would occur during normal business hours in accordance with the City of New Rochelle's noise ordinance. Although ten loading bays are provided in the proposed Retail Center Project site plan, the Project Architect anticipates that typically only one or two bays would be in use at any given time. The trash compacting machines would be used in conjunction with trash collection services. Trash collection would occur during normal business hours in accordance with the City of New Rochelle's noise ordinance. The trash compactor would not be utilized between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. The HVAC, refrigeration, and emergency generators would be located on the roof of the building. According to the Project Architect, this equipment would be high efficiency natural gas units that are quiet and would be designed to meet all applicable noise standards. No adverse noise impacts would be anticipated from this equipment. Truck activity at the proposed Retail Center would produce noise levels similar to those measured at an existing retail development in Westchester County as shown in Table 3.11-10. The existing residences along Plain Avenue in the vicinity of the loading dock area would be expected to experience noise levels from delivery trucks similar to those presented in Table 3.11-10. Truck ingress to the loading area would occur from Fifth and Plain Avenues. Truck egress from the loading area would occur on Fifth and Plain Avenue. Truck traffic routing is described in Chapter 3.9 Transportation and Traffic. 3.11-15 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 TABLE 3.11-10 Results of Sound Level Measurements at an Existing Westchester County Retail Site Maximum Sound Event and measurement Condition Pressure Level (dBA) Large diesel delivery trucks measured at approx. 200 feet away; 4 events. 64-68 Small vendor delivery truck measured at approx. 200 feet away; 7 events. 56-62 Waste collecting vehicle measured at approx. 200 feet away; 1 event. 69 Source: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. The above measurements are in the range of peak sound levels from truck traffic that could be anticipated in the yards of the residences on Plain Avenue, Portman Road, and Valley Place from existing truck activity within the Redevelopment Area, as well from the proposed Retail Center. The Proposed Retail Center would generate approximately 19 round trip truck trips on a weekday, during a typical week, and up to 24 round trips on a weekday, during a sale week. These estimates include all operational-related truck trips, including garbage pick up, merchandise delivery from the warehouse, container truck deliveries, manufacturer deliveries, and home delivery trips. Truck trips would be distributed throughout the day between the hours of 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM as shown in Table 3.11-11. The highest volume of truck trips would be anticipated to occur between 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM. The projected 13 truck trips during the morning period on a typical day represents approximately three entering trips and four exiting trips during the morning peak hour. On a Sale Day, a total of four entering trips and five exiting trips would occur during the morning peak hour. Sale days are expected to occur approximately ten percent of the year. TABLE 3.11-11 Expected Total Truck Trips Per Day Time Period Typical Day Sale Day Enter Exit Enter Exit 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM 5 8 6 10 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM 1 3 1 4 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM 2 1 4 1 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM 8 3 9 5 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM 3 3 4 3 9:00 PM to 10:00 AM 0 1 0 1 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 Total Daily 19 19 24 24 Source: Vollmer Associates,August 2000 3.11-16 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 As described in Chapter 3.9 Transportation and Traffic, truck trips associated with incoming deliveries from manufacturers and with incoming and outgoing trash collection would be anticipated to use Exit 16 of Interstate 95. All of the entering trucks during the morning period are projected to use Exit 16 and travel on Potter Avenue and Fifth Avenue. The use of Exit 16 also involves approximately three daily exiting trips along Plain Avenue, Portman Road, Fifth Avenue, and Potter Avenue between 6:00 AM and 11:00 AM. All other exiting truck trips in the morning are anticipated to utilize Exit 17 of Interstate 95, which involves travel on Fifth Avenue and Madison Avenue. The use of two alternative truck routes would help to reduce the frequency of truck-related noise along these local roads. Existing morning noise levels at major intersections along the truck routes to Exit 16 and Exit 17 of Interstate 95 are provided in Table 3.11-12. The weekday morning noise measurements occurred during the peak hour traffic on the local roads. TABLE 3.11-12 Truck Route Noise Monitoring Results -"Existing Condition" Location Day-Time Period Leq LMax L10 L90 (1) Fifth Avenue& Portman Road Weekday- Morning 65.2 82.5 68 54 Weekend - Morning 60.4 85.1 65 48 (2) Fifth Avenue & Valley Place / Weekday- Morning 59.5 81.0 61 51 MacLeay Apartment Buildings Weekend- Morning 63.9 88.1 62 51 (9) Fifth Avenue& Potter Avenue Weekday- Morning 68.6 84.3 72 59 Weekend- Morning 66.8 92.6 63 57 (10) Madison Avenue & New Weekday- Morning 66.9 82.5 69 58 Jefferson Street/I-95 Interchange 17 Weekend- Morning 66.1 86.2 65 53 (22) Petersville Road, Potter Avenue, Weekday- Morning 71.3 96.0 69 57 & Palmer Avenue Weekend-Morning 66.5 82.1 69 60 SOURCE: Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,August 2000 Morning Time Period: 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM The weekday morning ambient noise levels (Leq) at these five monitoring sites ranged from 59.5 dBA to 71.3 dBA. At Location #22, noise levels were elevated by nearby construction activity on Potter Avenue. The weekend ambient noise levels at these five monitoring sites ranged from 60.4 dBA to 66.8 dBA. Using the same methodology as described in Section 3.11.2, the future "No-Build" and "Build" Condition noise levels were calculated for these five intersections during the weekday morning and weekend morning periods. As previously described, existing and future PCEs were calculated for the weekday evening, weekend midday, and weekend evening periods based on the existing and projected project-generated traffic volumes. Because the traffic study does not include manual traffic counts for the weekday and weekend morning periods, ATR traffic data from roadways near the noise monitoring sites were used to determine factors to estimate the traffic volumes during these two noise monitoring periods. (Additional information on ATR traffic volumes is provided in Chapter 3.9). A review of the ATR data revealed that the weekday morning traffic volumes in the vicinity of the noise monitoring sites are approximately 108 percent of the weekday evening traffic volumes. The ATR data indicates that weekend morning traffic volumes in the vicinity of the noise monitoring sites are approximately 60 percent of the weekend midday traffic volumes. 3.11-17 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 The projected future noise levels at the intersections along the truck routes during the No-Build Condition for the weekday and weekend morning time periods are shown in Table 3.11-13. TABLE 3.11-13 Truck Route Intersections Future Ambient Noise Levels Without the Project -"No-Build Condition" (dBA - Leq) Location Day -Time Period Existing Change No Build (1) Fifth Avenue& Portman Road Weekday-Morning 65.2 0.4 65.6 Weekend-Morning 60.4 0.6 61.0 (2) Fifth Avenue & Valley Place / Weekday-Morning 59.5 0.3 59.8 MacLeay Apartment Buildings Weekend-Morning 63.9 0.6 64.5 (9) Fifth Avenue& Potter Avenue Weekday-Morning 68.6 0.5 69.1 Weekend-Morning 66.8 0.9 67.7 (10) Madison Avenue & New Weekday-Morning 66.9 0.2 67.1 Jefferson Street/I-95 Interchange 17 Weekend-Morning 66.1 0.4 66.5 (22) Petersville Road, Potter Avenue, Weekday-Morning 71.3 1.3 72.6 & Palmer Avenue Weekend-Morning 66.5 2.4 68.9 SOURCE: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. Morning Time Period: 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM As indicated in Table 3.11-13, future noise levels in the No-Build Condition are projected to increase at these five intersections between 0.2 and 2.4 dBA during the weekday and weekend morning periods. The greatest increases are expected at Location #22 during the weekend morning period. As noted in Table 3.11-1, changes in ambient noise levels between 2 and 3 dBA are considered barely perceptible. The highest Leq levels (72.6 dBA) are projected to occur during the weekday morning at Location #22. However, these noise levels were elevated due to nearby construction activity on Potter Avenue at the time of the noise monitoring. This site is located adjacent to the intersection of Petersville Road, Potter Avenue and Palmer Avenue, near Interstate-95. On-site and off-site noise levels are expected to increase above the future No-Build levels in the Build Condition due to increases in employee trips and truck traffic from the Proposed Retail Center Project. The proposed Retail Center would open at 10:00 AM and generate no customer trips during the morning noise monitoring period. The Retail Center would generate some employee trips during the 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM period. For the purposes of this analysis, the Retail Center is projected to generate 70 employee trips during a one hour period in the morning. The Retail Center is also projected to generate up to seven truck trips during a one hour morning period on a typical day and up to nine truck trips per hour on a Sale Day. The Build Condition noise analysis evaluates the truck volumes that would occur on a Sale Day. Therefore, lower noise levels than those projected in the noise analysis would occur 90 percent of the time. Build condition PCEs for the five truck route intersections were recalculated for the weekday and weekend morning periods with the projected employee trips and truck trips from the proposed Retail Center Project. Truck trips were distributed over the five truck route intersections as described in Chapter 3.9. Employee trips were distributed evenly between intersections associated with Exit 16 and Exit 17 of Interstate-95. Using the same methodology, the Build Condition noise levels at the five truck route intersections were calculated for the weekday and weekend morning periods, as shown in Table 3.11-14. 3.11-18 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 TABLE 3.11-14 Truck Route Intersections Future Ambient Noise Levels With the Project-"Build Condition" (dBA - Leq) Location Day-Time Period No-Build Change Build (1) Fifth Avenue& Portman Road Weekday-Morning 65.6 2.5 68.1 Weekend-Morning 61.0 4.3 65.3 (2) Fifth Avenue & Valley Place / Weekday-Morning 59.8 1.1 60.9 MacLeay Apartment Buildings Weekend-Morning 64.5 2.1 66.6 (9) Fifth Avenue& Potter Avenue Weekday-Morning 69.1 0.9 70.0 Weekend-Morning 67.7 2.4 69.5 (10) Madison Avenue & New Weekday-Morning 67.1 0.4 67.5 Jefferson Street/I-95 Interchange 17 Weekend-Morning 66.5 1.1 67.6 (22) Petersville Road, Potter Avenue, Weekday-Morning 72.6 1.2 73.8 & Palmer Avenue Weekend-Morning 68.9 2.2 71.1 SOURCE:Tim Miller Associates, Inc. Morning Time Period: 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM As indicated in Table 3.11-14, future noise levels in the Build Condition (on a Sale Day) are projected to increase at these five intersections between 0.9 and 4.3 dBA during the weekday and weekend morning periods. As Sale Days would occur approximately ten percent of the time, lower noise levels are expected to occur approximately 90 percent of the time. In the Build Condition, four of the five noise monitoring locations are projected to have Leq levels that exceed 67 dBA during one or more of the monitoring periods: Location #1, Location #9, Location #10, and Location #22. Similar to the No-Build Condition, the highest Leq levels (73.8 dBA) are projected to occur during the weekday morning at Location #22. However, these noise levels are elevated due to nearby construction activity on Potter Avenue at the time of the noise monitoring. This site is located adjacent to the intersection of Petersville Road, Potter Avenue and Palmer Avenue, near Interstate-95. The greatest increases are expected at Location #1 during the weekend morning period, which shows an increase of 4.3 dBA. As previously noted, impacts are anticipated to occur when noise levels increase by more than five dBA. None of the morning noise monitoring sites are projected to experience an increase in noise levels greater than five dBA. Therefore, morning truck and employee commuter traffic are not anticipated to result in significant noise impacts. A summary of the existing and projected noise levels, with and without the Retail Center Project, at each noise monitoring location is provided in Table 3.11-15. 3.11-19 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 TABLE 3.11-15 Truck Route Intersections Summary of Existing and Project Noise Levels (dBA - Leg) Location Day -Time Period Existing No-Build Build (1) Fifth Avenue& Portman Road Weekday-Morning 65.2 65.6 68.1 Weekend- Morning 60.4 61 65.3 (2) Fifth Avenue & Valley Place / Weekday- Morning 59.5 59.8 60.9 _ MacLeay Apartment Buildings Weekend- Morning 63.9 64.5 66.6 (9) Fifth Avenue& Potter Avenue Weekday-Morning 68.6 69.1 70 Weekend- Morning 66.8 67.7 69.5 (10) Madison Avenue & New Weekday- Morning 66.9 67.1 67.5 Jefferson Street/I-95 Interchange 17 Weekend- Morning 66.1 66.5 67.6 (22) Petersville Road, Potter Avenue, Weekday- Morning 71.3 72.6 73.8 & Palmer Avenue Weekend- Morning 66.5 68.9 71.1 SOURCE: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. Morning Time Period: 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM 3.11.4 Construction Noise Impacts Noise from construction activity is regulated under Section 213-22 of the New Rochelle Code. The proposed Retail Center Project will be required to comply with the provisions of the City Code. The Code establishes the following noise limitations for a manufacturing district, which currently apply to the Redevelopment Area: "During a 24 hour period, noise levels shall not exceed 80 db(A) when measured at the construction site boundary." It is anticipated that the Redevelopment Area zoning would be changed from a Light Manufacturing District to an Urban Renewal Large Scale Retail Zone. As the proposed Retail Center Project site would no longer be in a manufacturing district during the proposed construction activities, the commercial/retail district standards would be applicable. The New Rochelle Noise Ordinance establishes the following standards for construction noise standards in commercial / retail zoned districts: "During normal business hours levels shall not exceed L10 of 80 dBA when measured at a distance of 400 feet from the construction site; during other than normal business hours noise levels shall not exceed an L10 of 75 dBA when measured at a distance of 400 feet from the construction site." Ambient daytime noise levels would increase in the immediate vicinity of the Redevelopment Area during Retail Center Project construction. The construction activities would generate short term intrusive noises throughout the construction period. Construction activities and operation of construction equipment have been the subject of numerous noise studies completed for various projects in the region. Table 3.11-16 shows representative maximum sound levels for diesel-powered equipment and other construction-related vehicles and activities at a range of receptor distances. 3.11-20 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 TABLE 3.11-16 Construction Noise Levels (dBA) Maximum Sound Level Equipment/Activity 50 feet 200 feet 500 feet 1000 feet Backhoe 82-84 70-72 62-64 56-58 Blasting 93-94 81-82 73-74 67-68 Concrete Pump 74-84 62-72 54-64 48-58 Generator 71-87 59-75 51-67 45-61 Hauler 83-86 71-74 63-66 57-60 Loader 86-90 74-78 66-70 60-64 Rock Drill 83-99 71-87 63-79 57-73 Trucks 81-87 69-75 61-67 55-61 Pile Driver(conventional) 96-101 84-89 76-81 70-75 Source: Tim Miller Associates, Inc. As discussed earlier, for the purpose of this analysis, noise impacts are considered to be significant when ambient noise levels (Leq) are projected to increase more than five dBA. As indicated on Tables 3.11-1 and 3.11-2, an increase of five dBA is a readily noticeable change in noise levels and is likely to evoke sporadic complaints from the community. The level of impacts of these noise sources depends on the type and number of pieces of construction equipment being operated, as well as the distance from the construction site. The noisiest period of construction would occur during demolition and site clearing and grading activities when the site is prepared for internal roads, parking areas, utilities and building pads. Noise levels due to construction activities would vary widely, depending on the phase of construction activities, the specific construction tasks and equipment used, as well as receptor distance from the construction site. Noise levels at the proposed Retail Center Project property line are projected to range between 65 dBA and 90 dBA, depending on the actual location of construction equipment at any given time. The noisiest period of construction would occur during the four week period scheduled for rock blasting (described below) and during the driving of piles for the building foundation along Fifth Avenue and in the center of the Redevelopment Area. Noise from rock blasting and pile driving would be intrusive, but these activities would have limited duration (approximately four weeks for blasting and 10 weeks for pile driving). It is anticipated that existing residences on adjacent streets (three residences on Plain Avenue, two residences on Valley Place, and four residences on Portman Road) would experience temporary elevated noise levels at occasional periods during the construction of the proposed Retail Center. The heaviest volume of construction traffic is expected to occur at the beginning of the construction as site preparation activities are undertaken. 3.11-21 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 Blasting Based on geotechnical borings conducted in the Redevelopment Area, the Project Engineer anticipates the need for rock blasting during the initial site preparation stages of the construction activity. All necessary permits would be obtained and all blasting activities would comply with applicable state and local regulations and requirements. The measures typically required for blasting operations address minimizing impacts on neighboring properties, as well as incorporating safety measures. A Blasting Protocol is included in Appendix L, and is summarized, as follows: • Prior to blasting, appropriate blasting surveys of adjacent properties within the City of New Rochelle and the Town of Mamaroneck will be provided; • Blasting will occur only during normal business hours as permitted by the City of New Rochelle; • Before beginning blasting, notice will be given to nearby property owners within 300 feet of the site within the City of New Rochelle and the Town of Mamaroneck; • Blasting mats and other equipment to muffle sound and to prevent escaped rock fragments from the blasting area will be utilized; and • Blasting will only be conducted by a licensed specialist using controlled blasting techniques. Typically, blasting produces a noise level of approximately 94 dBA at 50 feet from the blasting site. Noise from blasting activities would be intrusive, but of limited duration. The blasting may also produce perceptible vibrations for brief periods in nearby properties. As shown in Figure 3.2-5 in Chapter 3.2 Topography, Geology, Soils, and Hydrogeology, the closest properties to the proposed blasting activities are along Plain Avenue and Valley Place at distances of approximately 100 to 200 feet. Blasting would have the greatest impact on the two residences and businesses on Valley Place, since blasting may occur within 80 to 100 feet from existing buildings. The noise and any vibration levels experienced by these properties would be lower, depending on the actual distance from the blasting. Properties potentially affected by any necessary blasting would receive written and verbal notification of the blasting schedule by the blasting contractor at least one week in advance of expected blasting activities. Rather than occurring as an ongoing part of construction activities on the site, blasting activities would occur at distinct points in the construction process -- when a portion of the site grades are being established and certain underground lines are laid and when certain foundations are prepared for construction. Blasting activity is expected to be localized and temporary in duration (occurring sporadically during four weeks). As the area of proposed blasting is proximate to residences and other sensitive areas, low-impact blasting procedures would be utilized. These would include the use of relatively small charges (the minimum required) fired in a staggered pattern, and blasting mats to control debris and sound levels. For existing residences and businesses located west of the Retail Center Project site, blasting noise impacts would be reduced by topography and an existing three story building, now occupied by Derf Corporation. 3.11-22 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 Pile Driving Pile driving would result in the greatest noise impacts during the construction phase. As indicated in Table 3.11-16, noise from conventional pile drivers is typically in the range of 96 to 101 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, but drops to between 76 and 81 dBA at a distance of 500 feet. Since the pile driving would occur along Fifth Avenue and the interior of the Redevelopment Area, residences on Portman Road, Plain Avenue, Valley Place and in the MacLeay Apartments would generally be at distances between 200 and 300 feet. Noise levels would be reduced with greater distance from the noise source, as shown in Table 3.11-16. Construction Truck Trips Given the nature of construction operations, the number of trips resulting from material delivery traveling to and from the site would vary considerably, depending upon the phase of construction. Construction vehicle traffic to and from the Retail Center Project site would be expected to create temporary noise impacts along the designated truck routes (see discussion in Section 3.13, Construction Impacts), during the construction period. The greatest period of truck traffic would occur during the building demolition and site excavation (21 week duration). The majority of excavation/demolition disposal truck traffic would utilize Interchange 16 for 1-95, via Fifth Avenue to Potter Avenue to Palmer Avenue to the interchange. Therefore, residences and businesses along this established truck route would experience a temporary increase in noise levels during business hours. If the Manida Avenue facility in the Bronx is used for material disposal (see Chapter 3.13, Construction Impacts), businesses and residences along Fifth Avenue to the 1-95 southbound Interchange 17 would experience temporary elevated noise levels from truck traffic, mostly during the 16 week period of building demolition. Noise from construction truck trips would be temporary and is not anticipated to result in significant noise impacts. Construction Worker Trips The number of trips resulting from workers traveling to and from the site would vary considerably depending upon the phase of construction. Construction would involve approximately 400 total workers. It is estimated that 200 to 250 workers would travel to and from the proposed Retail Center Project site during any given day. This would be 160 to 210 automobile trips daily with the majority (80 percent) arriving between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM (weekdays) and 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM (Saturdays), and departing between 3:30 and 4:30 PM (weekdays) and 4:30 PM and 5:30 PM (Saturdays). Parking for workers would be on-site. Construction worker trips would be temporary and are not anticipated to result in significant noise impacts. 3.11-23 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Noise September 14, 2000 3.11.5 Mitigation Measures Permanent mitigation measures incorporated into the proposed Retail Center Project include building design and siting, and landscape buffering. The proposed building itself would deflect sound from 1-95 that currently contributes to background noise along Fifth Avenue, the MacLeay Apartments and within William Flower Park. A concrete retaining wall is proposed on the south and north sides of the loading areas. These retaining walls would deflect some sound from the loading area and reduce noise to receptors located on Plain Avenue and Portman Road. Landscaping along the perimeter of the loading area will provide a visual buffer to noise receptors. The proposed landscaping is illustrated in Figure 2-12 Landscape Plan. All Retail Center delivery trucks are equipped to reduce noise with measures such as special suspension and automatic cooling cutoff on refrigerated trucks. Mitigation of construction-related impacts include the following measures: • Limiting construction hours to the least noise-sensitive times of the day (i.e., 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Saturday); • Requiring contractors to muffle all equipment used on the project and maintain all equipment in good operating condition. Requiring all internal combustion engine-driven equipment to be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition; • Requiring contractors to turn off powered equipment when not in use; and • Following blasting protocols identified above and described in Appendix L. 3.11-24 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services September 14, 2000 3.12 Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services 3.12.1 Water Supply Existing Conditions Water in the City of New Rochelle is supplied by the United Water Company, a private utility which provides water from the New York City water supply system to the City and other municipalities in the region. The average daily water consumption for the entire United Water distribution system is 22.5 million gallons per day (MGD), with a maximum of 38.0 MGD and a peak hourly rate of 45 MGD. The distribution system is designed to deliver 50 MGD to its entire service area. All lines in the area are owned, operated, and maintained by the United Water Company. A series of water mains owned and operated in the area by the United Water Company provide service to the Redevelopment Area properties. There is currently an eight inch water main along Fifth Avenue and along a portion of Valley Place adjacent to the proposed Redevelopment Area. Additionally, a series of six inch mains exist throughout the proposed Redevelopment Area. Based on discussions between the Project Engineer and Mr. Jim Annicchiarico of the United Water Company, the static pressure in the Redevelopment Area is 85 psi and 125 psi. The United Water company has indicated that they will have a flow modeling study conducted to verify that water pressure and flow to the proposed Retail Center are adequate and that no adverse effects would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. The estimated average water demand for the existing properties within the Redevelopment Area is approximately 34,300 gallons per day (gpd). This estimate is based upon a usage criteria of 0.1 gpd per square foot for commercial properties and 300 gpd per dwelling for residential properties. Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions Without the proposed Retail Center, water usage in the Redevelopment Area and existing water-related infrastructure would likely remain unchanged from existing conditions. Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions The Retail Center Project would connect to existing lines, which tie into the United Water Company's existing water supply system. Preliminary plans call for the proposed facility to connect a ten inch water service to the existing eight inch water main at the intersection of Pleasant Avenue and Valley Place, and to the eight inch main approximately 450 feet east of the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Portman road. The proposed ten inch line would replace the existing six inch mains located within Valley Place, Plain Avenue, Biehn Street and Pleasant Street within the proposed Redevelopment Area. The proposed ten inch main would be used to feed the proposed site fire hydrants. A four inch domestic service line to service the proposed building is proposed to be tapped off the eight inch water main on Fifth Avenue. 3.12-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services September 14, 2000 The location of the proposed 10 inch water main is illustrated in Figure 3.12-1, Utility Plan. United Water Company would install the tap at the main and an extension of the service to the property line. Upon application for service, the United Water company would make a determination regarding the line and meter size, and an estimate of the monthly usage fee. United Water Company would request an easement around the line for maintenance purposes. The Project Engineer's estimate of water usage by the proposed Retail Center Project is provided in Table 3.12-1. TABLE 3.12-1 Estimated Water Usage and Sewage Flows Restaurant Floor Area = 6,000 sf(100 seats) Retail Floor Area = 302,000 sf Total Floor Area = 308,000 sf Average Daily Flow = (retail area x 0.1 gpd/sf) + (restaurant seats x 35 gpd/seat) = (302,000 sf x 0.1 gpd/sf) + (100 seats x 35 gpd/seat) = 33,700 gpd Average Yearly Flow = (Average Daily Flow) x (365) = (33,700 gpd) x(365) = 12 million gallons Peak Flow = (Average Daily Flow) x 4 = (33,700 gpd) x 4 = 134,800 gpd sf= square feet gpd = gallons per day Source: Bohler Engineering As previously noted, the estimated average water demand in the Redevelopment Area is currently approximately 34,300 gpd. As shown in Table 3.12-1, the proposed Retail Center Project is projected to have an average water demand of 33,700 gpd, which is slightly less than the existing water usage estimate. Preliminary discussions between the Applicant and the United Water Company indicate that water supply problems for fire and domestic services are not anticipated. The existing water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to service the proposed Retail Center Project. No impacts are therefore projected to occur. The Retail Center Project would incorporate water conservation measures including the installation of low-flow toilets and sinks. 3.12.2 Sanitary Sewage Existing Conditions The City is located within the New Rochelle Sewage District, and is serviced by the New Rochelle Wastewater Treatment Plant on LaFerve Road. The plant is owned and operated by the Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities. Information about the plant is provided in Table 3.12-2, below. As shown on this Table, the plant operates above its design capacity. In 1986, the New York State Department of Conservation imposed a moratorium on any new sanitary sewer extensions within the service area of the plant. This moratorium, however, does not prohibit service connections to an existing sanitary sewer system. 3.12-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS LEGEND iSAN WATER ; GASB �_ : t . i ;,4";: S . ii:„ r, ELECTRIC �_ ,, w - 7, t. _ :. > -- • '�"”'""'^^^s.�.,,. ^'-.«^, »... �. :.. -- .. .. �?�.:, ♦ {6' �.�'�—�PNC � _...........__. i 1 11". -fit<1 •-"<c.,r.«.. ,� - -.::« ..._,.._. ... -•-- _.. - ,.� Z ,._,. -._ _..._.... i _. ._ _ -��. .. . .......�..-- .. • ".. r •G ,• C••.,«.-.=h=. PIS. 1, iiiit4,44,_H:7 .._... 4. ... . . ,axis, I gI , , , : , , , :. . : .T,, , t • .<:..,, - 1-,..: 'www;+ r 5 r ,: t • • 11� .t u - w E ., ,:, , ,',,,,,,,,.f,/,., ri,: r i I r. ...,„,,,,7. . ; , ,,, . , •_-:----.,..._ i r > Y... ' !. r i,4-44.4,41- • *fin}.! 1 i , >._ ytr<n' • i -.. - ^S^ . r' - .� / , . , ..,....„...,,, .,..,...„. _..,.,...„,L....\,...L4-..., 2 t i T ; - . _..- ( ..... � j r t i r ---� __ �� 11 _. -- �x---u ._ »,TTT---." y�.i• i a...' .'• 1 } -�rtx-rxr. rai -.x. e .3SArt ,#r,{.P,k'=:aan _— ..,, ,,,::F.t !!! T• /, .1 ii.- . i i : i ::-4 t * .it - 4 1 ._. ,..__ - -.17+,011::. 4 t. jt ) 1 «<, r..,. _ ..r46 ,x. , =x __ #, ,^,`.•,ti,„, 3r ty _.-•a ._- • .... -•. .. 1ii.:_t..,,,..,-,:, .i - , t. _ems ;.r r -7Ie. x_s,,,. _1.,:a• ..,_..,.>.> ligilliirminumempwinm.. _ ::: . �,.r : 1 w I z / ; - ~ f � ay A l PROP. 10 IP _ ti, x. Pt .i '' - . ---t- .1111• • . ----- [ Ai . , ' - ' I-..... • 1 G _ it E =xn .. { _ .._ rrx- •s =,:ss 4w ry. -mew Y' a r.-. x:.. #=r ! Jj / �: PROP. 10� j •.. ri ., ,....._ • ._ _ _. ��_ __ .._ .._.. .__ ,....._ ._., -�. � '� „ ,�^, i . jj ,,h.„_„_ r : •}�;�:.S:sJ „�.___.,. __ - j.jpp _-_ nw , S 4.. 17�II0��I��1��� 'W `n”^`rirv`-rosy _ ._. _._.._. Milliel P ' r ,t `"_ f ...r j .1 i i 1 1 1 _...! t 1, --- - 4 11.. { - `£ • /�1 7 J ;5 _. �. tix�,K > { t, r xL ._ — .. ,_- _..-._ _- __. / J a" 1.' -....1-±.----.., , _.-c-_ .... r _,._.- {_ — __ _ _gam :.� ...' c .17 Ili _. u f Y!!iu eV:ry F • �..�. r.. t._ ._.., ar ..,ao txx •..'.w .x. x=In! 's'x #• ft '� 'a, ..x._xc=1, s..,sµyb+tLfuy ua,++u#'.'+�` - _ _ _ *x .-. a q.. ri '''''''''',•,,,,,,,.-,„'.-------s.'"--- _— 1 .._. e f } rr J ft 1.- y J I ( }� ... - WYE �YII! r.: 17 1 , „gyp 11 PROP. 10•x 1O•x S' IIajoir, i. �. 711" > OP TEE 3fru. ... � >� biii •� eP w raw f RATER _ �._� � %, v w... .. ._.. f' / MIME 1 «_ Ifi� ( x _:, I POOP 10' p 1 _, rte^_ __._.._.. -_._._.__.._„ -~' ' _-- NEW ENGLAND THRUWAY GRAPHIC SCALE Figure 3.12-1 : Utility Plan Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project 100 0 50 100 200 400 City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: 1 Inch = 100 Feet Source: Bohler Engineering, June 2000 ( IN FEET ) File 9916 Fig 3.12-1 SMP TMA 08/23/00 1 inch = 100 ft. Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 264-4418 L Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services September 14, 2000 TABLE 3.12-2 New Rochelle Wastewater Treatment Plant MUNICIPALITIES SERVED: City of New Rochelle, Larchmont, Pelham Manor, and Town Mamaroneck TRIBUTARY POPULATION SERVED: 80,000 DISTRICT SIZE: 9 Square Miles COUNTY TRUNK SEWERS: 11 Miles YEAR BUILT: 1956, Primary, 1982 Secondary CAPITAL COST: $4,100,000 - Primary, $18,000,000 - Secondary TREATMENT PROCESS: Screenings and grit removal, primary sedimentation, pure oxygen activated sludge, chlorination, belt pres dewatering, and multiple hearth furnace incineration. DISPOSAL: Ash to landfill, some sludge removed by private contractors. FLOW CAPACITIES Actual Flow: 16.4 million gallons per day (MGD) Design Flow: 13.6 MGD Maximum Hydraulic Capacity: 45.0 MGD PUMPING STATIONS: Flint Avenue, Beach Avenue, Circle Park, Magnolia Avenue, Woodbine Avenue, Sutton Manor, and Fifth Avenue. STAFFING: 48 Employees 1999 BUDGET: $8,330,409 Source:Westchester County Website(www.westchester.ny.us/envfacil) Sewer lines in the Redevelopment Area are owned and operated by the City of New Rochelle Department of Publics Works (DPW). Based on correspondence with DPW and investigations of the Project Engineer, eight inch sanitary mains are located along the center line of Pleasant Street, Biehn Street, Plain Avenue, and Valley Place. These mains generally flow in a northeasterly direction towards the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Valley Place. From this location, the effluent combines with other flows from surrounding areas and is tributary to a pump station owned and operated by the Westchester County Sewer Authority located in William Flower Park on Fifth Avenue, across from the Redevelopment Area. A 14 inch gravity main enters the pump station. Based on data from the Westchester County Office of Environmental Facilities, the pump station has a capacity of 3.9 million gallons per day (MGD). These data also indicate that the average daily flow to the pump station is approximately 0.6 MGD, suggesting that there is sufficient capacity for additional sanitary effluent. A ten inch force main leaves the pump station in a westerly direction and is tributary to the Flint Street pump station. The conveyance line that exits the pump station is owned and operated by the County. Preliminary studies indicate that the existing infrastructure has sufficient capacity to service the proposed Retail Center Project. Connections to the sanitary sewer system would require approval from the City of New Rochelle Department of Public Works. The City has a minimal charge for road openings associated with a sewer tap. Usage fees are charged through municipal taxes. 3.12-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services September 14, 2000 The estimated average daily sewer demand for the existing properties within the Redevelopment Area is approximately 34,300 gpd, based on the same usage criteria as the water demand estimate. Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions Without the proposed Retail Center Project, sewage generation from the Redevelopment Area and existing sewer-related infrastructure would likely remain unchanged from existing conditions. Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions Sewage flow estimates from the proposed Retail Center Project are provided in Table 3.12-1. The location of the proposed connection to the existing sanitary system is shown in Figure 3.12-1 Utility Plan. The estimated sewage flows of approximately 33,700 gpd from the proposed Retail Center Project would be slightly less than the effluent flow rates currently generated by the mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial properties in the Redevelopment Area. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated with respect to sewage treatment or flows. 3.12.3 Solid Waste Existing Conditions In accordance with the New Rochelle City Ordinance, the City does not provide refuse collection services for businesses that exceed a maximum of two 32-gallon containers per day, or a total of 128 gallons per week. Businesses that generate refuse in excess of these limits typically utilize private contractors for refuse collection. Disposal of this refuse occurs at an approved landfill facility or is recycled in accordance with applicable state, county and city laws. Solid wastes generated by residential properties in the Redevelopment Area are collected by the City's Department of Public Works (DPW) and transported to the Westchester County - RESCO facility in Peekskill for disposal. No information is available from DPW regarding the amount of solid wastes currently collected by the City in the Redevelopment Area. Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions Without the proposed Retail Center Project, solid waste generation and collection in the Redevelopment Area would likely remain unchanged from existing conditions. For comparative purposes, it is assumed that the DPW would continue to collect solid wastes from residences in the Redevelopment Area. There are an estimated 33 properties that support residential use in the Redevelopment Area. Of these, 22 support single family residences, eight support two family residences, and three support three family residences. The calculations for amount of solid wastes generated from these residences is shown on Table 3.12-3. 3.12-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services September 14, 2000 TABLE 3.12-3 Solid Wastes Calculations for Existing Residences ASSUMPTIONS: 3.3065 = Number of people per single family home 2.3213 = Number of people per two and three family home 2 Solid wastes per person per day: 0.00175 tons Days per year: 365.25 CALCULATIONS: Population : 22 x 3.3065+ 25 x 2.3213 = 131 Tons per day: 131 x 0.00175 = 0.23 Tons per year: 33 x 4 x 0.00175 x 365.25 = 84.4 1 Urban Land Institute Development Impact Assessment Handbook multiplier for single family house, northeast region. 2 Urban Land Institute Development Impact Assessment Handbook multiplier for duplex, triplex, northeast region. SOURCE:Tim Miller Associates, Inc. Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions Operational Wastes Generated The Commissioner of New Rochelle Department of Public Works (see Appendix C), indicated that the City would not provide solid waste pick up service to the proposed Retail Center Project. The proposed Retail Center Project would utilize a private carting company to pick up and dispose of solid waste materials from the facility. Given that the DPW currently provides solid waste collection services to the residential properties in the Redevelopment Area, the proposed Retail Center Project represents a reduction in service area for the DPW. Yearly, average daily, and peak daily solid waste generation projections for the proposed Retail Center Project are presented in Table 3.12-4. These projections are based upon a slightly larger IKEA facility, which recently opened in Oakland, California. Solid waste generation rates for the proposed Retail Center Project are likely to be slightly lower than those presented in Table 3.12-4. TABLE 3.12-4 Projected Solid Wastes Generated (tons) Average Yearly 1,000 Average Daily 2.8 Peak Daily 3.2 SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 1998 Accommodating the solid wastes generated by the proposed Retail Center Project's operational solid wastes would be accomplished by private contractors, and would not affect the City of New Rochelle's solid waste collection services. No adverse impacts are projected to occur. 3.12-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services September 14, 2000 The Applicant maintains an environmental policy (enacted in 1991) that governs all of its operating divisions. The policy establishes the Applicant's intent to "ensure that its product range with regard to raw material, production, distribution, use and disposal is environmental friendly. It is mandatory for all of the Applicant's stores to develop an infrastructure for recycling the wastes generated by the retail store." Under this policy, the Applicant would recycle solid waste materials to the extent feasible, including, but not limited to the following: • self-contained compactor for waste material • compactor for recycling cardboard and mixed office paper • compartmentalized containers for recyling, shrink wrap, and other plastics • container for recycling wood (pallets, broken furniture, particle board, etc.) Construction and Demolition Debris An estimate of the demolition debris generated by the proposed Retail Center Project is summarized in Table 3.12-5. Some of the demolition debris, such as concrete, asphalt, and metals, would be recycled for reuse where reasonable and cost effective. Material that cannot be recycled would be transported off-site by private contractors for disposal at a licensed disposal facility for such materials. TABLE 3.12-5 Material Disposal Estimates Description Volume Weight 20 Ton • (Cubic Yards) (tons) Truckloads Building Debris - Masonry Structures 13,000 16,900 845 Demolition Debris -Wood Structures 4,000 1,200 270 Excavated Soils 44,000 57,200 2,860 Excavated Rock 9,000 18,000 900 Pavement Removal Demolition Debris 5,400 11,000 550 TOTAL: 75,400 104,300 5,425 SOURCE: Bohler Engineering,August 2000 The Applicant prepared a demolition and construction phasing schedule. The entire demolition and construction process is estimated to last approximately one year with the demolition and site preparation phase lasting approximately seven months. Demolition debris would be transported off-site during this initial seven month period. The traffic associated with the removal of this material is described in Chapter 3.9 Transportation and Traffic and in Chapter 3.13 Construction Impacts. As discussed in Chapter 3.14 Hazardous Materials, in preparation for site demolition activities, a certified asbestos inspector and/or environmental specialist would be retained to inspect those structures where asbestos or hazardous materials are suspected to occur. An asbestos removal program would be prepared and implemented if any structures are determined through the inspection program to contain these materials. If removal of any materials is required, these actions would occur in the early stages of the demolition process in accordance with applicable City, State and Federal regulations. 411111 3.12-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services September 14, 2000 All on-site fuel storage tanks would be removed and closed in accordance with NYSDEC procedures. Disposal of hazardous materials will be the responsibility of the private contractors. Disposal of such materials would occur at a facility licensed to receive these materials in accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations. 3.12.4 Energy Existing Conditions Natural gas and electric service to the Redevelopment Area and the surrounding properties are provided by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed). Gas mains are currently located along Fifth Avenue and throughout the Redevelopment Area. Overhead electrical lines currently provide electrical service to the Redevelopment Area. There is currently existing capacity to service the energy demands of the Redevelopment Area. Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions Without the proposed Retail Center Project, energy usage and existing energy-related infrastructure are likely to remain unchanged from existing conditions. Future Condition With the Proposed Actions The electrical demand estimate of the proposed Retail Center Project is 6,000 Amps, 480/277 Volt, 3 phase. This demand is a preliminary estimate provided by the mechanical design firm of Thorson and Baker Associates. Based on discussions between the Project Engineer and Con Ed, there are no foreseeable problems meeting electrical demand of the proposed Retail Center Project. Similarly, Con Ed foresees no problems providing natural gas service to the proposed Retail Center Project as this would replace the services currently provided to the parcels comprising the Redevelopment Area. The natural gas service for the Retail Center Project is proposed to be a six inch PVC pipe that connects to an existing main on Fifth Avenue and enters the proposed Retail Center Project near the main entrance. The proposed gas and electrical connections to the existing gas and electric services in the Redevelopment Area are illustrated in Figure 3.12-1 Utility Plan. Construction vehicles and equipment would primarily use diesel fuel as a source of energy. Some of the construction equipment may utilize gasoline as a source of fuel, but use of this equipment would be relatively low in comparison to diesel fuel-consuming equipment and vehicles. Well maintained diesel engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline engines. 3.12.5 Fire Protection Existing Conditions Correspondence with the New Rochelle Fire Department (see Appendix C), provided the following information about the current operating status of the department. There are: 3.12-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services September 14, 2000 • 156 fully paid members • five fire stations with 5 pumpers, 3 ladders, and a heavy rescue in front line services • an average of 27 to 29 men on duty at each shift The correspondence identified two stations that could provide emergency service to the Redevelopment Area within a few minutes. One is Station No. 3, located at North Avenue and Eastchester Road. This station is approximately 1.5 miles from the Redevelopment Area. It houses an engine and a ladder truck. Station No. 1 is located on Harrison Street, near New Roc City. This station is also 1.5 miles from the Redevelopment Area. It houses an engine, tower ladder, and heavy rescue truck, as well as the Chiefs car. Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions Without the proposed Retail Center Project, no future changes related to fire protection in the Redevelopment Area are anticipated. Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions In correspondence with the City of New Rochelle Fire Department (See Appendix C), the department indicated the following fire safety concerns: • The proposed building needs to be fully sprinklered and standpiped. • Fire flow studies will need to be conducted. • Access needs to be provided to the front of the building via the parking deck. • The parking deck in the front of the building needs to be able to support fire apparatus. • A fire lane needs to be dedicated by the front entrance. • Prudent hydrant and hook-ups to the Redevelopment Area need to be provided, including the strategic spacing of fire hydrants on the parking deck, bearing in mind freezing problems. The Fire Department indicated a willingness to work with the Building Department to review the proposed Retail Center Project site plan for fire safety concerns. The design features discussed above have been incorporated into the proposed Retail Center Project design. The Fire Department also provides emergency medical service to the Redevelopment Area and would continue to provide such service to the proposed Retail Center Project. Fire Department personnel are trained to provide emergency medical services. With the incorporation of the design criteria described above, the Fire Department does not foresee any problems providing fire protection or emergency medical services to the proposed Retail Center Project. The adequacy of construction materials used, building design and material storage practices, assessment of fire flow rates, and of the United water of New Rochelle system capacity, would be assessed by the Fire Department during the site plan approval process. 3.12-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services September 14, 2000 3.12.6 Police Existing Conditions The New Rochelle Police Department headquarters is located at 9 Beaufort Place, which is located behind City Hall in the center of the City. The police department consists of approximately 230 employees, including 186 full-time police officers and 40 civilian personnel (full and part-time), with the capability to handle all emergencies that may arise in an urban/suburban environment. The police force includes the following divisions: Critical Incident Unit; Traffic Unit; Criminal Investigative Units; and the specialized units. The ratio of police officers to the population served is one officer for every 365 residents. The response time to emergency calls in this area of the City is within three minutes, and the police station is less than one mile from the Redevelopment Area. Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions Without the proposed Retail Center Project, no future changes related to police protection in the Redevelopment Area are anticipated. Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions The greatest concern posed by the proposed Retail Center Project on the Police Department is the potential for a strain on existing personnel resources. Traffic impacts and proposed mitigation measures are described in Chapter 3.9. The proposed Retail Center Project would result in an increase in tax revenues for the City of New Rochelle (see Chapter 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions, for details). These revenues could be utilized by the City of New Rochelle to provide increased funding to the New Rochelle Police Department for additional staff, if it were determined to be necessary or desirable. As is the Applicant's usual operating procedure, the proposed Retail Center Project would utilize on-site security staff to provide security for both the interior and exterior parking lot portions of the Redevelopment Area. Exterior security staff would be equipped with a vehicle and communications device. Other security requirements would include the installation of in-progress crime and burglar detection systems, the strategic placements of lighting fixtures and public telephones around the proposed Retail Center's perimeter, installation of closed circuit television (CCTV) with recording devices to be monitored by security personnel, and a system for cart security designed to prevent merchandise-carrying devices from leaving the premises. Plans for security crime prevention hardware and for lighting would be required to be approved by the Police Department prior to construction. 3.12-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services September 14, 2000 3.12.7 Rodent Control Existing Conditions A Freedom of Information Law request was submitted to the Westchester County Department of Health (WCDH) to provide any documentation of incidents of rodent infestation in the Redevelopment Area. According to the Westchester County Department of Health, there have been no reported cases of rodent infestation in the Redevelopment Area since 1992. Between 1984 and 1992, the WCDH had received rodent complaint reports from nine properties in the Redevelopment Area. The length of time that has passed since the last reported rodent complaint and the low level of complaints that has occurred after 1992 indicate that rodent infestation is not a significant problem in the Redevelopment Area. No rodents have been observed during numerous site visits to the Redevelopment Area by any personnel involved in the preparation this DEIS. Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions Without the proposed Retail Center Project, future occurrences of rodents and future control measures are not expected to change from current low levels. Future Conditions With the Proposed Actions As per City Code, a licensed pest exterminator will be retained by the Applicant to bait the Redevelopment Area for rodent control prior to demolition of existing structures in the Redevelopment Area, as part of the demolition plan. To complete the Building Permit Application, a certificate of extermination would need to be submitted. This work would be done in advance of the proposed demolition activities. 3.12-10 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Construction Impacts September 14, 2000 3.13 Construction Impacts This Chapter addresses the potential construction impacts associated with development of the proposed Retail Center Project within the proposed Urban Renewal Area. As a condition of any approval, the Applicant would be required to work closely with the City to minimize disruption to local businesses and residential communities throughout the duration of the Retail Center Project construction. The City and the Applicant would coordinate in the development and implementation of a Construction Management Plan for the proposed Retail Center Project. The Applicant would be responsible for the monitoring of construction progress and contractor adherence to the Construction Management Plan. The contractor's construction manager would be required to maintain progress reports to ensure that the City is informed of construction progress and potential impacts. The Applicant would work with the City to provide information to the public, especially local residents, regarding those construction activities that would directly affect the public, such as blasting or traffic diversions. Issues of concern during construction may include the rerouting of local traffic, the addition of construction traffic to local roads, dust, noise, and the potential for worker exposure to contaminants such as asbestos, lead paint, or petroleum contaminated soil. These matters are discussed further below. 3.13.1 Construction Activities and Scheduling The Applicant's Project Engineer has developed a demolition and construction phasing schedule, which is described below and illustrated in Figure 3.13-1. Specific tasks in each phase may occur concurrently, or prior to the completion of other tasks during the construction phases. The proposed construction schedule has been divided into four phases; including: I) permitting; II) acquisition/relocation; III) demolition; and, IV) construction. Phases III and IV, which involve physical construction activities, are expected to take a total of one year. The construction schedule is largely dependent upon acquisition of the individual properties within the Redevelopment Area. It is anticipated that the construction schedule would be refined and updated as the acquisition and relocation process proceeds. Phase I - Permitting and Approvals Following the completion of the SEQRA process and the adoption of the Statement of Findings, the Retail Center Project would require Site Plan approval from the City, as well as other approvals that are dependent upon a final Site Plan. A discussion of required approvals is provided in Chapter 2.0. The permitting and approvals phase would be expected to involve approximately 20 weeks, beginning in week 1 following the adoption of Findings, and ending in week 20. Phase II - Acquisition and Relocation Concurrent with the permitting and approvals process, the Applicant would continue to pursue the acquisition of properties. The acquisition of property and the relocation of current property owners and tenants would be expected to extend 12 weeks beyond the end of the Permitting Phase. This phase would be expected to require a total of 32 weeks, beginning in week 1 and ending in week 32. Impact issues associated with acquisition of properties,,displacement, and 3.13-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Construction Impacts September 14, 2000 relocation of existing property owners and tenants are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions. Phase III - Demolition The Redevelopment Area demolition would be expected to begin with an asbestos and other hazardous material removal program for existing buildings. This task would begin in specific buildings prior to the completion of the Acquisition and Relocation phase. Both the Soil Erosion Control Plan implementation and the underground storage tank removal program would be started simultaneous during the Phase III Demolition Phase in week 31 and would last four weeks. Any required remediation or excavation and removal of petroleum impacted soils would occur in conjunction with the underground tank removal program in consultation with the City and other applicable governmental agencies. As described in Chapter 3.2.4 Topography, Geology, Soils, and Hydrogeology - Mitigation Measures, prior to the start of any work that would result in rough grading or soil disturbance, appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls, would be installed. The utility relocation and removal would be scheduled to begin in week 32, with the abandonment of gas mains located in the Redevelopment Area. The relocation, and removal or abandonment of stormwater drainage lines, sanitary sewer, and water lines, would occur in a four week period, beginning week 33. The demolition of building structures would be scheduled to begin concurrent with a portion of the utility relocation. Demolition is expected to require 16 weeks. Following the removal of buildings, existing pavement and curbing would be removed, and the site rough grading would occur. Rock removal and blasting would last for approximately four weeks near the end of the demolition phase (blasting procedures are described 3.13.7). The entire demolition phase would be expected to require a total of 31 weeks, extending from week 26 to week 56. Phase IV - Construction Construction would be expected to require a total of 38 weeks. The initial task of the Construction Phase involves roadway improvements and widening for: Portman Road, Plain Avenue, Valley Place, Fifth Avenue and Biehn Street. This work would need to be completed before the end of the demolition phase (pavement removal), since traffic would be redirected onto Plain Avenue during the roadway work on Fifth Avenue. This work would require eight weeks, starting in week 39. The establishment of soil erosion control measures in the Redevelopment Area would occur in two phases, one prior to the start of demolition (week 31) and the second prior to construction site work (week 52). This work would require two weeks for each phase. Site work involving grading, the preparation of suitable subgrades, as well as construction of roadway and parking area improvements would involve 24 weeks. Construction of the building and parking deck would begin in week 56, with a duration of 24 weeks, and would be completed in concurrence with site work. Construction is expected to be completed in week 79 of the schedule. 3.13-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS I Demolition and Construction Phasing Schedule • O N c0 V Ln (D N- co 6) O N O V Ln co N- co a) O N Co R Ln CO N- CO C) O N co V Ln CD N- CO 6) O N C0 7t in CD N- CO 6) O N M V Ln CSD n 00 C) O N CO V Ln CD I- N C) N CO V Ln (0 N- c0 6) N N N N N N N N N N C) LU CO CO LU c0 c0 C) Co C7 V LU 7 V V V V V V V Ln in Ln Ln «) LU Ln Ln Ll) LD (0 (D CO co CO cD CD CD CO O N- N- n N- N- N- r N- r` N- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y -G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y _NC Y Y Y Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ili a)) g a)) 1 1 1 a)) g 4)) aa)) 1 1 g 1 g g a)) a)) g g) g g g 1 g aa)) aa)) a)) ag) a)) illi ) 1 g) g 1)) g) g) a)) g g g 1)) aa)) aa)) 1 1 g g aN 1 11>L N a) aa)) 1) aa)) aa)) a) 1g' Ili)) )) g a)) 1))) g Na) 1)) g a)) ag g 11) 1 aa)) g g iDate: N) ACTIVITY DURATION Local and Regulatory Site Plan Approvals 20 Weeks _ , j ! I Property Acquisition and Condemnation 26 Weeks l 1 l 1 — Building Evacuations and Relocations 20 Weeks Asbestos Removal Program 8 Weeks I Soil Erosion Control Plan Implementation 4 WeeksEt Underground Storage Tank Removal Program 4 Weeks _ Rodent Removal Program (If Required) 2 Weeks Gas Main Abandonment 1 Week _ _Storm Sewer Removal and Relocation 4 Weeks Water Main Abandonment and Relocation 3 Weeks Sanitary Sewer Abandonment and Relocation 4 Weeks _Demolition of Building Structures 16 Weeks , Site Blasting 4 Weeks , , Pavement and Curbing Removal 4 Weeks Site Excavation 6 Weeks Roadway Improvements (Portman,Plain&valley) 4 Weeks ' ` '``R„ Roadway Improvements (Fifth & Biehn) 4 Weeks Site Work 24 Weeks I 1 - -.r _ I Building and Parking Deck Construction 24 Weeks I .fir O ,- N c0 V LU CD r N O O N M V Ln CD N- Lb O) O N LU 7 Ln CD N- N O) O N M V Cf) O r c0 6) O N N V Ln CD r c0 C) CO N c0 LU L0 CD N- c0 C) O N CO R LD Co N- of 6) r N M V Ln CD N- c0 6) N N N N N N N N N N C) co Co M LU Co c0 co r) cn LU V V V V V V V V ct Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln CD UD CO CO O CO CD cD CD (0 N- r` n r` n r` r r` r r-- 2e Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) LEGEND PERMITTING Figure 3.13-1 : Demolition and Construction Phasing Schedule ACQUISITION/RELOCATION Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEMOLITION City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York miLiiCONSTRUCTION Source: Bohler Engineering, 2000 File 9916 Fig 3.13-1 TMA 09-08-00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516 (845)265-4400 Fax(845)265-4418 Construction Impacts September 14, 2000 3.13.2 Construction Traffic Street Closures and Diversions The Retail Center Project would maintain access to businesses, residences, the MacLeay Apartments on Fifth Avenue, and William Flower Park at the perimeter of the Redevelopment Area during the entire construction period. Through traffic on Fifth Avenue would also be maintained for the duration of the construction. Fifth Avenue, Valley Place and Portman Road would be widened to accommodate the proposed Retail Center Project early in the Project's implementation (week 54 of the construction schedule). The same detour routes, as described below, could accommodate the widening of all three roadways simultaneously. Traffic detours are expected to last an estimated eight weeks, although traffic may be reopened on specific streets in a shorter period of time. Fifth Avenue would be widened from two to three lanes between Portman Road and Valley Place. The prerequisite utility work would require closing about 10 feet of the 30-foot wide existing roadway. Traffic would be maintained in the remaining 20-foot width with on-street parking prohibited. The reconstruction of the roadway itself would require closing half the street to traffic. It is proposed to detour eastbound traffic onto one-way eastbound Plain Avenue between Portman Road and Valley Place. Westbound traffic would be kept on Fifth Avenue, first on one side of the street and then the other. During reconstruction of Valley Place, it is proposed to temporarily make this street one-way northbound, so that the western half can be widened. Southbound traffic would be detoured on Portman Road to Plain Avenue and/or Biehn Street and Pleasant Street to northbound Valley Place. Portman Road between Fifth Avenue and Plain Avenue would also be widened. The affected block would be temporarily made one-way southbound. Northbound traffic would be detoured on Plain Avenue to Valley Place to Fifth Avenue. Access would be maintained for pedestrians at the perimeter of the Redevelopment Area during the entire construction period. Appropriate fencing or barriers would be erected at the perimeter of the Redevelopment Area during construction to prohibit access and to safely direct pedestrians and vehicles to existing locations adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. The sidewalk on the south side of Fifth Avenue would be closed at the beginning of the demolition phase for the entirety of the Retail Center Project. Pedestrians would be directed to use the sidewalk on the north side of Fifth Avenue and the south side of Plain Avenue for the duration of construction. Although no sidewalks exist on Valley Place, pedestrians would be directed to the eastern edge of Valley Place, which would not be affected by the Retail Center Project until the end of construction when Valley Place would be milled and resurfaced. The staging of resurfacing work would maintain pedestrian access to businesses and residences on Valley Place. Staging construction to alternate sides of the road would also be used for Portman Road to maintain access. 3.13-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Construction Impacts September 14, 2000 Demolition Debris and Excavated Materials Estimates of the demolition debris and excavated materials quantities to be generated by the construction of proposed Retail Center Project are summarized in Table 3.13-1. All demolition debris generated by construction would be transported from the Redevelopment Area to appropriate material recycling facilities or to disposal facilities licensed to receive such material as indicated below. Table 3.13-1 Estimated Demolition Debris and Excavated Material Quantities Volume Weight 20-Ton Description (CY) (Tons) Truckloads Potential Disposal Site Building Demolition Debris Manida Street Masonry Structures Bronx, NY 13,000 16,900 845 or Lower South Street Peekskill, NY Building Demolition Debris Manida Street Wood Structures Bronx, NY 4,000 1,200 270 or Lower South Street Peekskill, NY Pavement Removal Demolition Debris 5,400 11,000 550 Mahopac, NY Subtotal 22,400 29,100 1,665 Excavated Soil 44,000 57,200 2,860 Lake Street West Harrison, NY Excavated Rock 9,000 18,000 900 Lake Street West Harrison, NY Subtotal 53,000 75,200 3,760 GRAND TOTAL 75,400 104,300 5,425 Asbestos Waste Unknown Sullivan County Landfill Monticello, NY Source: Bohler Engineering, August , 2000 Based upon the demolition debris estimates provided above, approximately 1,665 one-way truck trips would be required for the off-site disposal of demolition debris. These trips would be spread out over a period of four months, and are expected to be evenly distributed during each construction day. If Saturdays are included in the construction schedule, the demolition debris removal would involve 20 one-way truck trips per day over the four month period. If Saturdays are not used, it is likely that the work would take longer and the number of trips each day would remain the same. After demolition, excavation would result in the removal of 9,000 cubic yards of rock and 44,000 cubic yards of soil. Export of fill would result in approximately 3,760 one-way truck trips over an eight week period. The excavation would result in approximately 80 one-way truck trips per day, for both a six and a five day work week, assuming that the work would take longer with a five day work week. The building demolition and excavation tasks are scheduled to overlap for 3.13-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Construction Impacts September 14, 2000 a three week period (weeks 48 through 51). During this three week period, the maximum truck trips would be approximately 100 one-way trips per day. Table 3.13-1 summarizes the estimated quantity of building demolition debris, excavated soil and rock and pavement removal demolition debris at the proposed Retail Center Project site. Truck loads are estimated for 20-ton trucks. It is possible, however, that the demolition and excavation contractors would use 40-ton semi-trailer dump trucks. This would reduce the number of truckloads needed. The total number of truckloads could range from a high of 5,425, if all 20-ton trucks are used, to a low of 2,713 if all 40-ton semi-trailer trucks are used. Truck Routes to Export Demolition Debris and Excavated Materials The Retail Center Project would result in the addition of construction traffic to local streets for the duration of its construction. As described in the Traffic and Transportation Chapter (Section 3.9.16), truck access to and from the Redevelopment Area would be limited to certain targeted routes. The Retail Center Project would utilize existing truck routes in the City of New Rochelle and the Town of Mamaroneck and avoid utilizing streets, which are primarily residential. A construction traffic routing plan is shown on Figure 3.13-2. An alternative route for southbound traffic is being explored. This route would provide for direct access to the 1-95 on-ramp through the Thruway maintenance yard. This matter is being discussed with NYS Thruway Authority. Demolition Debris It is estimated that building demolition debris from masonry and wood structures would require 845 and 270 20-ton truckloads, respectively. It is expected that these materials would be trucked to a recycling company located either on Manida Avenue in the Hunts Point section of the Bronx, NY, or on Lower South Street in Peekskill, NY. In either case, under the demolition contract the trucks would be required to use the New England Thruway (1-95). The most direct route to Manida Avenue in the Bronx would be via Fifth Avenue to Madison Avenue in the Town of Mamaroneck, where they would enter 1-95 southbound at Interchange 17. The trucks would proceed south on the New England Thruway (1-95), west on the Bruckner Expressway (1-278), where they would exit at Hunts Point Avenue and proceed to the Manida Street recycling center. The return trip would be by reversing this general route via eastbound Bruckner Expressway (1-278) to northbound 1-95. The trucks would exit northbound 1-95 at Interchange 17 and proceed to the proposed Retail Center Project site in New Rochelle via Madison and Fifth Avenues in the Town of Mamaroneck. The most likely route to Lower South Street in Peekskill would be via Fifth Avenue to Potter Avenue to Palmer Avenue in New Rochelle where the trucks would enter northbound 1-95 at Interchange 16. The trucks would proceed north on 1-95, west on 1-287 to Interchange 2, north on NY Routes 9A and 9 to Route 9 to the vicinity of the City of Peekskill, where they would exit south of the City at Louisa Street and proceed to the Lower South Street recycling center. The return trip would be by reversing this general route via NY Route 9, Routes 9A and 9, 1-287, and 1-95. The trucks would exit southbound 1-95 at Interchange 16 and proceed to the proposed Retail Center Project site via Palmer Avenue, Potter and Fifth Avenues in New Rochelle. 3.13-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Construction Impacts September 14, 2000 Excavated Soil and Rock The largest quantity of material to be exported from the proposed Retail Center Project site is soil and rock. It is estimated that soil and rock excavation would require 2,860 and 900 20-ton truckloads, respectively. It is expected that both soil and rock would be trucked to a site on Lake Street in West Harrison, New York. The trucks would enter northbound 1-95 at Inter- change 16 in New Rochelle, where they would proceed north to westbound 1-287 to northbound 1-684. The trucks would exit 1-684 at Interchange 2, where they would proceed south on NY Route 120 to the Lake Street location. The trucks would reverse their route for the return trip to the proposed Retail Center Project site. Pavement Removal Demolition Debris The proposed Retail Center Project would require the removal of several existing streets located within the Redevelopment Area. The pavement removal would require 550 20-ton truckloads. It is expected that this material would be trucked to a disposal site located in Mahopac, New York. The trucks would enter northbound 1-95 at Interchange 16 in New Rochelle. They would proceed north to westbound 1-287 to northbound 1-684 and exit at Inter- change 19. The trucks would follow US Route 6 to the disposal site in Mahopac. The trucks would reverse this route for the return trip to the proposed Retail Center site. Asbestos Waste Any asbestos waste would be conveyed by covered trucks to a State-designated landfill in Sulli- van County, near Monticello, New York. The trucks would enter northbound 1-95 at Interchange 16 in New Rochelle. They would proceed north to westbound 1-287 to the northbound New York State Thruway (1-87) to Interchange 16 (near Harriman). The trucks would follow NY Route 17 to the Sullivan County disposal site. The trucks would reverse this route for the return trip to the proposed Retail Center Project site. Construction Access Stabilized construction entrances are proposed for two locations in the Redevelopment Area, as shown in Figure 3.2-6 Soil and Sediment Control Plan. These construction entrances would provide access for all vehicles entering and exiting specific blocks or areas of the construction site. The stabilized entrances would minimize the soil and dust that would be carried out of the site by construction vehicles. Construction Staging and Workers The staging of construction equipment and material would be located in designated level areas located to the west and east of the proposed Retail Center structure site within the Redevelopment Area. Worker parking would also be located in these areas. The staging areas would be secured with fencing to prevent unauthorized access from adjacent streets. Given the nature of construction operations, the number of trips resulting from material delivery and workers traveling to and from the site would vary considerably, depending upon the phase of construction. Construction would involve approximately 400 workers. It is estimated that 200 to 250 workers would travel to and from the proposed Retail Center Project site during any 3.13-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS ., A.„ • ° . 0 ,,t4,...; �`I ; To Mahopac, NY `�/ � • � /� :r €. _t ... 2i1u Ef�aK`:1' a = • via 1-287 to 1-684 v,�oTo Monticello, NY • r ‘le- /e t vial-287 to 1-87 411,0b, U4• { t \, �• 4. o Lower South Street,6 ean�e s � ��t�y, '�. �' , Peekskill ')0;53 '..k",% ~' .e• .-2-!c.: 91- ;y�,v \, 1:. via 1287 y °°) A ", • Sheldrake 1°•� fila.•t- ' 4 %�%~ v.Q'1',��� .�.11lRONECK ` tet• I (Lo'''on.. I. ' .�J ti ...V.^..:4',,-;- •V^y+R,� M3,� 8 ?* ♦i, �. y+ 4 •e �•Nw %i�! 4S .I., '°°I Pa) d r,'t��F"ti F S e� ..°.` V .ljA�r 41411• .a4, �� "'O `! D ." • ,teem a....,,ttB�fi,, � � .' ; �Iy. ..r'..".<• 7,.,,,,,4„..-Fi. •,,1.'�/� //•,',�� �,. V' tEOaMC an—,„V- . •,�'` Gj��G7Y0 18A <..71' -," 6 , r-t. �'_ l taitst- �.,, ^;, -`:=4',4-.... -, .,, �.. „of , i� rNeo„ee:° �,o— p I _S'41 a` .. ice l'4p A -iA i ` '„, yacht t- .,. �' .�_� , - 2 �+1 ��r• �f a �4 4 j . N if �,,, r �•, f F �3. , y�.iP '.L �'`��' ��+ HAFBDR g V • it `aa hf �': ',xod' y �� n.r^_ +O} a 90 �? y J ,Pr.Ho' 1 ,... . yr t�jJ arK 1 `(. e • • ���{/y o.r��/,d'"/+/� �-- d ��e'',i."n w � ,q R �„ -.t 1 /'^ ' to ,n'T021 Eli' �� y ,,,c '�'' 006 . 4.-,-,,,, .4 ,,!0. „ - I, - • JI„.-,--. - ,..,.. .,./:' 11,,. t .,.. „., , I IIP .., • 1 le v‘ii•Ai =D. . . a ,•��t'� : �~a �1oe .'a.® a_ + ,4;, - �2.44.. .', Cir Redevelopment :g.. • `�=..°- A : .4''' ,,, i 're r . ..• k i. ‘01,k Area q••. '�' • ` . !' ur - �+-, A•Ci far,.ST�h/ ,rte. v3��°"' �t , t`•a L ii.., , „ •Ni iii� ty' .; y± ♦ �S I /3 � .\ ••• qsff' S � , o, /// . ro" `: ( �1 ..„— ` •• , - • . `' � • A., -..-.., -t . Y, • Cedo� .Z, IeI (-;;53,.. fie ' +ct•„4 :::-,:ss,, ; / s „ Y 1:::3,... r . ' . +' o % ♦, ' I • • Edgeweter P' : 'a , 1' .' ' S \('' `yOFm. ► ' + ' (I":”,0 va,'"/ - -:•p-k ilitoy. ,,;,;f jipy;,.., Orr,'-.;„,ik', ,\,,r,„.„.<), ..,,f : - ALL'.:.. :,,,,,,i( ,.1 . i - sm..,,,.. .., ,.., ,„.7.4 - , 49 t......-1.-. ‘-tytpe.,,.....) . .. �. ws , fi r ,, (..,e ....,,,v„. , , ,� 4 4:.• Legend ?' .;/sa►' �,, ° �` — _t o,,,0 ;La,:,- 5^. --� North Bound Truck Route P ; 4'"�Manida Ave Oakwood '°'/ f South Bound Truck Route v�, �f Bronx via 1-95 `' 3 �_ •; ':/r �,\s -•ate ♦ . •at,... .. I 1 N Figure 3.13-2: Construction Routing Plan W E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York S Source:Hagstrom Lower Westchester County Map, 1998 Scale: 1 Inch=2,300 Feet 08/24/00 CD TMA 9916 Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, NY 10516(845)265-4400, Fax(845)265-4418 Construction Impacts September 14, 2000 given day. This would be 160 to 210 automobile trips daily with the majority (80 percent) arriving between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM (weekdays) and 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM (Saturdays), and departing between 3:30 PM and 4:30 PM (weekdays) and 4:30 PM and 5:30 PM (Saturdays). Parking for workers would be on-site. A discussion of traffic impacts related to construction vehicles and construction worker trips is found in Chapter 3.9 Traffic and Transportation. 3.13.3 Air Quality Construction activities in the Redevelopment Area may potentially generate fugitive or airborne dust. Building demolition can be a source of fugitive dust if not controlled properly. Fugitive dust is also generated during ground clearing and excavation activities. Passage of trucks and other vehicles over exposed soil surfaces can also generate fugitive dust. For a more detailed discussion of fugitive dust generation during construction and methods to control airborne dust, see Sections 3.10.5 and 3.10.6 of Chapter 3.10. Products of fuel combustion are also generated by construction equipment; however, these emissions are generally insignificant in comparison to vehicular emissions from adjacent roadways and businesses if the equipment is properly maintained and the engines tuned. 3.13.4 Construction Noise A discussion of noise generated by the proposed construction activities in the proposed Redevelopment Area and its environs is found in Section 3.11.4 of Chapter 3.11. 3.13.5 Hazardous Materials Asbestos Removal It is possible that asbestos was used in the construction materials given the age of most of the existing buildings in the Redevelopment Area. In preparation for site demolition activities, a certified asbestos inspector would inspect those structures where asbestos materials are suspected to occur. An asbestos removal program would be prepared and implemented if any structures are determined to contain this material in accordance with Section 56-1.4 of the New York State Industrial Code Rule 56 and the relevant provisions of the Clean Air Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder establishing the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ("NESHAPS" ). If removal of any materials is required, these actions would occur as the first task of the demolition process in accordance with applicable City, State and Federal regulations. This work would be completed by licensed asbestos abatement contractors, using workers trained and certified to perform the work. By using the proper removal procedures and trained personnel, other construction workers and the general public would not be exposed to asbestos during building demolition. In conjunction with the asbestos inspection, a professional environmental specialist would be retained to inspect those properties where hazardous materials may exist and require removal prior to demolition. These materials may include waste material left by occupants, contents of oil/water separators, transformers, and lead paint. Any such materials found would be properly disposed of by contractors trained and certified to handle and transport such material. 3.13-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Construction Impacts September 14, 2000 Therefore, other construction workers and the general public would not be exposed to hazardous materials during construction. Tank Removal Underground petroleum storage tank removal would also occur at the beginning of the demolition phase of construction. This work would be completed by contractors licensed and trained to perform the work, in accordance with local, State and Federal requirements. During the tank removal process, the condition of the tanks and the excavations would be monitored for potential leaks and the presence of petroleum contamination (see Chapter 3.14 Hazardous Materials). If soil contamination is encountered, the soil would be stockpiled, tested and disposed of according to NYSDEC Petroleum Contaminated Soil Guidance Policy. Petroleum Contaminated Soil and Groundwater Based upon the preliminary environmental assessments completed for the Redevelopment Area, the soil and groundwater in portions of the Redevelopment Area contain petroleum compounds, which exceed NYSDEC guidance values (see Chapter 3.14 Hazardous Materials); specifically, petroleum contamination was found in the vicinity of the Citgo Service Station on Fifth Avenue. The only excavation work proposed for this area is subgrade preparation for the installation of new parking lot pavement, curbs and excavation for stormwater lines. Prior to excavation and construction work in this area, a plan would be developed to minimize excavation and to implement procedures for the proper handling, storage and disposal of contaminated soil/groundwater. This plan would be developed following the completion of additional soil and groundwater testing in the vicinity of the Citgo Station to further define the level and extent of contamination (see Chapter 3.14 Hazardous Materials). Any excavation, handling, or transport of contaminated soil/groundwater would be performed by appropriately licensed and trained private contractors. Untrained construction workers, and the public would not be exposed to contaminated soil and groundwater. Contaminated soils would be stored, tested and disposed of according to NYSDEC Petroleum Contaminated Soil Guidance Policy. Disposal of such materials would occur at a facility licensed to receive these materials in accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations. 3.13.6 Erosion Control Measures The soil erosion and sediment control plan would minimize the erosion of exposed areas of soils and to prevent the transportation of sediment off-site during the construction process. A site-specific Sediment and Soil Erosion Control Plan has been developed for the Redevelopment Area, as described in Chapter 3.2 Topography, Geology, Soils, and Hydrogeology. All soil erosion and sediment control practices would be installed in accordance with Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices Manual Series, Westchester County, 1991 (BMP) and the City of New Rochelle Municipal Code, where appropriate. 3.13-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Construction Impacts September 14, 2000 3.13.7 Blasting Procedures As discussed in Chapter 3.2 Topography, Geology, Soils, and Hydrogeology, blasting would be required in the preparation of the site for the proposed Retail Center Project site, including the building, parking facilities, and utility installation. Areas of potential blasting are shown in Figure 3.2-5 Blasting Plan. Based upon preliminary geotechnical data, it is anticipated that 9,000 cubic yards of rock would be excavated. Supplemental geotechnical borings are required to more accurately predict the required extent of rock removal and blasting. A blasting protocol would be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to neighboring properties and residences. It is provided in Appendix L, and is summarized below: 1) All blasting would be conducted in compliance with New York State requirements [(Title 12 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (12 NYCRR Part 39)]. 2) Blasting would be done under the direct supervision of licensed and insured blasting contractors. A permit would be obtained from the City of New Rochelle, prior to blasting. Blasting would comply with the City Blasting Code (Section 147-13). 3) Blasting operations would be limited to the hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, and exclude Sunday or any holiday. 4) The minimum required amount of explosives would be used in all blasting operations. 5) Pre-blasting inspections would be conducted of all off-site structures located within 500 feet of the excavation area, if authorized by the property owner. These inspections would include photographic or video documentation. 6) The contractor would conduct test blasting and seismographic monitoring (vibration analysis), if necessary, prior to any other blasting to determine appropriate on-site blasting techniques. 7) All residences and businesses within 500 feet of a proposed blasting location, would be notified at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled blasting event. 8) When conducting blasting within 500 feet of existing off-site structures, seismographic monitoring (vibration analysis) would continue throughout the periods of blasting at the site, and daily logs of seismographic data, explosive use and field conditions would be maintained. 9) If any damage to structures by blasting is documented through the property inspection and seismographic monitoring program, the blasting contractor (and/or the Applicant) would be responsible for the damage through the contractor's insurance program. Minor vibrations to nearby structures during blasting may occur, but by utilizing professional blasting procedures, vibration should be barely perceptible to building occupants. In addition, professional blasting techniques would minimize the potential for damage to structures from vibrations generated from blasting. Pile driving is not expected to create vibrations to existing structures since piles would be driven through sands to intercept rock at depths between 10 and 100 feet. For foundations installed closer to the ground surface (less than 10 feet) traditional foundation construction methods would be used such as excavation and placement of steel and concrete footings. 3.13-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 3.14 Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials described in this Chapter refer to man-made materials that may result in environmental or health related impacts. Such materials may include petroleum products, chemicals used by manufacturing and vehicle repair operations, and former construction materials, such as lead-based paint and asbestos-containing-material (ACM). The concern regarding these materials is that if released to the environment, these materials may result in impacts to the health of construction workers and nearby workers and residents, or to the environment. The potential release of hazardous materials is a concern in the Redevelopment Area due to existing and former businesses in the Redevelopment Area, which use(d) petroleum and chemi- cal compounds as part of their operations, such as: manufacturing, vehicle repair and service, vehicle storage including buses and construction vehicles, and vehicle fueling. Background A Phase I Environmental Assessment was completed for the Redevelopment Area in May, 1999. Phase I assessments involve a review of environmental records and databases held by local, State and federal agencies, interviews with persons knowledgeable of the site, and a site inspection. The purpose of the Phase I Assessment was to provide a summary of actual and potential environmental concerns associated with the Redevelopment Area. Specifically, the assessment was performed to identify the potential presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products, either stored or discharged onto the Redevelopment Area. The assessment also evaluated properties adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area that have the potential to impact the Redevelopment Area. As further described below, the visual inspections for the Phase I assessment were limited to publicly accessible portions of the Redevelopment Area, and did not include inspections of private property. Following the Phase I Assessment, a targeted Phase II Site Assessment was completed in March and August, 2000. Phase II investigations involve the characterization of potential chemical/petroleum releases through the collection and analysis of soil, groundwater, and/or soil gas samples. A portion of the Phase II study was completed in conjunction with a geotechnical investigation. The objective of the targeted Phase II Site Assessment was to characterize known or suspected releases of hazardous materials or petroleum compounds within or adjacent to the Redevelopment Area through a targeted soil and groundwater sampling program. The investigation was intended to verify the presence or absence of contamination in the Redevelopment Area, and identify the type and concentration of any contamination found. The Phase I and Phase II assessments were prepared to provide the Applicant and the City with information regarding environmental conditions in the Redevelopment Area, as well as provide documentation for the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review process. The investigations would also provide information for the proposed Retail Center Project construction planning, and would provide the basis for further investigation and/or the need for remediation within the Redevelopment Area. The Phase I report and the results of the targeted Phase II study have not yet been reviewed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) or any other State or local agencies. Any further investigation of the environmental conditions in the Redevelopment Area conducted by the 3.14-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 Applicant pursuant to it taking possession and/or it having access to the relevant properties would be subject to review initially by the City as lead agency for the Proposed Actions. Physical conditions in the Redevelopment Area and environs are described in Chapter 3.2 Geology, Topography and Hydrogeology. Topography in the Redevelopment Area is generally level with elevations higher in the southwest, and southeast portions of the Redevelopment Area. Locally, topography is controlled by bedrock, and bedrock outcrops are found in the southeast corner, southwest corner and on the south side of Pleasant Street, in southern portions of the Redevelopment Area. Grades between Fifth Avenue and Plain Avenue are nearly level, and lie at approximately 23 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929). Subsurface conditions were determined during the geotechnical investigation completed by Whitestone Engineering. Below the surface material, consisting of gravel, concrete or asphalt, fill material ranged from 0.5 to 5.0 feet in depth. In general, three to five feet of fill material is present in much of the Redevelopment Area. The fill material is generally described as either sandy silt (ML) or coarse to fine sand (SM, SP) with varying amounts of silt. In general, the fill soils could be described as well drained. Below the fill material, the borings encountered grey to brown micaceous fine to course sand (SM, SM/SP, SP) with trace clay and varying amounts of silt and gravel. Interbedded silt layers were encountered at various depths in several soil borings. The thickness of this sand layer varied substantially across the Redevelopment Area. It is not present in southern portions of the Redevelopment Area, and up to 91 feet in thickness at boring location B - 12, on Fifth Avenue (see Figure 3.2-2 Soil Boring and Well Locations). The top of the bedrock surface ranges from surface grade (rock outcrop) to 95 feet below ground surface at boring location B - 12. Based upon the rock cores collected, the bedrock is described as dark grey, white, and pink banded gneiss. The depth to groundwater varies between approximately 3.7 feet and 7.0 feet in depth, below ground surface and this equates to elevations between approximately 23.8 and 14.5 feet NGDV. The groundwater flow direction is generally towards the east-northeast, based upon water level measurements in ten wells in the Redevelopment Area (see Figure 3.14-1 Monitoring Well Locations). The highest groundwater elevations were measured in Well E-8 in the southwest corner of the Redevelopment area, in the vicinity of a rock outcrop. The lowest groundwater elevations were measured in Well E-1, near the intersection of Valley Place and Fifth Avenue. Groundwater is not used in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area as a drinking water source or for industrial supply. According to the Westchester County Department of Health, no public water supply, private or industrial wells are known to be located in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area. Groundwater does not discharge to the surface in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area, and the closest downgradient groundwater receptor is Long Island Sound, located approximately 4,500 feet from the Redevelopment Area. 3.14.1 Phase I Assessment Results and Findings The Phase I Environmental Assessment involved a review of agency records, interviews with local and County agency officials, and a field survey of the Redevelopment Area conducted from publicly accessible streets and sidewalks. Interviews with property owners or the managers of on-site businesses were not conducted as it was difficult to obtain their cooperation regarding potential hazardous releases at this stage of the Retail Center Project. 3.14-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 Interior portions of the grounds and buildings in the Redevelopment Area were also not inspected at this time as access was not readily available on these private properties. In addition, there was no evaluation for the presence or absence of asbestos-containing-material, radon, lead-based paint, or lead in drinking water. Sources of information for the Phase I study included: • Interviews with City and Westchester County officials • City Building Department records • City Tax Assessor's records • City Fire Department records • Sanborn fire insurance maps • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) records • Historical aerial photographs • Soil Survey of Putnam and Westchester Counties • Flood Insurance Rate map • Databases maintained by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), and the NYSDEC. Specific findings of the Phase I investigation are summarized, below. A copy of the Phase I report is included in Appendix J. The Redevelopment Area consists of scattered single and two-family residences, which share the neighborhood with a variety of light industrial and manufacturing uses, vehicle repair, bus maintenance and storage, contractors' yards and outside equipment storage. The Redevelopment Area is zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing under the City of New Rochelle Zoning Code. The M-1 zone extends to the west and southwest of the proposed Retail Center Project site. According to historical records, the Redevelopment Area evolved in the early 1900's as a residential neighborhood with single and two-family residential buildings. Based upon historical Sanborn Insurance maps and City records, certain lots have remained vacant or structures have not been placed on them since the initial development of the Redevelopment Area. The commercial/light industrial uses in the Redevelopment Area have increased steadily since the 1950s. The Phase I investigation included a survey and compilation of current land uses and existing environmental conditions in the Redevelopment Area. Residential Properties In general, no environmental concerns or issues were identified on residential properties, with the exception of fuel oil tanks located on a number of properties. City Fire Department and Building Department records were reviewed to assemble a list of aboveground and underground fuel oil tanks located in the Redevelopment Area. The City Fire Department tank records are summarized in Table 3.14-1. City Fire Department records indicate three underground tanks and thirteen other fuel oil tanks are located on residential properties in the Redevelopment Area (a total of sixteen residential 3.14-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 tanks). Minor amounts of construction debris and household refuse were noted on a limited number of residential properties. Commercial Properties In general, the environmental issues identified for commercial properties in the Redevelopment Area are related to the routine handling and storage of hazardous materials and petroleum. The field inspections did not indicate any major releases or areas of potential releases of hazardous material or petroleum from commercial properties in the Redevelopment Area, as typically evidenced by soil staining, stressed vegetation, or petroleum/ chemical odor. Minor staining resulting from parked vehicles was noted on several properties. Outdoor storage of drums of chemicals was not observed in the Redevelopment Area. The Phase I findings were limited since the use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials and petroleum products could not be assessed for any of the building interiors. 3.14-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14,2000 Table 3.14-1 New Rochelle Fire Department Records: Properties with Heating Oil Tanks Property Address Tax Block Tax Lots Use Oil Tank Records 6 Biehn Street 894 60 Residence Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 479 Fifth Avenue 898 7 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner, Underground Tank 493 Fifth Avenue 898 13 Residence Oil Burner, Underground Tank 499 Fifth Avenue 898 14 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner, Underground Tank 505 Fifth Avenue 898 21 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner, Underground Tank 513 Fifth Avenue 898 21 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner, Underground Tank 517 Fifth Avenue 898 27,28 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 525 Fifth Avenue 898 31-35 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner, Underground Tank 535 Fifth Avenue 898 36 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner, Underground Tank 535.5 Fifth Avenue 898 37,38 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 539 Fifth Avenue 898 40 Residence Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 541 Fifth Avenue 898 41 Residence Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 84 Plain Avenue 898 81, 82 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner, Underground Tank 76 Plain Avenue 898 83-86 Residence Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 60 Plain Avenue 898 93 Residence Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 22 Plain Avenue 898 110 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner, Underground Tank 18 Plain Avenue 898 114 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 14 Plain Avenue 898 116 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 8 Valley Place 903 1,2, 3 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 50 Pleasant Street 903 11, 12 Residence Oil Burner, Underground Tank 8 Pleasant Street 903 30, 31 Residence Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 6 Pleasant Street 903 34, 35 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner, Underground Tank 49 Plain Avenue 903 36, 37 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner, Underground Tank 51 Plain Avenue 903 38, 39 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 59 Plain Avenue 903 42,43 Residence Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 71 Plain Avenue 903 48 Residence Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 91 Plain Avenue 903 57-59 Residence Oil Burner,Tank Underground 95 Plain Avenue 903 60-64 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 21 Valley Place 903 69, 70, 71,72 Church Oil Burner, Underground Tank 5 Pleasant Street 905 23-26 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 9 Pleasant Street 905 27 Residence Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 23 Pleasant Street 905 33, 34 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 29 Pleasant Street 905 35, 36 Residence Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 31 Pleasant Street 905 39 Residence Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 41 Pleasant Street 905 43 Residence Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 45 Pleasant Street 905 46,47 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner, Underground Tank 49 Pleasant Street 905 48,49 Residence Oil Burner, Underground Tank 59 Pleasant Street 905 55, 56 Comm./Light Ind. Oil Burner,Tank on Premises 69 Pleasant Street 905 57, 59 Residence Oil Burner,Tank on Premises Source: New Rochelle Fire Department and Tim Miller Associates, 1999 Based upon both field inspections and agency records review, a list was developed of potential areas of environmental concern, on a lot-by-lot basis. The areas of environmental concern were related to: 1) underground or aboveground petroleum storage tanks, 2) material handling and storage, and/or 3) former manufacturing uses. On one property, there was an active DEC Spill Site resulting from an historical release of gasoline from a leaking underground tank, located at the Citgo Service Station, 479 Fifth Avenue. The areas of environmental concern are summarized on Table 3.14-2. 3.14-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 Table 3.14-2 Commercial Properties -Areas of Environmental Concern Property Address Tax Block Tax Lots Use Areas of Concern 479 Fifth Avenue 898 7-11 Gasoline Service Reported Spills Station Underground Storage Tanks Material Handling and Storage 499 Fifth Avenue 898 14-17 Warehouse Underground Fuel Oil Tank Material Handling and Storage 505 Fifth Avenue 898 18 Contractor Underground Fuel Oil Tank Office/Storage Material Handling and Storage 513 Fifth Avenue 898 21-26 Bus Parking Underground Fuel Oil Tank 517 Fifth Avenue 898 27,28 Stone Fabrication Fuel Oil Tank Material Handling and Storage 521 Fifth Avenue 898 29, 30 Woodworking Previous Use Material Handling and Storage 525 Fifth Avenue 898 31-35 Contractor Underground Fuel Oil Tank _ Storage Yard Material Handling and Storage .: 535.5 Fifth Avenue 898 37-39 Vehicle Storage Fuel Oil Tank 549 Fifth Avenue 898 42-46 Bus Storage/ Diesel Fuel Tank Repair Material Handling and Storage 567 Fifth Avenue 898 47-56, Contractor Material Handling and Storage 69-74 Office/Storage No Address 898 57-62, Contractor Material Handling and Storage 63-68 Storage Yard Fuel Filler Port 76 Plain Avenue 898 83-86 Vehicle Repair Diesel Fuel Tank Fuel Oil Tank Material Handling and Storage 32-34 Plain Avenue 898 105-109 Manufacturing Material Handling and Storage 22 Plain Avenue 898 110-113 Manufacturing Underground Fuel oil Tank Material Handling and Storage 18 Plain Avenue 898 114-116 Manufacturing Fuel Oil Tank Material Handling and Storage 8 Valley Place 903 1, 2, 3 Commercial Fuel Oil Tank Material Handling and Storage 68 Pleasant Street 903 4, 65 Manufacturing Fuel Oil Tank Material Handling and Storage 44 Pleasant Street 903 13& 14 Contractor Underground Gasoline Tank Storage Yard Material Handling and Storage 40&42 Pleasant 903 16-18 Vehicle Repair Material Handling and Storage Street Office 30 Pleasant Street 903 19-23 Food Distribution Previous Use as Manufac. 24 Pleasant Street 903 26-29 Machine Shop Material Handling and Storage 10 Pleasant Street 903 32-33 Office/ Material Handling and Storage Warehouse Previous Use as Manufac. 6 Pleasant Street 903 34-35 Bus Repair Material Handling and Storage 49 Plain Avenue 903 36-37 Vehicle Repair Material Handling and Storage Fuel Oil Tank 51 Plain Avenue 903 38-39 Vehicle Repair Material Handling and Storage Fuel Oil Tank 55 Plain Avenue 903 40-41 Manufacturing Material Handling and Storage 59 Plain Avenue 903 42-43 Warehouse Material Handling and Storage Fuel Oil Tank 3.14-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 Table 3.14-2 (Continued) Commercial Properties -Areas of Concern Property Address Tax Block Tax Lots Use Areas of Concern 65 Plain Avenue 903 44-47 Stone Fabrication Material Handling and Storage No address 903 53-54 Equipment Material Handling and Storage Storage 95 Plain Avenue 903 60-62 Office Material Handling and Storage Equip. Storage Fuel Oil Tank 5 Pleasant Street 905 23-26 Vehicle Repair/ Material Handling and Storage Storage Fuel Oil Tank 11, 15 Pleasant Street 905 29-32 Vehicle Repair Material Handling and Storage 23 Pleasant Street 905 33 Vehicle Repair Material Handling and Storage 55 Pleasant Street 905 52-54 Warehouse/ Material Handling and Storage Manufacturing Source: New Rochelle Fire Department and Tim Miller Associates, 1999 Petroleum Storage Tanks As described above, a list of underground and aboveground petroleum storage tanks in the Redevelopment Area was developed from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) database of registered tanks and the City of New Rochelle Fire Department registry of fuel oil tanks. Per the New York State Code (Title 6 NYCRR, Parts 612-614), fuel oil tanks with a capacity of less than 1,100 gallons are not required to be registered with NYS. These smaller fuel oil tanks are registered with the City Fire Department. A list of fuel oil tanks in the Redevelopment Area is provided in Table 3.14-1 New Rochelle Fire Department Records, Properties with Heating Oil Tanks. The City Fire Department registry indicates 39 fuel oil tanks are located within the Redevelopment Area. Seventeen fuel oil tanks serve residential properties, and of these, three are identified as underground tanks. Of the 22 fuel oil tanks serving commercial properties or churches, 12 are listed as underground tanks. Therefore, 15 underground fuel oil tanks are located within the Redevelopment Area. No aboveground tanks were observed in outdoor areas of the Redevelopment Area. In addition to fuel oil tanks, there are nine underground petroleum storage tanks registered with the NYSDEC, located on commercial properties in the Redevelopment Area. These tanks are registered on three properties, as listed in Table 3.14-3 Commercial Petroleum Storage Tanks. Tanks associated with the commercial sale of fuel are limited to a single property: the Citgo Service Station, located at 479 Fifth Avenue. This property includes: two 2,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tanks (UST's), one 3,000 gallon gasoline UST, and one 4,000 gallon gasoline UST. 3.14-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 Table 3.14-3 Commercial Petroleum Storage Tanks On-site Underground Storage Tanks 549 Fifth Avenue Wykagyl Bus 1 -2,000 gallon unleaded gasoline UST Service, Inc. 2- 1,000 gallon diesel fuel UST 42 Pleasant Street Stephen Wodraska Co. 1 -2,000 gallon unleaded gasoline UST Inc. 479 Fifth Avenue Citgo Station 2-2,000 gallon unleaded gasoline UST 1 -4,000 gallon unleaded gasoline UST 1 -3,000 gallon unleaded gasoline UST 1 - No. 5 fuel oil UST Underground Tanks on Adjacent Properties 10 Valley Place Beechmont Bus 3-3,000 gallon diesel fuel UST Service, Inc. 24 Valley Place Beechmont Bus 1-4,000 gallon diesel fuel UST Service, Inc. Source: NYSDEC Tank Registry and Tim Miller Associates, Inc., May, 1999 Underground petroleum storage tanks are known to exist on two adjacent properties located near the eastern boundary of the Redevelopment Area, as shown and listed in Table 3.14-3 The two subject properties are managed by Beechmont Bus Service, Inc. In addition, a diesel fuel dispenser is located on a property at 76 Plain Avenue (Montesano Brothers Construction). It could not be determined in the Phase I investigation, if underground or aboveground tanks serve this fuel pump, or if the pump is in service. Spills and Releases The database search conducted for the Phase I investigation provided a list of reported spills on or in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area. The database identified three sites where the spill file was still active, and/or there was limited information regarding the response or remediation for the spills. The three active NYSDEC Spill Sites are summarized, as follows: The following property is located in the northwest corner of the Redevelopment Area on Fifth Avenue: • Citqo Station, 479 Fifth Avenue (DEC #9710720) - The property is the location of one active and one closed petroleum spill, and a closed tank test failure report. The active spill is related to petroleum odor found in soil during the upgrading of tanks in December 1997. The records show that the NYSDEC requested that the responsible party propose a remedial action and provide sampling results (see discussion of State file information below). 3.14-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 The following two properties are located in Mamaroneck, off-site, on the east side of Valley Place: • Beechmont Bus Service, 24 Valley Place (DEC #9801559) - The property is listed in the NYS DEC database as the location of an active tank failure in connection with the removal/replacement of diesel fuel tanks. Information regarding remediation or follow-up to the release was not provided in the database. • City Park Service/ Bluebird Taxi Service, 613 Fifth Avenue (DEC #9102785) - The property is the location of an active gasoline spill related to the removal of tanks. Although the spill occurred in 1991, and all tanks were reportedly removed at the time, no information regarding follow-up was provided in the database. The other reported spills listed in the database for the Redevelopment Area or environs were generally small quantity spills (less than 10 gallons). The NYSDEC records indicated that these spills were remediated. Therefore, these former spills are not likely to have impacted the Redevelopment Area. Hazardous Waste Generators The environmental database reviewed for the Phase I Investigation provided a list of Hazardous Waste Generators in the Redevelopment Area or on adjacent properties. Generators of Hazardous Waste, as defined by federal regulations, are subject to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements. In general, these facilities are a concern when they are not in compliance with RCRA requirements. Four generators of Hazardous Waste were listed in the database for the Redevelopment Area, as shown in Table 3.14-4. Table 3.14-4 Hazardous Waste Generators On-site Generators Reported Address Last Reporting Type of Waste Listed Owner/Operator Date Goodfellow of 521 Fifth Avenue 1991 Spent Solvents Westchester ES Products, Inc. 30 Pleasant Street 1989 Ignitable solid Waste, cadmium, lead, spent solvents Retasco 10 Pleasant Street 1990 Ignitable solid Waste, lead, spent solvents D&G Auto Repair 5 Pleasant Street 1990 USEPA Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator. No hazardous waste activity reported to NYS. Generators on Adjacent Properties City Park Service 613 Fifth Avenue 1991 - 1997 Spent non-halogenated solvents, ignitable Station solid waste, tetrachloroethylene, and benzene Absolute Coatings 38 Portman Road 1994 and 1996 Ignitable solid waste Source: USEPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS), 1999, and Tim Miller Associates, Inc. 3.14-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 NYSDEC Records Review Records maintained by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) were reviewed through the Freedom of Information process. According to NYSDEC files, the May 1998 spill at the Beechmont Bus Service facility involved small perforations in a fuel oil storage tank, which was being replaced. According to the spill report, soil was removed and stockpiled at the time of the reported release. No additional information was provided. The reported release at the Bluebird Taxi facility in June 1991 involved a broken fuel line during a tank replacement. The report indicates that the spill was contained and soil was stockpiled. No additional information was provided from the State files. The NYSDEC had file information regarding Citgo Service Station, (a.k.a. S&A Garage), dating back to 1988. A chronology of NYSDEC file information is as follows: • May, 1988: City Fire Department reported gasoline in a utility trench in front of S&A Garage (previous reported owner). No follow-up is reported. • May, 1988: One 3,000 gallon unleaded gasoline tank, failed tank tightness testing. No NYSDEC follow-up is reported. • July, 1994: NYSDEC issued a notice of violation to S&A Garage for overdue tank testing. • July, 1994: S&A Garage responded to the notice by providing proof of resin tank lining and tightness testing for the four on-site gasoline tanks, dated July, 1991. • December, 1997 A spill was reported at the Citgo service station, due to petroleum odor in soils during a tank upgrade. • March, 1998 NYSDEC sent a letter to S & A Garage indicating that a site assessment and a remedial action plan (groundwater investigation) was required within 30 days, or the matter would be referred to the Department's Enforcement Unit. • May, 1998 Camin Cargo Control, Inc. submitted a Subsurface Site Investigation for the station, to NYSDEC. Soil and groundwater sampling was completed in the vicinity of two on-site tanks, between December, 1997 and February, 1998. The sampling confirmed that petroleum related compounds were found in soil and groundwater, at levels that exceed State Guidance Values for soil and NYS DEC Water Quality Standards. Tank testing was completed in December, 1997 and the 4,000 gallon gasoline and the 3,000 gallon diesel tanks passed the tightness test. The report recommended soil venting groundwater remediation with an approved NYSDEC system. • June, 1998 NYS DEC sent a letter to Camin Cargo Control requesting an investigation to define the limits of soil and groundwater contamination at the station, and a remedial action plan. No additional correspondence regarding the Citgo station was found in NYSDEC files. Recommendations resulting from the Phase I Investigation are summarized, as follows: 1) The status and condition of fuel oil tanks and registered commercial underground storage tanks should be determined. This may be accomplished through: interviews and documentation of recent testing, inspections (aboveground tanks), tank testing, and/or evaluation during the removal of tanks to assess their condition and potential releases. 3.14-10 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 2) The building interiors and yard areas of 34 commercial properties (see Table 3.14-2) need to be visually inspected for potential impacts related to the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. Owners and/or tenants of these facilities should also be interviewed to identify actual operating practices and history. 3) Further investigation of the three reported NYSDEC active spill sites, located on or adjacent to the Redevelopment Area was recommended. These locations include: 1) on the eastern Redevelopment Area boundary in the vicinity of Beechmont Bus Service, 24 Valley Place, 2) on the Citgo Service Station property, 479 Fifth Avenue, and 3) on the eastern Redevelopment Area boundary in the vicinity of Bluebird Taxi Service, 613 Fifth Avenue. 4) Based upon the foregoing, it would be determined, in consultation with the City and other applicable governmental agencies, whether further Phase Il testing and/or other investigations should be undertaken. 4) Based upon the foregoing, it would be determined whether further Phase II testing and /or other investigation should be undertaken, in consultation with the City and other applicable governmental agencies. 3.14.2 Targeted Phase II Assessment Phase II Objectives A targeted Phase II Site Investigation was completed in March and August 2000. A portion of the study was completed in conjunction with a geotechnical investigation conducted during the same period. The targeted Phase II Site Investigation was conducted to characterize known or suspected releases of hazardous materials or petroleum compounds within or onto the Redevelopment Area through a targeted soil and groundwater sampling program. The purpose of the targeted Phase II investigation was to: • Identify specific areas of hazardous material/petroleum releases on, or adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. • Determine the levels of hazardous material/petroleum compounds in soil and/or groundwater, if any. • Assess exposure potential and regulatory implications of on-site conditions. • Develop targeted recommendations and a plan for site remediation and/or containment, if warranted. • Identify groundwater flow direction and characterize groundwater quality conditions at the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area with upgradient and downgradient monitoring wells. The final objective of the targeted Phase II study was to provide data for analysis under the SEQRA environmental review process and findings. The subsurface investigation provides quantitative data for soil and groundwater conditions in the Redevelopment Area. It should be noted that there is no NYSDEC requirement to complete soil and groundwater sampling, but it was performed to provide information to assist the City and the Applicant in planning the development of the site, and understanding of the potential environmental conditions at the site. 3.14-11 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 One focus of the investigation was the three active spill sites, discussed above, which are on or in areas adjacent to the Redevelopment Area , including: • Citgo Service Station, 479 Fifth Avenue (on-site) • Beechmont Bus Service, 24 Valley Place (off-site) • Bluebird Taxi Service, 613 Fifth Avenue (off-site) Samples were collected downgradient from the Absolute Coatings facility (38 Portman Street), based upon the facility's chemical usage, its status as a hazardous waste generator, and its location adjacent to and at a higher elevation than the Redevelopment Area. The Absolute Coating facility and the Bluebird Taxi Service facility are the two listed hazardous waste generators located adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. Sampling at other hazardous waste generators which are located within the Redevelopment Area may occur following the environmental audits of those facilities during the property acquisition process. In addition to the above, six additional groundwater monitoring wells were installed in August, 2000, in order to: 1) further characterize the limits of the Citgo Station release, 2) better define groundwater flow direction, and 3) to characterize groundwater quality, upgradient, downgradient and at the center of the Redevelopment Area. he sampling locations are indicated in Figure 3.2-2 Soil Boring and Well Locations. The Phase II Investigation fieldwork involved three tasks: 1) soil screening with an Organic Vapor Meter (OVM), 2) the installation of soil borings and the collection of soil samples, and 3) the installation of shallow monitoring wells for the collection of groundwater samples. The soil screening was completed (in part), in conjunction with the geotechnical investigation. As described above, the targeted soil and groundwater sampling was completed at four specific locations -- the three former spill locations and downgradient from the Absolute Coatings facility. Groundwater samples were collected from an additional six monitoring wells in August, 2000. All sampling work, with the exception of Well E-15, was limited to the public right-of-way, since at the time of the investigation, all property within the proposed Redevelopment Area was privately held. Well E-15, which is located on the Gerard Daniel property, was installed in August, 2000, after the acquisition of Gerard Daniel by IKEA. The Phase II investigation was performed with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by the profession under similar conditions and circumstances. Field methods used were in accordance with "A Guide to the Assessment and Remediation of Underground Petroleum Releases", American Petroleum Institute, July 1996, and investigation methodologies described in the publications of the National Ground Water Association. It is recognized that the Phase II work described herein is targeted and does not provide data for locations on private property in the Redevelopment Area, which may have been impacted by the release of petroleum and/or chemical compounds. During the property acquisition process, each property would be inspected and interviews would be conducted to determine environmental conditions and to ensure that there are no conditions in the Redevelopment Area that are a potential threat to health or the environment. Sampling of soil and groundwater would occur on those properties where conditions indicate a release of hazardous materials to the environment may have occurred. Additional investigation and sampling is required on private properties in the vicinity of the Citgo Station to characterize the levels and extent of petroleum contamination at that location. Property inspections and audits are described in Section 3.14.4 3.14-12 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 Mitigation Measures, below. All future investigations and potential remediation would be undertaken in consultation with the City, as lead agency, and the other applicable governmental agencies, including the NYSDEC. Soil Screening In March, 2000 Whitestone Associates, Inc. completed a geotechnical investigation involving the installation of 13 soil and rock borings. At six of these boring locations, the soil was screened with a photoionization Organic Vapor Meter (OVM), (Thermo Environmental Instruments Model 580B) by a geologist from Tim Miller Associates, Inc. In addition, the soils at the seven environmental sampling locations (see discussion below) were also screened with the OVM. The purpose of the soil screening was to identify potential areas of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) in the unsaturated soils of the Redevelopment Area. The soil screening provided an assessment of soil conditions in the Redevelopment Area and assisted in the selection of samples to submit to the laboratory for analysis. The locations of the soil borings are provided in Figure 3.2-2 Soil Boring and Well Locations. Soils were evaluated in the field by visual and olfactory methods, and were screened with an Organic Vapor Meter (OVM). Soils were screened continuously at two foot intervals, from surface grade to the water table or auger refusal, whichever occurred first. Soil samples were collected in glass containers, allowed to stabilize for 10 minutes, and headspace readings were recorded. The highest OVM reading was recorded for each sample. The screening of soil at the six "geotechnical' boring locations did not identify areas of elevated concentrations of volatile compounds in soil. Therefore, no new areas requiring sampling and analysis of soil were identified in the screening of geotechnical borings. Soil samples from the "environmental' boring locations indicated volatile compounds in the soil vapor at six of the seven locations sampled. The results of soil screening are provided in the discussion of sampling results, below. Targeted Soil Sampling As described previously, soil sampling, as well as groundwater sampling, was targeted to three former spill locations and one location downgradient from a large manufacturing plant. The locations of the soil boring/wells and the methodology for location selection are described below. Soil boring/well locations are shown in Figure 3.2-2. Well locations are also shown in Figure 3.14-1. For the Citgo Service Station, three soil borings were installed in the public right-of-way in Fifth Avenue. Borings E-12 and E-13 were converted to monitoring wells. One boring, E-12 was placed at the eastern edge of the property close to the curb and directly north of the underground storage tank locations. A second boring, E-13 was placed across Fifth Avenue, and a third, E-14 was located near the western edge of the station in the east-bound lane of Fifth Avenue. Due to underground utilities and access concerns, a single soil boring E-1 (converted to a monitoring well) was installed on the west side of Valley Place, approximately 50 feet west of the Bluebird Taxi facility. 3.14-13 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 For the Beechmont Bus Service facility, one boring (E-6) was installed near the center of Valley Place, west and slightly downhill from the assumed diesel tank location. A second boring (E-4) was installed near the intersection of Valley Place and Plain Avenue, downhill from the Beechmont tank location. In the southwest corner of the Redevelopment Area, a single boring, E-8 (converted to a monitoring well) was installed behind (west of) the curb on Biehn Street, downgradient from the Absolute Coatings facility. This location was selected based upon the facility's chemical usage, its status as a hazardous waste generator, and its location adjacent to and at a higher elevation than the Redevelopment Area. Sampling at other hazardous waste generators in the Redevelopment Area is proposed during the property acquisition process. In August 2000, six additional soil borings, converted to groundwater monitoring wells, were installed in the Redevelopment Area, based upon the following methodology: • Wells E-15, E-17, and E-20 were installed downgradient of the Citgo Station to better define the limits of the petroleum release from the station. • Well E-16 was installed near the southern edge of the Redevelopment Area to characterize downgradient water quality, or the condition of groundwater exiting the property. While the water table elevation is lower in Well E-1, it is expected that a component of groundwater flow is towards the southeast based upon topography and historical surface water drainage conditions. Therefore, Wells E-16 and E-1 are considered representative downgradient wells. • Well E-19 was installed on the north side of Fifth Avenue to provide water quality and water level information for the northern boundary of the Redevelopment Area. • Well E-18 was installed to provide water quality and water level information for the center of the Redevelopment Area. Soil samples from each two-foot sampling interval were then collected, placed in appropriate laboratory containers and retained. Based upon the results of soil vapor screening, selected soil samples were sent to a New York State Certified Laboratory via overnight delivery service. Professional standards for sample collection, preservation and documentation, were used throughout the sampling program. The results of the soil sampling are provided below. The soil and groundwater conditions in the environmental soil borings were similar to those encountered in the geotechnical investigation and fully described previously in Chapter 3.2 Topography, Geology, Soils and Hydrology. The soil boring logs for the eight environmental borings are provided in Appendix K. Groundwater Sampling Ten shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed at targeted locations in the Redevelopment Area, as described above. The locations of the monitoring wells are shown in Figure 3.14-1. As described above, groundwater flow direction is generally towards the east/northeast, based upon water level measurements in ten wells. Wells E-9 and E-17 are upgradient wells and Well E-1, located near the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Valley Place, is a downgradient well. Well E-16, at the southern property boundary is also considered downgradient, as described above. 3.14-14 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS . 0 co .. i / . —, , • } �• - ,it, - • J til ii - - - - W , ..11:1 , . i*-ilit - .':- . 414 • _ '-_. , __If •k* millimia .,R414 ! ,k1,t ir . .. ,. . , .., , •fit- .,r♦♦ • Iti_ .. . : „.. - ... . .- b._ , . -.4, ij �� �. - ti4.. ,` -w-(I.S" ,,'. t" ; -��� 1 1,-Timiiiiri ' - . r g Tei .1 ` _. d •t' ,.. ... lir. 4 ,tom f r� AAA ^ 11 is TA i '1 L I'. ' 71% Y 1,4i,o.,ra:%p4.'.iimib..411111.1111.1:::''; ` r - • _ j �'' `� - f ,1Imo• ,- •• lI ' ,,s•' '1r.1 �• r F •4 y • _ ' � . . +al'; ,..4111:31. . ......7,5..,.. . ,�_ • �' ,.. � � � 4 :.•-tom- ., '.1 -� � . � ,�- �� • ,www-•,� _ �►w j• 1 ^�•1 - Int > ... . - �' t„ ,.:0:.,,,,r,-;::\ .•E-18 16.9¢ �,. .,�r 4. rs. 'a may, ', , ; •it J '. — +i 7-.. ■ua.i MI .•�yf, a. •`c _ -_ '�` h 1��' - - - L -7r •R-_dam,.-J I `,TJf' ;• -Ltd ,.‘ ,, ir . • 1 •- • . ' ^I , I. i ,..„,, „., .1 .4,4,., ,.,:, k. itaki,, . -4'; lif,,_•_.-:,.!..- -a • • "., +.� 9�..'moi / - .: i ,§ ri- ; * U.,r i--, • T ,, or 1.1 i'llA It Wit lik ,,, t _ 5 32 _1 -� ' TV; tom, # a �'� ' is.' t II ram � - friC. .,-- �7 iti '.:e.,-j� ,, r /, 2 s ,.� + .j �j.-•" r f.�.� - - . ,1- _ yti `*'. •., s AC" . �� �. �.• y • a 1 +Jt liar i IPA, 5 ■ . /II-1�WR •••�`,,. 4 II' 4N - t 1(14. .rj. ..�•,, �,� - ��.. .40'-'4- {i?+'s _'�.;-$. I fy� -4„-,,, 4Y ?* itisi;',,,:k .h i 'e »cs ■,j��N ''. •'^ {'Q• " r�o• '1w/ -•r.. / 'A .'.1 _ _... _ '1sar, ,7 !1.;.7 .i�' ••,,•>�• _ '- y/`-._;', • • iipiegi • • 3 UWAY .__.L.:. v r ': . �_' fi• NEGLAND THR 4� :... is ly_ ... 11-71-' ....-. _'R _ _ ._ : . ' Legend Figure 3.14-1 : Monitoring Well Locations and Water Table Surface Map (on 8-17-00) Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project E-8 0 Monitoring Well City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York 23.82 Elevation Approx. Scale: 1 Inch = 150 Feet Source: Bohler Engineering, 2000 23.0 ---.._, Water Table Elevations and Flow Direction File 9916 Fig 2-13 DMP TMA 09/11/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845)265-4400 Fax(845)264-4418 Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 Monitoring wells were constructed of two inch diameter PVC, with slotted well screens. Professional standards for monitoring well installation and construction were utilized. Water level measurements were collected in all wells in order to establish the elevation of the shallow water table and the direction of groundwater flow. Groundwater samples were collected on March 29, August 17 and August 23, 2000, respectively. Samples were properly collected, documented and preserved for transport to the laboratory. The results of groundwater sampling are provided in the Section below. 3.14.3 Sampling Results and Findings Soil Vapor Screening Results As described above, soil vapor screening was done for a portion of the geotechnical soil borings (six locations), and for the seven environmental soil borings. Soils at the following geotechnical boring locations were screened: B-16, B-18, B-19, B-20, B-21, B-23. No volatile organic compounds were detected in the soils from the above listed "geotechnical' boring locations. Volatile organic compounds were detected in six of the seven "environmental' borings and the results are summarized as follows: • E-1: ranged from 0 ppm at 1 to 3 feet in depth to 3.9 ppm at 11 to 13 feet (water at approx. 11.0 feet), • E-6: ranged from 0 ppm at 0 to 2 feet in depth to 2.4 ppm at 5 to 7 feet (no groundwater) • E-8: ranged from 0 ppm at 0 to 2 feet in depth to 87 ppm at 4 to 6 feet (water at approx. 8.0 feet), • E-12: ranged from 950 ppm at 3 to 5 feet in depth to 3,500 ppm at 5 to 7 feet (water at approx. 5 feet), • E-13: ranged from 23 ppm at 1 to 3 feet in depth to 225 ppm at 7 to 9 feet (water at approx. 5.5 feet), • E-14: ranged from 0.8 ppm at 3 to 5 feet in depth to 7.6 ppm at 7 to 9 feet (water at approximately 5 feet) As indicated above, the soil at boring locations E-1, E-6, and E14 had concentrations of total volatile organic compounds less than 10 ppm in all samples screened. The soil at E-8, which is located in the southwest corner of the property on Biehn Street, had a maximum concentration of 87 ppm. The sample with the highest soil gas concentration ( sampling interval 4 to 6 feet) was submitted to the laboratory for analysis. Soil at locations E-12 and E-13 contained the highest concentrations of volatiles with a maximum of 3,500 ppm at E-12. This location is the closest boring to the Citgo service station on Fifth Avenue. Boring E-13 is located in the sidewalk on the north side of Fifth Avenue. At 3.14-15 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 both locations, unsaturated and saturated soils had a distinct gasoline odor and a visible sheen was observed in the samples collected below the water table. The soils at location E-14, which is located approximately 30 feet northwest of the Citgo station pump islands, had a maximum organic vapor concentration of 7.6 ppm. The natural material at this location consisted of a dense grey silt, as opposed to the fine to medium sand found at locations E-12 and E-13. Based upon water level measurements, location E-14 is upgradient from the Citgo Station. The soils in the six wells installed in August, 2000 (E-15 through E-20) did not exhibit volatile organic compound in the soil screening process. Soil Sampling Results The analytical results of the soil sampling are provided in Table 3.14-5, below; Table 3.14-5 Soil Sampling Analytical Results Sample Number NYSDEC TAGM Parameter(ug/Kg) Clean-up E1-6 E4-7 E6-2 E8-3 E8-4 E12-3 E13-4 E14-4 Objective (ppb) Volatiles 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 5 n/d 13 n/d n/d 170,000 5200 n/d NE 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene n/d n/d n/d n/d _ n/d 52,000 1800 n/d NE Benzene n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 7,300 93 n/d 60 Ethylbenzene n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 69,000 1500 n/d 5500 lsopropylbenzene n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 7,200 250 n/d NE Napthalene n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 11,000 470 n/d 13000 N-Butylbenzene n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 790 n/d NE n-Propylbenzene n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 32,000 1200 n/d NE o-Xylene n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 110,000 1800 n/d 12,000** _ P &m Xylenes n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 240,000 4700 n/d 12,000** p-Isopropylbenzene n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 1,400 78 n/d NE sec-Butylbenzene n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 3,800 240 n/d NE tert-Butylbenzene n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 590 n/d NE Toluene n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 150,000 860 n/d 1500 Base/Neutral Extractables 2-Methylnapthalene n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 1,200 770 n/d 36400 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 3,000 n/d n/d 50000 Napthalene n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d 3,300 2700 n/d 13000 Notes: All results in ug/Kg or parts per billion NE- NYSDEC Recommended Soil Clean-up Objective has not been established for compound n/d -Constituent is below the method detection limit. The parameters listed above are those detected in any single sample. A complete list of parameters is provided in Appendix J. **- Standard is for total xylene 3.14-16 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 As shown in the results in Table 3.14-5, four of the eight samples submitted contained concentrations of volatile and semi-volatile (base neutral extractable) compounds. In the samples from Boring 1 and Boring 6, low concentrations (5 and 13 ug/Kg, respectively), were detected. Boring 1 is located near the corner of Valley Place and Fifth Avenue and Boring 6 is located near the south end of Valley Place. The samples from location E-12 and E-13, in the vicinity of the Citgo Station, contained relatively high concentrations of volatile compounds, as well as contained semi-volatile compounds. In conjunction with olfactory and visual observations, the results confirm that gasoline-related compounds are present in the soil and groundwater (see discussion below) in the vicinity of the Citgo Service Station. The NYSDEC-recommended soil clean-up objectives (TAGM, revised 1994) are provided in Table 3.14-5, above. While these values are not regulatory standards, they provide guidance to NYSDEC and the public regarding soil and groundwater clean-up objectives at sites where the clean-up of soil and/or groundwater is warranted. At location E-13, the State clean-up objectives are exceeded for benzene, as well as the objective of total volatile compounds (less than 10,000 ug/K). The total concentration of volatiles in the E-13 soil sample was 19,570 ug/K. In the sample from location E-12, the clean-up objectives for four compounds were exceeded (benzene, ethylbenzene, total xylene, and toluene), as well as for total volatiles. Groundwater Sampling Results The analytical results for the groundwater samples are provided in Figure 3.14-2 Groundwater Analytical Results Table. The four monitoring wells installed in March, 2000 were sampled in both March and August and therefore, two sets of results are available for those wells (E-1, E-8, E-12, and E-13). In general, the concentrations of most compounds were lower in August than in March. As indicated in Figure 3.14-2 Groundwater Analytical Results Table, volatile organic compounds were found in seven of the ten wells sampled. The results of sampling are summarized below. Well E-8 (at the south end of Biehn Street) contained trichloroethylene at concentrations of 26 ug/L and 2 ug/L, respectively. Trichloroethylene is a common solvent used in the manufacturing industry. The sample from Well E-8 was the only sample (soil or groundwater) in which the compound was detected. The 26 ug/L result from March, 2000 was above the State Ambient Water Quality Standard for the compound. The samples from Wells E-12 and E-13, both related to the Citgo Service Station, contained elevated concentrations of a number of gasoline-related volatile organic compounds. Nearly all of the compounds exceeded NYS Ambient Water Quality Standards. The gasoline additive MTBE was detected in six of the ten wells sampled. The highest concentration was from Well E-12 at 7,100 ug/L, and the compound was detected in wells at the southern (E-16) and eastern (E-1), or downgradient areas of the Redevelopment Area. MTBE is known to be highly mobile and persistent in the environment, and is not typically found 3.14-17 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 in diesel fuel or fuel oil. Given that the native aquifer materials, fine to medium sands, are relatively permiable, it is possible that the MTBE found at the edges of the Redevelopment Area have migrated from the Citgo Station, although this cannot be confirmed. Other potential sources of MTBE could be minor spills of gasoline within the Redevelopment Area, a reported gasoline tank at 44 Pleasant Street, and/or contamination related to a release in 1991 at the City Park Service/Bluebird Taxi facility (613 Fifth Avenue). The compound 1,2 dichloroethylene was detected in two wells, Well E-18 in the center of the Redevelopment Area, and Well E-1 at its eastern edge. The concentration of 130 ug/L in Well E-18 is above the NYS Ambient Water Quality Standard for the compound. The source of this compound is not known. In the sample collected from Well E-1 in March, 2000, benzene was detected at a concentration of 6 ug/L, slightly above the Ambient Water Quality Standard. Benzene was not detected in the sample from August, 2000. It must be noted that the State water quality standards were developed to protect sources of drinking water and recreational waters. The groundwater in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area is not utilized as a source of drinking water nor recreational waters, and therefore the threat to human health is less of a concern than if groundwater were used for such purposes. Groundwater does not discharge to the surface in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area, and the closest downgradient groundwater receptor is Long Island Sound, located approximately 4,500 feet from the Redevelopment Area. Summary of Targeted Phase II Results Based upon the results of the Phase I and targeted Phase II investigations, the Citgo Service Station at 479 Fifth Avenue was the only known source of petroleum / contamination confirmed in the Redevelopment Area. Petroleum related compounds were found in groundwater samples from the two wells in the vicinity of the Citgo Station. The analytical results from Wells E-12 and E-13 were well in excess of State standards for multiple compounds. Since Well E-13 is located in the sidewalk on the north side of Fifth Avenue, it can be assumed that groundwater below William Flower Park is impacted by the Citgo Station release. Additional work to define the levels and extent of contamination at the Citgo Station is required, as described below. Relatively low concentrations of volatile organic compounds were found in samples from five other wells in the Redevelopment Area, and the source of this contamination is not known. The proposed property inspections and sampling permitted upon the Applicant's property acquisition may reveal additional source areas of contamination related to on-site uses. It is also possible that this low level of contamination occurs in a much wider area than the Redevelopment Area. Materials that may be found are expected to be those commonly found in older urban areas with manufacturing and vehicle maintenance uses, such as: petroleum products, solvents, metals, and asbestos containing material. The levels found do not warrant remediation. They are representative of background levels in older urban areas. Significant environmental effects from either the Citgo Station or other potential releases are not expected, since all such materials encountered would either be remediated during the demolition phase (soil removal in conjunction with tank removals), or would be addressed 3.14-18 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Groundwater Analytical Results Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS NYSDEC Ambient Well E-1 Well E-8 Well E-12 Well E-13 Well E-15 Well E-16 Well E-17 Well E-18 Well E-19 Well E-20 Water Parameter Quality Standards (ug/L) March 29 Aug 23 March 29 Aug 23 March 29 Aug 23 March 29 Aug 23 Aug 18 Aug 18 Aug 18 Aug 18 Aug 13 Aug 18 Volatiles 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ND ND 2,000 520 1,400 720 ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 530 ND 1,200 ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 1,2-Dichloroethylene ND ND ND 3 (cis) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 130(c)4(t) ND ND 5 Benzene 6 ND ND ND 16,000 190 2,000 300 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.7 Ethylbenzene ND ND ND ND 4,200 150 2,600 710 ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 Isopropylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 93 ND 63 ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 Methyl tert-butyl ether 23 5 ND ND 7,100 340 ND 3 ND 4 ND 8 48 ND 50"' (MTBE) _ Napthalene ND ND ND ND ND 530 ND 52 ND ND ND ND ND ND 10 n-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 53 ND 65 ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 n-Propylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 170 ND 89 ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 o-Xylene ND ND ND ND 1,000 430 4,100 390 ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 (total) p &m Xylenes ND ND ND ND 6,000 510 9,200 460 ND _ ND ND ND ND ND 5 (total) - p-Isopropyltoluene ND ND ND ND ND 9 ND 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 sec-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 18 ND 15 ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 tert-Butylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND 110 ND 150 ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 Toluene ND ND ND ND 7,000 250 14,000 260 ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 Trichloroethylene ND ND 26 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 Note: All results presented in micrograms per liter(ug/L)or parts per billion "-50 ug/L is the NYS DEC clean-up guidance value for the compound i ND-Constituent not Detected (EA/CTGSummTable 10-99) Figure 3.14-2: Groundwater Analytical Results Fifth Avenue Urban Reneweal Area Plan and Retail Center Project City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Tim Miller Associates, Inc., 10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516 (845)265-4400 Fax(845)235-4418 Hazardous Materials September 14,2000 during construction pursuant to a health and safety plan. Potential remediation scenarios are described in the Mitigation Measures section below. Further Investigation Activities The Phase I and targeted Phase II assessments do not indicate areas other than the Citgo Station, which represent a known potential threat to human health and the environment, and therefore warrant remediation. Although the groundwater sampling results from Wells E-1 and E-8 were above the State Ambient Water Quality Standards (6 ug/L benzene and 26 ug/L trichloroethene, respectively), these represent relatively low hazardous levels and the groundwater in the area is not used as a drinking water source, nor does it discharge into a sensitive receptor. The Applicant will solicit recommendations from NYSDEC and the City regarding these results prior to finalizing a remediation plan. As indicated previously, privately held property in the Redevelopment Area was not inspected for environmental conditions. In conjunction with property acquisition, each commercial property, under provisions of the purchase contract, will be inspected by a qualified environmental professional and the owner/manager interviewed regarding the handling, storage and disposal of petroleum and hazardous materials. The inspections will focus on those properties that are current or former Generators of Hazardous Waste and properties which typically use petroleum and hazardous materials, such as vehicle repair facilities. Follow-up testing or sampling will be conducted prior to construction in any area of concern identified through the inspections, and the results will be disclosed immediately to the City and other applicable governmental agencies on an ongoing basis. 3.14.4 Mitigation Measures Citqo Station Remediation Based upon the results of the targeted Phase II, it appears that soil and groundwater remediation is warranted in the vicinity of the Citgo Service Station. Based upon the reported gasoline releases that are filed with the NYSDEC, it is apparent that the source of the gasoline-related contamination is the Citgo Station. Analytical data defining the extent and severity of the release is limited, with two wells located north of the station, and three wells located between 150 and 250 feet east and southeast from the station. The levels and limits of contamination on the station property, and on adjoining properties to the east, west, and south, are not known. All adjoining properties, with the exception of William Flower Park are highly developed. All adjoining properties to the west, east and south, are privately owned. In order to facilitate a clean-up at the station, a remediation plan must be agreed upon by the current property owner, the City and the NYSDEC. It can be assumed that a certain level of petroleum contamination has impacted the City property of William Flower Park since relatively high concentrations of petroleum compounds were found in soil and water at well location E-13, located in the sidewalk adjacent to the park. The City of New Rochelle and the NYSDEC will need to approve any remediation plan developed for the property. Further investigation and characterization of the release is required to develop a remediation plan. 3.14-19 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 Additional investigation activities will consist of placing soil borings and monitoring wells on the Citgo Station property and on adjoining properties, if possible, to define the horizontal and vertical limits of contamination. Existing monitoring wells on the property may also be utilized for sample collection. This study will also investigate the layout of building foundations and utilities, since these may provide pathways for contaminant migration. A detailed soil and groundwater sampling program will provide the information needed to estimate quantities of contaminated media and depending upon the quantities, potential remediation scenarios and cost estimates. Remediation of the Citgo property and adjacent affected land may be accomplished using standard remediation technologies. Any required excavation or installation of remediation infrastructure (venting systems, piping, recovery wells) would be made easier given the fact that the Citgo Service Station and surrounding buildings are proposed to be demolished. Since both groundwater and soil are affected at the Citgo Station, any remediation system needs to address both media. An air sparging system may prove effective at the Citgo Station and environs. In-situ air sparging is the injection of air into groundwater under controlled conditions to strip volatile compounds from the groundwater, and is often used in conjunction with venting or vacuum systems. Another remediation scenario is the treatment of groundwater with groundwater pumping and air stripping technology. Soil may be treated with a soil venting/vacuum system. If the quantities of affected soils are limited, excavation and off-site soil treatment or disposal is an effective remediation. Physical factors that need to be considered in the design of any remediation system in the Redevelopment Area are the relatively shallow depth to groundwater, the relatively transmissive aquifer material (fine to medium sand), and the variable depth and composition of the fill material above the native sand material. Demolition and Abatement Plan Remediation of the Citgo Station property or other properties that are not yet identified, are likely to occur in conjunction with demolition in the Redevelopment Area. A draft Demolition and Abatement Plan has been prepared to address the handling, storage, transport and disposal of contaminated media, and it is included in Appendix Q. The plan provides procedures for the removal of underground storage tanks, and contaminated soil and groundwater. A key requirement in the Demolition and Abatement Plan is that all workers involved in this remediation activity be appropriately trained per OSHA requirements. Procedures for the removal of tanks and impacted soils would be in accordance with the NYSDEC Petroleum Contaminated Soil Guidance Policy (STARS Memo #1). The timing and extent of the required station clean-up would influence decisions regarding construction procedures in the vicinity of the Citgo Station. According to the grading and utility plans, extensive excavation would not be required in the vicinity of the Citgo Station. Current plans show no proposed grading to lower elevations in the vicinity of the station, but 0.5 to 1.0 foot of fill would be placed in this area to provide the sub-base for the parking lot. Plans show that two 15 inch concrete stormwater pipes, and a Stormceptor Unit are proposed for the portion of the Redevelopment Area now occupied by the Citgo Station. The proposed pipes would be placed approximately three to four feet below current ground elevations. 3.14-20 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Hazardous Materials September 14, 2000 As described in the Chapter 3.13 Construction Impacts, underground petroleum storage tanks would be removed from the Redevelopment Area during the demolition phase of construction. This work would be performed by qualified petroleum tank contractors. If any current or former petroleum releases are identified during the tank removal process they would be removed from the site by qualified environmental consultants working in consultation with the City and the NYSDEC. The use of proper procedures for tank removal by trained personnel, would prevent the exposure of construction workers and the general public to petroleum or contaminated soil. In preparation for site demolition activities, a certified asbestos inspector would be retained to inspect those structures where asbestos materials are suspected to occur. An asbestos removal program would be prepared and implemented if any structures are determined through the inspection program to contain this material. If removal of any materials is required, these actions would occur as the first task of the demolition process in accordance with applicable City, State, and Federal regulations. This work would be completed by licensed asbestos abatement contractors, using workers trained and certified to perform the work. By using the proper removal procedures and trained personnel, other construction workers and the general public would not be exposed to asbestos during building demolition. Construction Worker Health and Safety Plan Prior to the start of construction, a Construction Worker Health and Safety Plan would be developed to allow construction in the vicinity of the Citgo Station, as well as throughout the proposed Retail Center Site, to proceed without creating additional potential risks to human health and the environment. The Plan would contain at a minimum: • procedures for the monitoring of ambient air conditions during construction for potential health impacts and explosive atmospheres • worker health and safety training for work with hazardous materials • the need for appropriate personal protective equipment, such as gloves, and respirators • procedures for the further characterization and management of contaminated soil including stockpiling, soil sampling and treatment and disposal options • procedures for the management and disposal of groundwater, if dewatering is necessary • procedures for the protection of the public with appropriate fencing and barriers 3.14-21 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Alternatives September 14,2000 4.0 ALTERNATIVES The New York State Environmental Quality Review Act requires a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed action which are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the qualified and eligible sponsor for redevelopment (i.e., the Applicant). The DEIS considers seven alternatives to the Proposed Actions, including: 1) No Action Alternative, which assumes that the Redevelopment Area remains in its current condition and the proposed Urban Renewal Plan and Retail Center Project are not implemented; 2) No Site Plan Approval Alternative, which assumes that the proposed Urban Renewal Plan is adopted, but the Retail Center Project is not approved; 3) No Build Alternative, which assumes that the proposed Urban Renewal Plan and Retail Center Project are not implemented, but that other public policy initiatives are undertaken with the goal of improving conditions in the Redevelopment Area; 4) Modified Plan Configuration Alternative, which considers modifications to the proposed Retail Center's site layout; 5) Alternative Location, which considers other locations in New Rochelle for the proposed Retail Center; 6) Redevelopment Alternative, which considers alternatives to the proposed Urban Renewal Plan and Large Scale Retail Zone; and 7) No Impact Alternatives, which would eliminate unmitigatable significant impacts. 4.1 No Action Alternative This Alternative is analyzed throughout the document as "Future Conditions Without the Proposed Actions." It assumes that the proposed Redevelopment Area is not designated an urban renewal area and a retail center is not developed. It also presumes that another entity would not seek to assemble a significant number of parcels to construct a major retail or industrial use under the present zoning. As described under the No Action condition in each applicable chapter, this Alternative recognizes that the Applicant has voluntarily, and at its own risk, acquired property within and adjacent to the proposed Redevelopment Area. This is being done to facilitate relocation and eliminate the uncertainty associated with redevelopment for those property owners willing to enter into a purchase contract with the Applicant. Under this Alternative, it is assumed that the properties that have been acquired privately by the Applicant are either retained in their existing use, reused under the existing zoning (i.e., if vacant), or sold. In either event, it is contemplated that the reuse of such properties would not significantly affect the existing characteristics and future conditions of the Redevelopment Area. Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy: Under the No Action Alternative, land use, zoning, and public policy in the Redevelopment Area would remain unchanged. The existing mix of commercial, industrial, and nonconforming institutional and residential uses would continue to coexist. Existing blighted conditions would continue, particularly on vacant or underutilized lots, 4-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 and deterioration and obsolescence of existing uses would be expected to continue absent any public policy initiatives aimed at improvement. Existing zoning and public policy for the Redevelopment Area would remain unchanged under this Alternative. As noted in chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, the pending recodification of the New Rochelle Zoning Code would remap the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area and areas to the west (which are currently zoned M-1) to LI Light Industrial. This recodification and mapping effort is intended to more accurately reflect existing uses throughout the City. Neither the proposed Urban Renewal Plan, nor the proposed rezoning to permit large-scale retail use would be enacted in this Alternative. The goals of land use and development plans for the proposed Redevelopment Area, contained in the City of New Rochelle 1996 Comprehensive Plan, would not be met under this Alternative. Topography, Geology, Soils, and Hydrogeology: Excavation that would be required in the southeast and southwest portions of the Redevelopment Area under the proposed Retail Center Project would not occur under this Alternative. Grading of the site that would be required with the proposed Retail Center Project would similarly not occur under the No Action Alternative. As with the proposed Retail Center Project, the majority of the Redevelopment Area would remain as impervious surface in this Alternative. Terrestrial Ecology: Both with and without the proposed Retail Center Project, no significant impacts to terrestrial ecology would be anticipated. As noted above, the overall amount of impervious surfaces in the Redevelopment Area would remain the same. Disturbance or removal of on-site vegetation, soil and rock, would also not occur. Landscape plantings and the associated visual diversity offered by such plantings which are being planned for the proposed Retail Center Project would not take place. Surface Water, Wetlands, and Storm water Management: Proposed improvements and replacement of the stormwater drainage infrastructure in the Redevelopment Area that would occur under the proposed Retail Center Project would not occur under this Alternative. No major improvements to the existing stormwater drainage system in the Redevelopment Area are proposed by the City. Therefore, the existing drainage infrastructure would continue to deteriorate over time and necessary repairs to the system would be made by the City, when required. Stormwater quality from the Redevelopment Area would remain the same or would deteriorate as property uses gradually changed from residential to manufacturing and vehicle repair services. Neighborhood Character. Changes in neighborhood character that would occur with the proposed Urban Renewal Plan and proposed Retail Center Project would not occur under the No Action Alternative. The proposed Redevelopment Area would continue as a blighted, mixed-use area. The possible adverse effects from traffic volumes on the character of certain neighborhoods related to the proposed Retail Center Project would also not occur under this Alternative. Visual Quality: There would be no foreseeable change to the visual environment without implementation of the proposed Urban Renewal Plan and the proposed Retail Center Project. 4-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 Activities within the Redevelopment Area would remain the same, reflecting the blighted condition of the area. Historic and Archaeological Resources: There are no cultural resources on or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places located in or adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Area experienced significant in-ground disturbance when it was developed early in the 20th Century. Therefore, both with and without the proposed Retail Center Project, there would be no potential for impacts to historic or archaeological resources. Socioeconomic Conditions: The short and long term effects of residential and commercial displacement from the Redevelopment Area would not occur. Most businesses, residences, and institutional uses in the Redevelopment Area would remain under this Alternative and the trend toward continued conversion of existing uses to commercial, storage, automotive and other light industrial uses would likely continue. Absent the proposed Urban Renewal Plan and proposed Retail Center Project, the benefits of the revitalization and economic development of the proposed Redevelopment Area, including the capture of retail dollars currently being spent outside of the region, would not occur. The projected construction period employment and 350 permanent jobs (as projected by the Applicant) would not be realized. Without the Retail Center Project, the City would not realize the benefits of increased revenues and an increase in the value of taxable property. Under the No Action Alternative, overall tax revenues from properties within the Redevelopment Area would likely decline from current levels. Buildings and most improvements would continue to age and become more obsolete, dilapidated, underutilized, or undesirable, with a concomitant effect on market and taxable assessed values. Traffic and Transportation: The traffic patterns in the Redevelopment Area would not change in this Alternative. This condition is generally reflected in the "No-Build" scenario discussed in the text of the transportation and traffic chapter of this DEIS (Chapter 3.9). The additional traffic expected to be generated by the proposed Retail Center and the associated improvements to correct existing traffic problems and those caused by the Retail Center Project would not be added to the local road network, and any potential increases in noise and vehicle emissions would not occur. Air Quality: The existing air quality in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area would remain unchanged under this Alternative. This Alternative would not have the de minimus air quality impact associated with the proposed Retail Center. However, both with this Alternative and the proposed Retail Center Project, there would not be a violation of the NAAQS standards. Noise: The existing and future No-Build noise levels in and around the Redevelopment Area would remain unchanged under this Alternative, although the continued conversion of residential use to storage, automotive and other light industrial uses could increase adversely the noise levels in the Redevelopment Area. Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services: Under the No Action Alternative, improvements to on-site infrastructure to handle the water and energy demand and sewage and solid waste generation that would result from the proposed Retail Center Project, would not 4-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 occur. Both with and without the proposed Retail Center Project, municipal resources would continue to be spent on policing the Redevelopment Area, and for building, fire protection, and other code enforcement activities. Construction / Phasing Impacts: Under the No Action Alternative, the short term impacts associated with proposed Retail Center Project, including demolition of existing structures, site preparation and building construction, would not occur. Construction period benefits, including the creation of jobs and associated tax revenues, would not be realized. Potential short term construction impacts, including construction vehicle traffic and associated effects on air quality and noise, would also not occur under this Alternative. Hazardous Materials: Any soil and groundwater remediation that would occur with the proposed Retail Center Project would likely not occur under this Alternative in the near future. Any existing hazardous materials in the Redevelopment Area would remain in their present location and condition, unless remediation actions were undertaken by individual property owners. The continued conversion of residential use to storage, automotive and other light industrial uses, and the continued blighted condition of the Redevelopment Area would create a greater risk of potential hazardous material releases and contamination related to the Redevelopment Area and surrounding properties. 4.2 No Site Plan Approval Alternative This Alternative assumes that the proposed Urban Renewal Plan is adopted, but the Retail Center is not approved. In this scenario, an Urban Renewal Plan (and related zoning amendments) would be implemented, which would allow only large-scale retail uses on sites of ten acres or more within the Urban Renewal Area, and hence within the Redevelopment Area. All existing uses within the Urban Renewal Area would be rendered nonconforming in this Alternative. The value of property within the Redevelopment Area for future development would be limited to its value as part of a larger parcel assembled for a large-scale retail user. Once designated as an Urban Renewal Area, reinvestment in the area would continue to be limited as all uses would be nonconforming and the uncertainties associated with urban renewal would continue to exist. Although an IKEA would not be built on the subject site under this Alternative, any retail use(s) associated with a ten acre parcel can be expected to result in more than 200,000 sf of floor area which would be allowable under the anticipated zoning amendments. Depending upon the retailer and size of development, impacts could be expected to be similar to those outlined in the body of this DEIS. The Urban Renewal Area would likely be developed with a single retail user or mix of users. While the retailing operation would not be IKEA, the overall impacts associated with development of the Urban Renewal Area for retail use would generally be similar to those with the proposed Retail Center Project. 4-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 4.3 No Build Alternative Under this Alternative, the City of New Rochelle would implement revitalization strategies other than the proposed Urban Renewal Plan. Other public policy strategies, which could be considered singly or in combination to address conditions in the Redevelopment Area, might include: • establishing initiatives to rehabilitate existing commercial structures • removing disincentives to upgrading existing nonconforming uses (residential structures) • removing existing physically blighted structures • enhancing code enforcement to prevent further decline of other properties, and addressing vacant and underutilized properties Each is discussed in turn below. Utilizing Initiatives to Rehabilitate Existing Commercial Structures As outlined in Chapter 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions and in Appendix M, several programs administered by the State are currently available to existing businesses in the Redevelopment Area. These include programs providing direct financial assistance, linked deposit programs (which reduce the costs of conventional financing), the Power for Jobs program (energy assistance) and other discounts for energy such as the Business Retention Incentive, and direct assistance to technology-related companies. Several measures have been in place, which provide incentives for property owners to invest and rehabilitate existing commercial structures. These measures have included, until recently, ten-year real property tax abatements on the assessed value of improvements provided for under Section 485b of the New York State Real Property Tax Law. To date, a number of businesses within the Redevelopment Area have taken advantage of such tax abatement benefits. Even though the benefits have been available, properties within the Redevelopment Area still are characterized by neglect and physical deterioration. A small portion of the Redevelopment Area, along Fifth Avenue, is located within a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) eligible area. The City's Community Development Block Program has, in recent years, targeted its resources to the enhancement of public improvements in the downtown and other Urban Renewal Areas (e.q. streetscape and sidewalk improvements in the Lawton Street Urban Renewal Area and Cedar Street Urban Renewal Areas, roadway and environmental remediation within the Weyman Avenue Urban Renewal Area), and a facade improvement program for small businesses in downtown New Rochelle. These programs have been done in conjunction with significant investment from private sector re-developments as evidenced by Home Depot and Costco, New Roc City, and Avalon-on-the Sound. In order for the CDBG program to have an impact on the current Redevelopment Area, a major policy change and redirection of significant resources away from the City's central business district would need to occur, as well as the adoption of new eligibility requirements. 4-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 Removing Disincentives to Upgrading Existing Nonconforming Uses Existing residential uses in the proposed Urban Renewal and Redevelopment Areas are nonconforming since such uses are not allowed by right or special permit in the M-1 district. With regard to the nonconforming use of buildings or land, section 331-58 of the New Rochelle Zoning Code provides that: Any type of nonconforming use of buildings or land may be continued, but: (1) shall not be enlarged or extended or placed on a different portion of the lot or parcel of land occupied by such use on the effective date of this chapter. (2) shall not be changed to another nonconforming use without a special permit from the Board of Appeals, and then only to a use of the same or a more restricted nature. (3) shall not be reestablished after such use has ceased for over one (1) year for any reason, or has been changed to or replaced by a conforming use. Intent to resume active operations shall not affect the foregoing. With regard to nonconforming structures, section 331-59 of the New Rochelle Zoning Code specifies that: Except as provided in section 331-60 or 331-62 [of the Zoning Code], no building which is nonconforming or which houses a nonconforming use shall be: (1) structurally altered or enlarged, except that a garage accessory to a dwelling in a residence-zoned district when such garage is nonconforming for reasons of side or rear yard requirements, may be restored on an existing foundation but shall not be enlarged or relocated. (2) moved to another location where such use continues to be nonconforming. (3) restored for other than a conforming use after damage for any reason exceeding fifty percent(50%) of its value, exclusive of foundations. Any such building damaged to a lesser extent may be restored, but not enlarged, and the nonconforming use reinstated within one(1) year of such damage; if the restoration of such building is not completed within said one-year period, the nonconforming use of such structure shall be deemed to have ceased, unless the nonconforming use is carried on without interruption in the undamaged portion of the building. As noted, neither residential uses nor structures used for residential purposes in the Redevelopment Area may be enlarged. If a residential use in the Redevelopment Area is discontinued for a period longer than one year, or is more than 50 percent damaged (based on value), it may not be reinstated. In addition, no structural alterations are permitted to these residential buildings. The City Zoning Code would need to be significantly modified to revitalize residential development in the Redevelopment Area. This would be a significant departure from well-established principles governing nonconforming use; however, it would be possible. 4-6 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 Modifying Existing M-1 Regulations Like many older industrial areas of the City, the mixed-use proposed Urban Renewal Area was zoned M-1 with the assumption that residential uses would disappear and be replaced by new industrial uses or that sites would be assembled for development of larger industrial buildings. However, this has not occurred as anticipated and the mix of uses in the proposed Urban Renewal Area continue to clash. A zoning Alternative considered as part of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan for a portion of the West New Rochelle neighborhood would allow the retention and development of new residential use in M-1 districts where buffers, separation barriers and sufficient off-street parking can be provided which meet minimum standards to ensure compatibility with industrial uses. Vacant industrial buildings could also be appropriate for residential conversion. However, conditions in the Fifth Avenue Redevelopment Area are significantly more dense than the West New Rochelle area. Little land area is set aside for on-site parking and loading, and many structures have no front, side or rear setback areas. These conditions make it difficult to consider increased setback and buffering requirements without impacting existing uses. Removing Existing Physically Blighted Structures The proposed Redevelopment Area was found to be appropriate for urban renewal under New York State Municipal Law. The City of New Rochelle undertook an examination of the physical and land use characteristics that defined the proposed Redevelopment Area. The Blight Study found that out of 66 buildings in the proposed Urban Renewal Area, 73 percent were determined to have a blighting influence due to poor maintenance and gradual deterioration, thus making the Area qualify for Urban Renewal. The urban renewal process has been undertaken by the City and has been the standard method used by the City to achieve its overall revitalization efforts as set forth in the 1965 Master Plan and 1996 Comprehensive Plan. The clearance of slum and blight within the Redevelopment Area outside of the urban renewal process would require consensual acquisition of property by the City. The City could thereafter undertake a program of demolition and abatement. Subsequently, the City would market vacant parcels for redevelopment in accordance with applicable zoning laws and regulations. The clearance of slum and blight in this manner is an eligible activity under the City's Community Development Block Grant Program. Removing Vacant or Underutilized Properties As outlined above, the clearance of slum and blighted properties within the Redevelopment Area outside of the urban renewal process would require consensual acquisition of vacant property by the City. The City would then market vacant parcels for redevelopment in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances, or use the vacant properties for municipal uses. The clearance of slum and blighted properties in this manner is an eligible activity under the City's Community Development Grant Program. 4-7 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 Enhancing Code Enforcement In mid-July of 2000, the City passed a Commercial Maintenance Code (Chapter 130) applicable to all nonresidential uses in the Redevelopment Area. The Ordinance addresses conditions in commercial structures, whether such uses are commercial in whole or in part, as well as structures accessory to commercial buildings. Maintenance of structures as well as surrounding property such as yards and parking areas, is addressed. Premises must be kept free of hazards, garbage and other debris, infestation, and abandoned vehicles. Buildings must be kept structurally sound and maintained in good repair. The Ordinance designates the City's Building Official as administrator of the Ordinance, empowered to perform inspections and issue violations. To the extent that the above-referenced public policies and enforcement initiatives are applied in the Redevelopment Area, conditions in the proposed Urban Renewal Area could be improved. However, to a great extent, effects of the Proposed Actions would not occur. It is unlikely that the wholesale changes in land use that would occur under the Proposed Actions would result from these public policy initiatives. Land use would remain mixed, with residential and industrial uses predominating. Direct displacement that would occur with the Proposed Actions would not occur under this Alternative, although, to the extent that existing blighted structures are improved, secondary land use effects that would occur in immediately adjacent areas of New Rochelle and Mamaroneck could occur under this Alternative. The fiscal benefits that would accrue to the City under the proposed actions would not occur under this Alternative. Compared with conditions with the Proposed Actions, visual quality, while improved compared to existing conditions, would not provide the uniformity of the proposed project. Increases in traffic and noise and changes in air quality that would occur with the proposed project would not occur under this Alternative. 4.4 Alternate Site Layout This Alternative reconfigures the proposed Retail Center Project site plan by locating the retail building adjacent to the New England Thruway rather than Fifth Avenue as in the proposed Retail Center Project. The building size, and number of parking and loading spaces are the same as in the Proposed Action. Figure 4-1 shows this modified configuration. Access and egress would occur from Biehn Street, Valley Place, the end of Plain Avenue and Fifth Avenue to at-grade parking on the northeast side of the Redevelopment Area, a two level parking structure on the northwest side, and parking on the ground level of the retail building. All delivery truck access and egress would occur via Valley Place to a loading area on the southeast corner of the retail building. This layout was one of the initial plans considered by the Applicant and presented to the City of New Rochelle. Revisions to this layout were made based on comments received from the City of New Rochelle Fire Department and others, which provided impetus for consideration of the building reconfiguration concept as currently proposed. Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy: Under this Alternative, impacts on land use, zoning, and public policy in the Redevelopment Area would be essentially the same as under the proposed Retail Center Project. 4-8 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS / QQ c :� / — . �fFIFTH z L _ — FI A.._.-_EN UE "�".� �._ --______-:=7:::::77.2...-_--7--_. ._.. __ _ —.,--..--+--...---....—+----.-- _.._ . . _� _ E__ _. _ ...— rs L% ci t_ € --._J ' I _--- -________a__.. ..--- -_. _,_--_ \ . Th IIIIIIIII III I IE . ,, . 2825PACE15 L 1 II 386 PARKING I 1 _ X234 SPACES C SPACES) / 12 PARKING J I _ _ , , SPACES UNDER DECK C/ .„ I v ELEVATOR /7,,,..., - ' ' - RAMP — VESTIBULE717".".""""--"--.................................... RK N__ p29SPACEISG I ) t t t t t 1 t t t 7 c t t t C c 1 "'-= AVENUEa,►Y_,� STAIRWELL I �r 20 PARKING ` rte _ /1 � sPlcls� � � � � � � � � � I I I I I I _7 4e .-: - I . ••t:-3• :`...„':,-...,'''','!;...,,,21,,,--------,,,,, "`" ,. y J1 1:� \ _.. __} I i i ; i i i : 11 f ! I ! i k ;� ACE15G S \�`�� 66 P J-- C43 c 543 SPACES SP f v r ` ' f • `UNDER SLOG, — _ :1;rsC'''''''''''"' 3 T ,)0 , / --7-. ....._1 -----------,ri I =. 1111111 ( 1 �n _ 1 T - f l - `"""=`„, �/ yam --f_ �_ .._ �", —I– - -- - -� • - i__ ::• _ • /'` / f ..•' G.F. 20.00 .. __ : :_ )/ 907 n-r------T- ... _L.._ __I.. . � ll ; l ; ; ; j ; ( I CI , I I I ; i'''''''4"� _I_J i I I J l _;_•_i._ : , I�1 �__ ; : i 1 I • I i /I • Li k______------- ___ --'"�� - -._.--` �_. --------------- - NEW ENGLAND THRUWAY ~``— --- ---------1:1--- GRAPHIC SCALE Figure 4-1 : Alternative Site Layout Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project 100 0 50 100 200 400 City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: 1 Inch = 100 Feet Source: Bohler Engineering, August 2000 ( IN FEET ) File 9916 Fig ASL TMA 08/25/00 1 inch = 100 ft. Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845)265-4400 Fax(845)264-4418 Alternatives September 14, 2000 Topography, Geology, Soils, and Hydrogeology: The excavation that would be required in the southeast and southwest portions of the Redevelopment Area under the proposed Retail Center Project would also occur under this Alternative. Based upon the finished grade estimates, approximately the same amount of material excavation would occur under this Alternative, as the proposed Retail Center Project. As with the proposed Retail Center Project, the majority of the Redevelopment Area would remain as impervious surface in this Alternative. Terrestrial Ecology: No significant impacts to terrestrial ecology would be anticipated. As noted above, the overall amount of impervious surface in the Redevelopment Area would remain the same as with the proposed Retail Center Project. Surface Water, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management: Under this Alternative, the proposed improvements and replacement of the stormwater drainage infrastructure in the Redevelopment Area that would occur under the proposed Retail Center Project would also occur under this Alternative. The quality of stormwater discharge from the Redevelopment Area would be expected to improve to levels estimated for post-development conditions under the proposed Retail Center Project. Neighborhood Character. As with land use, changes in neighborhood character would occur under this Alternative that would be the same as under the proposed Retail Center Project. As described in detail under Visual Quality below, by orienting the building to face Fifth Avenue and placing most parking in the front setback area (along Fifth Avenue) this Alternative would increase the visibility of Redevelopment Area activities to residents of the MacLeay Apartments and users of William Flower Park. The Proposed Action places the proposed building between the Park and MacLeay Apartments and the majority of parking spaces (which would be located on the Thruway side of the building). This allows for maintenance of a quieter street environment to the rear of the building in the Proposed Action. Visual Quality: The overall layout of parking and structures on the site in this Alternative would differ in some respects from the proposed Retail Center Project. This Alternative would provide most of the parking along the Fifth Avenue frontage and place the rear of the retail building adjacent to the Thruway right-of-way, unlike the Proposed Action. The openness of the parking area would occupy the Fifth Avenue view corridor to a greater extent than the existing variety of building facades and storage lots. In terms of visual character, this Alternative would replace the incongruous variety of existing buildings and uses with a single architectural element and activity associated with a single use. Like the Proposed Action, construction of this Alternative would result in a dramatic change in the visual environment of this neighborhood. Existing mixed use buildings, outside storage yards, extensive areas of chain link fencing, and large areas allocated to vehicular storage would be replaced by a modern, single use retail building with landscaped parking and circulation. Like the Proposed Action, this Alternative would command a prominent position in the neighborhood due to its size, both as viewed from the Thruway and as experienced from the Fifth Avenue street corridor. Unlike the Proposed Action, this Alternative would introduce a large landscaped at-grade parking area and a two level parking structure along Fifth Avenue. These parking areas would expand the vehicle circulation functions of the Fifth Avenue corridor, and the openness of the 4-9 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 adjoining Park. However, the majority of the parking provided in this Alternative would be readily visible from Fifth Avenue, Valley Place in Mamaroneck, Plain Avenue and from William Flower Park to the north. With the front entrance to the building facing Fifth Avenue, this Alternative would expose the Fifth Avenue view corridor to greater vehicular and pedestrian activity than the Proposed Action. The truck loading area would be located opposite existing industrial uses at the south end of Valley Place. The mass of the building would overlook the Thruway corridor. The 36-foot high building in this Alternative would be located approximately 50 feet from the edge of pavement of the Thruway. Viewers from the Thruway would experience a direct view of the rear of the building, softened to some extent by landscape treatment along the highway frontage. This view would be pronounced at night due to the light spill over of the existing flood lighting of the Thruway toll booth area and the proximity of the building to the viewers. The change to views from locations west of the site (on Plain Avenue and Portman Road) would include the addition of an 11.5-foot high parking deck located close to the property line. The three residential structures on Plain Avenue situated at elevations above the site would have direct views of the west side parking deck. As compared with the Proposed Action, these residences would not have views of a loading area. No significant change in airiness or shadows would result from this Alternative as compared with the Proposed Action. Night lighting would be concentrated on the parking, loading, and entrance areas of the development which would occupy the north and east sides of the site. The existing Fifth Avenue corridor illumination at typical street light intensities would not change substantially under this Alternative. Street lighting levels on Portman Road, the west end of Plain Avenue, and Valley Place would remain generally unchanged, with minor light spill over from the adjoining parking and circulation areas, as in the Proposed Action. The change in overall lighting levels over the site would be directly evident from viewpoints in the immediate vicinity under this Alternative, with greater visibility from view points to the north than in the Proposed Action. The MacLeay Apartments located northeast of the Redevelopment Area, as well as nighttime users of William Flower Park, would view the parking and circulation areas due to the increase in night lighting, though this effect would be ameliorated somewhat by distance to the viewer. The front entrance area of the retail building in this Alternative would face Fifth Avenue and the Park and would provide the most prominent nighttime exposure in views from the north due to lighting, unlike the Proposed Action. Residences located immediately west of the Redevelopment Area (on Plain Avenue and Portman Road) would experience direct exposure to night lighting from the proposed parking area, like the Proposed Action. Residences located opposite the site on the east side of Valley Place would also experience direct exposure from the eastern at-grade parking area. These easterly and westerly views would be softened somewhat by plantings proposed along the perimeter of the parking and circulation areas. In summary, while the overall layout of parking and structures on the site in this Alternative would differ in some respects from the proposed Retail Center Project, the extent of the change in visual prominence of the Redevelopment Area within the Secondary Study Area would be similar in either plan. 4-10 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 Historic and Archaeological Resources: There are no cultural resources on or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places located in or adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Area experienced significant in-ground disturbance when it was developed early in the 20th Century. Therefore, both with and without the proposed Retail Center Project, there would no potential for impacts to historic or archaeological resources. Socioeconomic Conditions: The short and long term effects of residential and commercial displacement from the Redevelopment Area would occur, as under the proposed Retail Center Project. Potential secondary displacement impacts, including induced additional retail development in areas near the Redevelopment Area currently zoned for retail use, would also occur under this Alternative, as under the proposed Retail Center Project. The benefits of the revitalization and economic development of the Redevelopment Area, including the retention of retail dollars currently being spent outside of the region, would also occur, as under the proposed Retail Center Project. The projected construction-period employment and 350 permanent jobs (as projected by the Applicant) would be realized. The City would realize the benefits of increased revenues and an increase in the value of taxable property. Traffic and Transportation: The addition of project-generated traffic to the roadway network and other changes in traffic patterns in the Redevelopment Area would be similar to those outlined for the proposed Retail Center Project in Chapter 3.9 of this DEIS. Overall on-site circulation in this Alternative would be different than the proposed Retail Center Project. The proposed Retail Center Project allows access and egress points at two additional locations along Fifth Avenue, and at an additional location along Valley Place; the parking areas would be concentrated in the rear of the site. In this Alternative, most parking spaces are located along the Fifth Avenue frontage of the Redevelopment Area. The service loading area and compactor area would be located in the extreme southeastern corner of the Redevelopment Area in this Alternative; access to the loading area would be solely from Valley Place. No turnaround at the southern end of Valley Place is provided in this Alternative, unlike the proposed Retail Center Project. In the proposed Retail Center Project, the loading area is placed at the northwestern corner of the building in an area which can be accessed from both Fifth and Plain Avenues. Customer loading activities, and handicapped parking in the proposed Retail Center Project layout are better segregated from on-site customer vehicle circulation as compared to this Alternative. Most vehicles in this Alternative are directed to the access aisle along the front of the store, the area where the greatest amount of pedestrian activity and vehicle stopping would be expected. In the proposed Retail Center Project layout, vehicle access and egress points are located away from the store entry, customer loading and handicapped parking areas. In the Alternative layout shown in Figure 4-1, access to the rear of the building by Fire Department and other emergency vehicles is not shown. The provision of an appropriately-sized access lane in the rear area would necessitate a reduction in the amount of parking, which could be provided in this Alternative. Air Quality: Under this Alternative, impacts on air quality in the Redevelopment Area would be essentially the same as under the proposed Retail Center Project. This Alternative would have 4-11 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 the same air quality impact associated with the proposed Retail Center Project. However, both with this Alternative and the proposed Retail center Project, there would not be a violation of the NAAQS standards. Noise: Under this Alternative, impacts on the noise environment in the Redevelopment Area would be essentially the same as under the proposed Retail Center Project. As noted earlier, by orienting the building to face Fifth Avenue and placing most parking in the front setback area (along Fifth Avenue) this Alternative would increase the visibility of Redevelopment Area activities to residents of the MacLeay Apartments and users of William Flower Park. The Proposed Action places the proposed building between the Park and MacLeay Apartments and the majority of parking spaces (which would be located on the Thruway side of the building), thereby providing a quieter street environment along Fifth Avenue. Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services: Similar changes to on-site utilities would result as compared to the proposed Retail Center Project. Projected property and sales tax revenues, and corresponding costs would be the same as under the proposed Retail Center Project. Construction/Phasing Impacts: Under this Alternative, construction and phasing impacts in the Redevelopment Area would be essentially the same as under the proposed Retail Center Project. Hazardous Materials: Any soil and groundwater remediation that would occur with the proposed Retail Center Project would also occur under this Alternative. 4.5 Alternative Locations For the Retail Center Project The proposed Retail Center Project includes the following principal dimensional attributes: • 14.9 acre contiguous, rectilinear area of land • 308,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and warehouse space in a rectangular configuration • Retail structure footprint with dimensions of approximately 725 feet by 300 feet, with a parking deck extending another 80 feet • Parking structure footprint with dimensions of approximately 860 feet by 210 feet • 1,572 parking spaces and 10 loading spaces • retail structure height of 36 foot Potential Alternative locations within the City of New Rochelle have been evaluated to determine potential sites where these dimensions may be accommodated. Action plans developed as part of the City of New Rochelle's 1996 Comprehensive Plan, were useful in highlighting areas of the City where such sites might be found. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan identified and examined six focus areas within the City that were appropriate for large-scale retail development. 4-12 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14,2000 The focus areas included in the 1996 Plan are: the East Main Street / Echo Bay area; the Fifth Avenue area (the subject of this Draft EIS); the West Main Street / Weyman Avenue / West New Rochelle; Downtown; Center City, and the Waterfront / Pelham Road areas. Two of these focus areas -- the Waterfront / Pelham Road and the East Main Street / Echo Bay area -- include lands located along the City's waterfront. The neighborhoods discussed in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan include almost all of New Rochelle's commercial areas, and all of the potential sites near the City's major roadways, which may be able to support a large scale retail facility. Given the dimensional attributes discussed earlier, only one potential Alternative location was identified from the remaining five focus areas: the East Main Street / Echo Bay focus area. This potential Alternative site currently supports the vacant Tuck Tape and New Rochelle Ford properties. Western portions of this potential Alternative location support the City maintenance yard, which would need to be relocated for any redevelopment. A portion of the East Main Street / Echo Bay area was targeted by the City for redevelopment in its 1983 Main / Echo Urban Renewal Plan (revised in 1994). Western portions of the potential Alternative site are already included in the Main/ Echo Urban Renewal Area. Figure 4-2 provides a map showing the location and orientation of this potential Alternative site. Planning issues including likely travel routes to and from the site, the adjacent Salesian High School, and Five Islands County Park, and the proposed New Rochelle Baywalk are also shown on Figure 4-2. This potential site is located in a County-designated Critical Environmental Area. Under New Rochelle's proposed Zoning Code revisions, most of this potential site would be zoned Planned Waterfront Development / 3-story (PWD-3) and Planned Waterfront Development / 5-story (PWD-5). Northeastern portions of the site closest to East Main Street and Lefevre's Lane would be zoned General Commercial Modified (C-1M). This potential Alternative site is not conducive to a large-scale retail use for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Redevelopment Area comprises 14.9 acres in a rectilinear configuration. The proposed store structure requires a rectangular area with minimum dimensions of approximately 700 feet by approximately 250 feet. It is not likely that a store of the size and configuration currently proposed by the Applicant could be situated on this property. The overall size of the East Main Street /Echo Bay Area site is uncertain because of its proximity to Echo Bay shore lands. Its estimated size is between 12 and 13 acres, although portions near the water may not support development. Because the waters of Stephenson Creek infringe on the site, it has a horseshoe configuration, requiring that parking to serve a potential retail structure must be located on the opposite side of Stephenson Creek. This is an unsatisfactory relationship for most retailers. 2. Adjacent land uses include the Salesian High School (and its adjacent recreational areas) to the east, Stephenson Creek (an inlet from nearby Long 4-13 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 Island Sound), and New Rochelle's Five Islands Park to the south. The County's New Rochelle wastewater treatment is located to the south. Single-family residential neighborhoods are also located nearby. A large-scale retail use (typically not considered either a water-dependent or water-enhanced use) at this location within the City's coastal area would need to reconcile issues of land use compatibility, increased traffic, noise levels, and visual quality with these adjacent land uses. As a threshold issue, it is not likely that the construction of a large-scale retail facility at this location would conform to City policies for waterfront areas as articulated in the City's adopted Local Waterfront Revitalization Program policy statement. 3. As shown on Figure 4-2, major travel routes to and from this site would include the Boston Post Road through the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont, Stonelea Avenue north to Palmer Avenue, and local roadways southwest to Pelham Road (aka Shore Road). The site's orientation with respect to existing land uses and the roadway network limit potential access and egress points further limiting a potential location for a retail structure. In this area, Boston Post Road primarily serves as both an arterial route connecting Sound Shore communities and as a collector-distributor street serving New Rochelle and Larchmont. Relatively high traffic levels exist at this time. The placement of a large-scale retail facility at this location would place greater strains on Boston Post Road and other local streets connecting this road to 1-95 at Interchanges 16 and 17. 4. As shown on Figure 4-2, in response to the numerous open space resources situated in its waterfront area, the City of New Rochelle has proposed a Baywalk, a portion of which would travel along this site's perimeter. The City is seeking approximately half of the funding for this $1 million redevelopment from New York State. The use of this site to support a large-scale retail facility would also need to be reconciled with this capital and park planning program. 5. This site has not been targeted for large-scale retail use in any City policy statement. Regarding the Echo Bay site, the 1996 Comprehensive Plan notes that: [t]his area should be redeveloped with water-related uses and development controls designed to ensure provision of a view corridor to the bay and pedestrian access and public use at the water's edge...As part of this plan, an improved waterfront edge should be created and the City should work with the County and private sector where necessary to create a continuous waterfront pedestrian link from Five Islands Park to the Planned Waterfront Area (an area which includes this Alternative site). The only remaining areas of the City which could support redevelopment activities lie within identified Urban Renewal Areas. These areas have already been the subject of Urban Renewal Plans. 4-14 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS f i * • 7^/,) Jaz r*ill ‘ aY II kg# *ty a r�tyx; S4. ' ` // , 4 ,i t li/‘447-f4 t.. 4` ./4 « O tist IIID/ `4 .f' r- \I"....---... ilx i, A w Po) ,,.....-011.1• leo.71 . .z..,4*At„h.,,ur A...4 „,e, ' ii;,... 4-..ipt, .')v I tr.:,,,,„it,° . *41)4 'w 416, 4116- 44' I ' 44 ? ' VII 1„1:,:4_,,,k, , ,,,, , , .,„.....1•000e,tts _3/ ,, .isio 4:` 4,,t,:,„,, '44:4,-, ,. 4 Air liti.,.. LA/ . 4011:: "A sek „,....,.. - ., ,, .. , iie,,11111 ; a * v, '- t.,, ,bv.,::,.0„, .,;40,,w,-7,- .4.- '" ,� s Gtdo iiiii. , r , iv .. . s.,.,sg.7.oy, A- itrfr AL,.316' f i...-1 il . # !ir+ ,�+� ,.� fb P.. Com5=' A. l� L- . • (� 1/ xic,' 4 ."..ek) U, � r �w,✓/ ‘ , 4, ... I ,,,,,..:Y -. 44. , .. " 00.7.- ()\-- . i -,Iftiiiiiii,. ^'" _ ,�� ° d. Salesian lei.h School f-,c'' 41s;,, tIL "�1 A•te. t v�ih ..� �. ing ,: " WO s.1,.'— � ',�.f!. , c ♦►.•4"1110 11.1111, 1 POND t «« $ . r 4' # \. .901,t Amp akwood V, t".4 lit, 1 ,, Irii7 kkiii, Nr fl`' '�1 4 ri t` 461/4 4,771; 4104 / /1. �` t 6. ' �4 '41'4) ''k • (� '*Y �;; « i‘" �« w, Five Islands Park) .d r. 4. ,/, \//�\\ ,C .(,'.^ `3y,'i fit' ( t /� ♦ �6 i Be. orT Pt $ J ♦ *call"' • ti \V\V �,� ��� 3 ," e h. Duck 't ho1 gIISI. Y 11 a ��0,..... ., "� "'r«' - , Legend t :• ' - y �{ *. r��, r�' East Main Street/ ♦ rt Pane 1st, +� „dt � ,0 Echo Bay Site r _ 1� � <<_ I Likely Travel Routes .., ?ti ��`, Allkik ----- Proposed New Rochelle ..� Baywalk N Figure 4-2: East Main / Echo Bay Site Planning Issues Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project W E City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Source: Hagstrom Lower Westchester County Street Map, 1993 S Not to Scale File 9916 Fig 4-2 EMEBA TMA 08/23/00 Tim Miller Associates, Inc,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845) 265-4400 Fax(845) 265-4418 Alternatives September 14,2000 4.6 Redevelopment Alternatives For the Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area 4.6.1 Use Alternatives Under the present M-1 Zoning, redevelopment could also take the form of industrial development, either as an industrial "park" utilizing redevelopment sites created within the existing blocks and keeping the present network of public streets intact, or by assemblage of large redevelopment site (as is the case in the Proposed Action). As noted earlier in this chapter, the "assemblage" approach has been undertaken by the City and has been the standard method used by the City to achieve revitalization efforts set forth in the 1965 Master Plan and 1996 Comprehensive Plan. Although unlikely, the City could also undertake a program of voluntary acquisition, phased demolition and subsequent marketing of vacant parcels for redevelopment in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. As noted in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, retail or industrial redevelopment would be desirable. Given existing nonresidential vacancies within the Redevelopment Area and the persistent decline of Westchester County's manufacturing sector, the structures within a planned industrial park at this location would likely be leased over an extended period of time, and might be somewhat smaller than shown (i.e., in one story). Likewise, no industrial user has approached New Rochelle expressing an interest in developing an industrial park in New Rochelle or redeveloping a site for such a use. The current economic expansion, and in particular the new media industry, has, however, created opportunities for the marketing of newly constructed nonresidential media space in Westchester County. Industrial Park Figure 4-3 shows a conceptual layout of the Redevelopment Area if developed as an industrial park under the currentl M-1 zoning designation. A total of 276,456 square feet of space in two single-story and 11 two-story buildings are shown in this layout. As shown in Figure 4-3, this Alternative utilizes the existing street network in the Redevelopment Area. Based on a ratio of one space for every 600 feet of floor area, a total of 480 off-street parking spaces would be required under the current M-1 zoning designation. A total of 645 spaces -- or a ratio of one space for every 425 square feet of floor area -- is shown in this conceptual layout. Somewhat fewer spaces would be required under the City's current parking standards if buildings contained significant amounts of warehouse storage space. However, in order to be marketed for any nonresidential use, off-street parking would need to be provided that, at a minimum, would conform with the City zoning requirements. Based on the mix of uses in an industrial park, which would typically include office, storage and assembly type uses, the parking ratio shown is more appropriate. Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy: This Alternative would involve a wholly different use of the proposed Redevelopment Area as compared to the Proposed Action. Like the proposed Retail Center Project, however, a wholesale change to the Redevelopment Area's existing built 4-15 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 environment would occur under this Alternative. Like the proposed Retail Center Project, this Alternative would further the goals of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. Topography, Geology, Soils, and Hydrogeology: This Alternative may involve less excavation and grading than the proposed Retail Center Project since individual buildings and their associated parking lots could be constructed at slightly different elevations, similar to existing conditions within the proposed Redevelopment Area. Therefore, the impacts from blasting, truck trips for material disposal, and length of construction period, would be reduced under this Alternative. As with the proposed Retail Center Project, the majority of the Redevelopment Area would remain as impervious surface in this Alternative. Terrestrial Ecology: Like the Proposed Actions, no significant impacts to terrestrial ecology would be anticipated under this Alternative. As noted above, the overall amount of impervious surfaces in the Redevelopment Area would remain the same in any of the alternatives considered. Surface Water, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management: Under this Alternative, the proposed improvements and replacement of the stormwater drainage infrastructure in the Redevelopment Area that would occur under the proposed Retail Center Project would also occur. The quality of stormwater discharge from the Redevelopment Area would be expected to improve to levels estimated for post-development conditions under the Proposed Action. Neighborhood Character. As with land use, changes in neighborhood character would occur under this Alternative which would involve a wholesale change in the Redevelopment Area's built context. Visual characteristics are described below under Visual Quality. Potential effects on neighborhood character associated with increased levels of passenger vehicle traffic would be less than the Proposed Action under this Alternative, with much lighter weekend traffic, although a greater proportion of truck trips would be expected given the nature of most industrial uses. Visual Quality: The visual character of the Redevelopment Area would be different in some respects with this Alternative as compared with the Proposed Action as discussed below. Like the Proposed Action, construction of this Alternative would result in a significant change in the visual environment of this neighborhood from the existing condition. Existing mixed use buildings of various sizes and styles, outside storage yards, extensive areas of chain link fencing, and large areas allocated to vehicular storage would be replaced in this Alternative by a more uniform lot layout for building placement, parking and circulation, and associated landscaping. The new two single-story and 11 two-story buildings and parking areas would conform to current codes, providing a more uniform pattern of architecture and site development. Unlike the Proposed Action, this Alternative would provide a row of predominantly two story buildings as viewed from the Thruway and Fifth Avenue view corridors, but would not likely command a prominent visual position in the neighborhood by virtue of its architecture. This Alternative would provide a variety of building styles rather than a single architectural element associated with a single use. The smaller parking lots would also provide greater opportunity for landscaping within each lot and along the local streets, which would soften the appearance of the neighborhood as viewed from all sides as compared with the Proposed Action. 4-16 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS / g-Q p 1 --- 1 I v —^`._ BLOCK 919 I ! `` 1_31 . 14. d c.. L____ ------J BLOCK 919 ` -'� f7 BLOCK 910 `t _ _ ,-„ •��€•rr-r �_` _ FIFTH AVENUE , • -- `'I �`I BLOCK 914, _`=_ -_..`-__ 0.--.••••Q."' — i---- ----j —_____. FIFTH AVENUE 7/ J R , i j j--1, 1 -ri . ., -- ----7 I-- ---i----1.m._, _ _.,„_ - I , U I I4_1.7,:4.441, .ii I ����°•'... 1,IiJII I I I I r �� I •� i t _ i I • :EEE• Q I I t 1 IDGt i f: V Nil i t rr � f � I -� :EEE::E•.,.. :t:: I 1 I t21 � — � EE°- I l 3F I i ••BLDG 2. BID(i h tEE:E.:::: — k I____- 1 E t HIM,6 /� 2a,a348FE' - i :IiNi,iiii:im.1, 2a 604 i:EE i ■ _ _ BLDG 4 EE: /— I.. .— _ __.1_ I ��- /.. .•.- 1 ! I T sl�cz ,.: — I , 29�a7a sF / f35 SPACESI ` I i j 1 - a : __J __. '-29,9545!' 10.2788F I MN ;E:: ytI - y 1\ 1mifI-� • •• I i •I ::EIIi irT r e • /62 SPACE ZIS EI �t1 _ 5 SPT1 , ttACES i'::f' 82SPACESCS /SPA E'~�-, sz 1 I 1jEE'E. I IP 1 �..•,•:i: :`: SPACESII62_i r lI It,, EE.• c`ill - 7 / J , — N _r 'I• E—_ wA t:t::I r J�� �LJ iI . EEE.1'E E_ 'e _ IbUIi-7 E I - i� I— I•_� Ili 1 •rte' — -- — • ' .:3`� Jr o ( .I11�. �...( 1= 1irt-� 1J1__ ,'=:-,; r. '_'t:,_I 11 I �' 1 -7 . / : j -... PLAIN AVENUE j t ` Ise • E :tE € I I I` I - r i i I ! :(E :EEE + :'_ a _j `/ / / ..... i .Tr 1' I a BI.a(i.10 iii I - i�Ei?::::... . :?i.; i I a t y LEGEND ""s p - 28,800 8F f fc` J ' 1_ j c BLDG D 1 j BLDG EI j I I I I I!I I I I I I I tI j/ / I ;� 2a,a008F -■■ i�E Et: :�: t I ,2a,a008F -;• _.1 I 1 �� I E:'E::E'•:'Ei;:ii a: :r:.:• SINGLE STORY n; !=:E•:•.• I I :`:'• lk BUILD / ING J r �.+- , 1 I P t, i {E:E: K I 0 i 4/p , ` di!!!Iiil ::RjffEl T110 SI : to aaasF.TORY I ( 1 SIDG 11 ` _ n ::,:•:•E::::Ec :i? I • . il Bilk / BUILDING ` I ::::`:?i:(ii ii I i :a://ii E::;:::':;::::::: . €€ ::i::':;:i:: I♦ 62 SPACES f 9499 SF • : ; i.:,..:-c•: • . E:j:::::::': n< \\\\�\\ }8 SPACES .. t••:•=:;: - ..,,..,;,$, ,,i,,,,,,,.:E :: ::: (� �t PARKING �. .._.._-r '--�= c3_L. --7 . -J� - IR I Lti q s J .. 1 SPACE / 600 SF i . ` �`--- -- -L _- -�_ __v. r - ��_ - �._� I I I ( `I 1 REQUIRED = 480 / PLEASANT AVENUE 1 _- - ir7---;-�-- 135 SPACES # PROPOSED = 645 I i 1-)••••. ri -' �� ...-.11___'' IT , _ r % 1114 1114-SPACES) .-:-:":':':::::•:::: : :3:::::Ea.:::.:.F.;:_:::E:::::;a::E:. f I r a 9748E j `'7 i } ;:E•::': :; 1 I l/ ______. I, i r 1 : I , I 1 1 1 ;:( BLDG 19 I I r. lit I 1 1 I - �, :::.;::;iiaiEE:E —{ 30 SPACES 1 I J 'rte NEW ENGLAND THRUWAY GRAPHIC SCALE Figure 4-3: Industrial Park Concept 100 o so loo 200 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project 400 City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: 1 Inch = 100 Feet Source: Bohler Engineering, June 2000 ( IN FEET ) File 9916 Fig IPC TMA 08/02/00 1 inch = 100 ft. Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845)265-4400 Fax(845)264-4418 Alternatives September 14,2000 The proximity of new buildings and parking areas to the adjoining street and buildings to the east (along Valley Place in Mamaroneck), and to the Park land to the north, would generally be the same (approximately 60 feet) as in the Proposed Action. New buildings and parking areas in this Alternative would be situated closer to the Thruway corridor (approximately 50 feet) than in the Proposed Action. The pattern of buildings (a uniform row with landscaped parking areas separating the structures) would be apparent from the Thruway and from locations south of the Thruway. New buildings and parking areas in this Alternative would be situated closer to the existing streets and buildings west of the site (on Plain Avenue and Portman Road) (approximately 60 feet) than in the Proposed Action. The three residential structures on Plain Avenue situated at elevations above the Redevelopment Area would have direct views of the parking areas and buildings, like in the existing condition. No difference in airiness or shadows would result from this Alternative as compared with the Proposed Action. Lighting would be concentrated on the parking and entrance areas of the buildings, with existing street lighting retained. With minor light spill over from the individual lots, levels of illumination in this Alternative would not be expected to differ substantially from the Proposed Action. In summary, this Alternative plan would provide new buildings and parking areas which would conform to current codes and provide a more uniform pattern of architecture and site development and a more unified neighborhood visual character than now exists. Historic and Archaeological Resources: There are no cultural resources on or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places located in or adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Area experienced significant in-ground disturbance when it was developed early in the 20th Century. Therefore, both with and without the proposed Retail Center Project, there would no potential for impacts to historic or archaeological resources. Socioeconomic Conditions: The short and long term effects of residential and commercial displacement from the Redevelopment Area would occur as under the proposed Retail Center Project. The benefits of the revitalization and economic development of the Redevelopment Area would also occur, although not to the extent projected under the proposed Retail Center Project. Like the proposed Retail Center Project, additional levels of construction-period employment would be generated. Assuming two employees per 1,000 square feet of floor area, up to approximately 550 permanent jobs could be realized. Like the proposed Retail Center Project, the City would realize the benefits of increased revenues and an increase in the value of taxable property, although not likely to the extent projected under the proposed Retail Center Project. Assuming development costs of $50 per square foot of improvement, the assessed value of improvements in the Alternative would be projected to be approximately $908,000, based on the current City equalization rate. Property taxes to the City would amount to approximately $90,250 in this scenario, with total taxes to all jurisdictions amounting to a projected $276,800 (based on current tax rates). 4-17 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 Traffic and Transportation: A total of 250 AM peak hour vehicle trips are projected for this Alternative; slightly less than 254 PM peak hour trips are projected under this Alternative. The Proposed Retail Center Project, would generate much higher amounts of traffic on a Saturday, but lower amounts on a typical weekday for the Retail Center Project. The number of trips generated is also similar in magnitude to the number of vehicle trips generated by the mix of land uses currently within the proposed Redevelopment Area. Air Quality: Overall traffic levels in this Alternative would be expected to be similar in magnitude to the existing condition. Similarly, except for the removal of a large number of school buses which are parked in the proposed Redevelopment Area in the existing condition, the composition of vehicles entering and exiting the Redevelopment Area in this Alternative would be expected to be similar to existing conditions under this Alternative. In light of this, air quality would be expected to be similar to or slightly improved as compared to the existing condition, however, the conversion of residential use to storage, automotive and other light industrial uses could adversely affect the air quality levels in the proposed Redevelopment Area. Noise: For the same reasons noted above under Air Quality, under this Alternative, the noise environment in the proposed Redevelopment Area would be expected to be similar to existing conditions, although the conversion of residential use to storage, automotive and other light industrial uses could adversely affect the noise levels in the Redevelopment Area. Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services: Similar changes to on-site utilities would result as compared to the proposed Retail Center Project. Projected property tax and to a lesser extent projected sales tax revenues to the City would increase somewhat over existing conditions, although not to the extent projected under the proposed Retail Center Project. Like the proposed Retail Center Project, corresponding costs to New Rochelle would increase incrementally in this Alternative. Construction / Phasing Impacts: Under this Alternative, a reduction in the amount of grading and excavation may occur if individual buildings and parking lots were constructed at elevations similar to existing conditions. The reduction in required grading would result in less impacts from blasting and demolition and construction material disposal truck traffic, as well as a shortening of the construction schedule, compared to the proposed Retail Center Project. Hazardous Materials: Any soil and groundwater remediation that would occur with the proposed Retail Center Project would also occur under this Alternative. The conversion of residential use to storage, automotive and other light industrial uses in the Redevelopment Area would create a greater risk of potential hazardous material releases and contamination related to these uses in the Redevelopment Area. Assembled Light Industrial An Alternative to an industrial park would be assemblage of lots in the Redevelopment Area for construction of one or perhaps two light industrial facilities. Based on the current M-1 zoning requirements, a maximum of approximately 385,000 square feet of space could theoretically be constructed in the proposed 14.9-acre Redevelopment Area. Using a parking standard of one space for each 600 square feet of floor area, this intensity would require 642 parking spaces. However, because of loading, parking, landscaping and other requirements, and decisions 4-18 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS \.,r. I AC /;i 1 --1 �.,,� BLOCK 919 1. S1 lOt Y / :_=:-..7:-_-_;)-- �. FIFTH AV AVENUE ...-------- t —"- 1 � ( FIF AV �; L 1 f/.,_..-4 , - I f III II J 1 ' 143 SPACES' 88 SPACES 4 /, (._., , 1 1157 SPACES �! 1. — _ / /"IfYI `-----`~ C —1120 SPACES ----) _ h i r� '"7 — '� _p�IN AVE1V ! ) C ) ( ) ( ) acv ` cO Lt • , ..;._ , , r ,21,.__,7 4. —.�Ft BLDGBLDG '7 . �) 11 — 14.927 SF 163,956 SP ? L j ------.--.. - ri;a //is ce • , ., t:a a. - 1.. l7 0 r — cv �. . fill i is _j t g (17 LEGEND . i'1/41/4.'''''J SINGLE STORY l BUILDING /= (il, I / I � � t 1 r t �� Q • w LI PARKING 1 I _ - �� \\\ H� 1 SPACE / 600 SF / i' _ _ ``^...... _v \� r o # REQUIRED = 465 ..-f,..:- -- • =_—.._...____-----. � -__ ——�-M. -i—' w = ;-,.._....---er---"-(0' • `' �0 # PROPOSED = 465 • • • t_------------* �- �—����� NEW ENGLAND THRUWAY �`_`--- ---_ GRAPHIC SCALE Figure 4-4: Assembled Light Industrial Concept Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project too 0 5o loo 200 4o0 City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York Scale: 1 Inch = 100 Feet Source: Bohler Engineering, August 2000 ( IN FEET ) File 9916 Fig 4-4 LIPC TMA 09/05/00 1 inch = 100 ft. Tim Miller Associates, Inc.,10 North Street, Cold Spring, New York 10516(845)265-4400 Fax(845)264-4418 Alternatives September 14, 2000 relative to abandonment of existing City streets within the Redevelopment Area, the intensity of nonresidential use on an assembled site would not be expected to exceed approximately 280,000 square feet as shown in Figure 4-4. In this Alternative, access to the site would be taken from two points along Valley Place, two points along Plain Avenue, and one point along Fifth Avenue. Based on the parking standard of one space for each 600 square feet of floor area, a total of 465 parking spaces would be required under this Alternative. As shown on Figure 4-4, this number of spaces has been provided. Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy: Potential impacts would be similar to those outlined above under the Industrial Park Alternative. Topography, Geology, Soils, and Hydrogeology: Potential impacts would be similar to those outlined above under the Industrial Park Alternative. Terrestrial Ecology: Potential impacts would be similar to those outlined above under the Industrial Park Alternative. Surface Water, Wetlands, and Stormwater Management: Under this Alternative, the proposed improvements and replacement of the stormwater drainage infrastructure in the Redevelopment Area that would occur under the proposed Retail Center Project would also occur. The quality of stormwater discharge from the Redevelopment Area would be expected to improve to levels estimated for post-development conditions under the proposed Retail Center Project. Neighborhood Character. As with land use, changes in neighborhood character would occur under this Alternative which would involve a wholesale change in the Redevelopment Area's built context. Visual characteristics are described below under Visual Quality. Potential effects on neighborhood character associated with increased levels of passenger vehicle traffic are likely to be less than the Proposed Action under this Alternative, although a greater proportion of truck trips would be expected given the nature of most industrial uses. Visual Quality: The visual character of the Redevelopment Area would be different in some respects with this Alternative as compared with the Proposed Action, as discussed below. Like the Proposed Action, construction of this Alternative would result in a significant change in the visual environment of this neighborhood. Existing mixed use buildings, outside storage yards, extensive areas of chain link fencing, and large areas allocated to vehicular storage would be replaced by modern buildings with landscaped parking which comply with current codes. The larger buildings and parking areas in this Alternative would define the character of the Fifth Avenue view corridor to a greater extent than the existing variety of building facades along the street since it would provide a more unified street scene than now exists. Like the Proposed Action, this Alternative would likely command a prominent position in the neighborhood due to the size of the new buildings, both as viewed from the Thruway and as experienced from the Fifth Avenue street corridor. Overall coverage of buildings and parking in this Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action. These buildings, however, would be single story rather than two stories in height as in the Proposed Action. Like the Proposed 4-19 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 Action, this Alternative would introduce at-grade parking areas along Fifth Avenue. Most of the parking would be readily visible from Fifth Avenue and the Park to the north. The proximity of building structures and parking in this Alternative to existing uses to the east along Valley Place in Mamaroneck, the Thruway to the south, and uses to the west on Plain Avenue and Portman Road, would be similar to the Proposed Action. Truck loading activities for the two buildings, however, would be placed adjacent to the Thruway corridor and away from view from most existing uses adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. The buildings in this Alternative would be set back further (by approximately 30 feet) from Fifth Avenue and the Park land to the north than in the Proposed Action. The existing residential structures on Plain Avenue and Portman Road situated west of the site would have views of the west side parking area and the building itself, but these residences would not have views of a loading area, as compared with the Proposed Action. No significant change in airiness or shadows would result from this Alternative as compared with the Proposed Action. New lighting would be concentrated on the parking, loading, and entrance areas of the development which would occupy all sides of the site. The existing perimeter streets would be expected to retain typical street light intensities, with minor light spill over from the adjoining parking and circulation areas, as in the Proposed Action. Within the new parking areas, higher levels of illumination would be maintained and would be evident from viewpoints in the immediate vicinity, like the Proposed Action. In summary, this Alternative plan would provide new buildings and parking areas, which would conform to current codes and provide a more uniform pattern of architecture and site development and a more unified neighborhood visual character than now exists. Historic and Archaeological Resources: There are no cultural resources on or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Places located in or adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Area experienced significant in-ground disturbance when it was developed early in the 20th Century. Therefore, both with and without the proposed Retail Center Project, there would no potential for impacts to historic or archaeological resources. Socioeconomic Conditions: The short and long term effects of residential and commercial displacement from the Redevelopment Area would occur as under the proposed Retail Center Project. The benefits of the revitalization and economic development of the Redevelopment Area would also occur, although not to the extent projected under the proposed Retail Center Project. Like the proposed Retail Center Project, additional levels of construction-period employment would be generated. Assuming two employees per 1,000 square feet of floor area, up to 600 permanent jobs could be realized. Like the proposed Retail Center Project, the City would realize the benefits of increased revenues and an increase in the value of taxable property, although not likely to the extent projected under the proposed Retail Center Project. Assuming average development costs of $50 per square foot of improvement, the assessed value of improvements in the Alternative would be projected to be approximately $920,000, based on the current City equalization rate. Property taxes to the City would amount to approximately 4-20 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 $91,500 in this scenario, with total taxes to all jurisdictions amounting to a projected $280,400 (based on current tax rates). Traffic and Transportation: A total of 276 AM peak hour vehicle trips are projected for this Alternative; a total of 294 PM peak hour trips are projected. The Proposed Retail Center Project, would generate much higher amounts of traffic on a Saturday, but lower amounts on a typical weekday for the Retail Center Project. The trips generated by this Alternative proposal are similar in magnitude to the proposed Retail Center Project as well as to the number of vehicle trips generated by the mix of land uses currently within the Redevelopment Area. Air Quality: Overall traffic levels in this Alternative would be expected to be similar in magnitude to the existing condition. Similarly, except for the removal of a large number of school buses which are parked in the Redevelopment Area in the existing condition, the composition of vehicles entering and exiting the Redevelopment Area in this Alternative would be expected to be similar to existing conditions under this Alternative. In light of this, air quality would be expected to be similar to or slightly improved as compared to the existing condition. This Alternative would not have the de minimis air quality impact associated with the proposed Retail Center Project. However, both with this Alternative and the proposed Retail Center Project, there would not be a violation of NAAQS standards. Noise: For the same reasons noted above under Air Quality, under this Alternative, the noise environment in the Redevelopment Area would be expected to be similar to existing conditions, although the conversion of residential use to storage, automotive and other light industrial uses could adversely affect the noise levels in the Redevelopment Area. Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Services: Similar changes to on-site utilities would result as compared to the proposed Retail Center Project. Projected property tax and to a lesser extent projected sales tax revenues to the City would increase somewhat over existing conditions, though not to the extent projected under the proposed Retail Center Project. Like the proposed Retail Center Project, corresponding costs to New Rochelle would increase incrementally in this Alternative. Construction / Phasing Impacts: Under this Alternative, a reduction in the amount of grading and excavation may occur if individual buildings and parking lots were constructed at elevations similar to existing conditions. The reduction in required grading would result in less impacts from blasting and material disposal truck traffic, as well as a shortening of the construction schedule, compared to the proposed Retail Center Project. Hazardous Materials:Any soil and groundwater remediation that would occur with the proposed Retail Center Project would also occur under this Alternative. The conversion of residential use to storage, automotive and other light industrial uses in the Redevelopment Area would create a greater risk of potential hazardous material releases and contamination related to these uses in the Redevelopment Area. 4.6.2 Alternative Bulk Requirements for Retail Uses Retail uses in New Rochelle may be developed in a number of zones with few restrictions relating to size. In the current New Rochelle Zoning Code, these include, among others, the 4-21 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 Redevelopment Area's current M-1 zone and the C-3 zone, which is a permitted use in the M-1 district. The proposed revised New Rochelle Zoning Code includes an LSR Large Scale Retail category with specific bulk regulations pertaining to these uses. For the most part, these bulk regulations are equivalent to those outlined for the proposed URLSR (Urban Renewal -- Large Scale Retail) Zone presented and discussed herein. The bulk regulations for the proposed URLSR (Urban Renewal -- Large Scale Retail) Zone are summarized below in Table 4-1. These regulations are compared to those for the current M-1, and C-3 district, and to the proposed LSR (Large Scale Retail) regulations. Pertinent differences in the regulations are highlighted in the table and are discussed below: Table 4-1 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Zoning Requirements Relating to Retail Uses Parameter Existing Existing Proposed Proposed M-1 Zone C-3 Zone LSR Zone URLSR Zone Land Area None None None 10 acres Lot Width None None None None Lot Depth None None None None Floor Area Ratio None 3.0 1.0 1.0 Front Yard 10 feet* None None None Side Yard None None None None Rear Yard None None None None Off-Street 1 space/600 SF 1 space/600 SF 1 space/200 SF 1 space/250 SF Parking Spaces 1 space/first 10,000 1 space/first 10,000 4 spaces/first 2 spaces/first 75,000 Off-Street SF + 1 space/each SF + 1 for next 15,000 100,000 SF + 1 SF + 1 space each Loading Spaces add'I 20,000 SF or sf+ 1 for next 30,000 sf space for each add'I add'I 50,000 SF or portion + 1 for next 140,000 sf 50,000 SF or portion portion Buildin Height 2 floors 12 floors g g 40 feet 250 feet 50 feet 50 feet Building 60% None 70% 70% Coverage Impervious Surface None"* None** 100% 100% Coverage** *No front yard is required when lot depth is 100 feet or less. ** This standard is proposed as part of both the wholesale revisions to New Rochelle's zoning regulations, and the revisions proposed herein. Sources: New Rochelle Zoning Code; Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Plan and Proposed Zoning Amendments; Proposed Revisions to New Rochelle Zoning Code Floor Area Ratio (FAR): No FAR is specified for the existing M-1 zone. A maximum building coverage of the site of 60 percent is specified. This limitation, in conjunction with the requirement that off-street parking be provided and the fact that retail facilities are typically constructed in one level, would tend to limit development on any given site to an FAR below 1.0. The FAR of 3.0 for the C-3 district is partially reflective of the more vertical nature of the downtown areas in which this zone is primarily mapped. Off-Street Parking: The provision of required off-street parking spaces is one of the outlined bulk regulations, which differs significantly among the various zoning requirements. The older M-1 and C-3 regulations include a modest requirement for off-street parking. As an example, if 4-22 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 the proposed Retail Center Project were constructed in line with this standard, a total of 514 parking spaces would be required and provided. Contemporary standards for retail land use are reflected in the proposed URLSR and LSR regulations. It is noted that, even though the proposed URLSR regulations require four spaces per 1,000 square feet of building floor area, the proposed Retail Center Project with 1,572 parking spaces, conforms to the slightly increased requirements of the proposed LSR Large Scale Retail zone. Off-Street Loading: The provision of required off-street loading spaces is also one of the outlined bulk regulations which differs significantly. The proportion of the site plan which would be devoted to loading berths however is so small as to make these differences insignificant. In any zoning scenario, the provision of one loading berth, or 10 loading berths, would warrant proper design to accommodate truck circulation in this area. This truck circulation area would be roughly the same size in any instance. As such, the differences highlighted in Table 4-1 are considered to be insignificant. Building Height: Like FAR and building coverage, this standard regulates overall intensity on a given site. For most retail uses, in suburban settings especially, structures rarely exceed one story. With the growth of retailers, such as the Applicant, who provide merchandise in a self-service warehouse environment, the floor to ceiling heights typically associated with a department store, or other retail store, are insufficient. Thus, both the proposed LSR and URLSR regulations allow a maximum height of 50 feet, with no maximum number of stories specified. Also, like FAR, the maximum building heights of 12 stories and 250 feet for the C-3 district are partially reflective of the more vertical nature of the downtown areas in which this zone is primarily mapped. The existing M-1 zone allows structures to be as tall as 40 feet, with up to two stories. Building Coverage: Like FAR and building height, this standard regulates overall intensity on a given site. Given the need to provide ample customer parking, most retail uses do not approach the maximum standards of 60 percent and 70 percent identified in Table 4-1. For example, the proposed Retail Center Project has a building coverage of 33.6 percent. As such, in this regard, little would distinguish a retail development developed under any of the zoning standards. Impervious Surface Coverage: This is a new standard proposed under the wholesale revisions to New Rochelle's Zoning Code, and also as part of the zoning amendments proposed and discussed herein. A maximum of 100 percent impervious surface coverage is permitted in both the LSR (Large Scale Retail) and URLSR (Urban Renewal -- Large Scale Retail) zones. 4.7 No Impact Alternatives The proposed Urban Renewal Area and Retail Center Project could result in significant impacts as a result of direct displacement of residents and businesses. To the extent that acceptable relocation services are provided, or voluntary acquisitions are negotiated, these impacts could be reduced or would not occur. Among the alternatives discussed above, the No Action Alternative, as well as the alternatives which do not include establishment of an urban renewal area, would avoid any direct displacement and therefore, would avoid this potential impact. 4-23 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Alternatives September 14, 2000 The Retail Center Project would also result in an air quality impact caused by increases in traffic. There would however, be no violation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. No mitigation is identified for this impact. Alternatives which would avoid this impact are those which result in no or minimal increases in traffic. This includes the No Action Alternative. In terms of redevelopment for retail, even with a reduction in project size, any substantial reuse of the project area for new retail activity would still result in the air quality impact identified for the proposed Project. None of the aforementioned Alternatives would meet the objectives of IKEA. 4-24 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Growth Inducing Impacts September 14, 2000 5.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS As discussed in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy, to the extent the proposed Retail Center Project is successful and attracts interest in the area as a commercial area, it may induce additional development. Apart from the Redevelopment Area, however, most surrounding areas of the City of New Rochelle and the adjacent portions of the Town of Mamaroneck are generally developed with residential or nonresidential uses (usually on small lots), or consist of designated parkland, and are currently zoned as such. The presence of the New England Thruway, which bisects this area of New Rochelle and limits the number of connections from the north to the south, also would tend to limit the potential amount of pressure for infill commercial development and/or redevelopment. In general, new growth is induced by one or more of several key factors: 1) the extension of infrastructure (such as roads, water and sewer lines) into an area that is presently not served; or improvements to such infrastructure; 2) a change in land use or zoning policy that allows uses not previously permitted; or 3) the use of land, which brings people and traffic into an area at a degree significantly higher than before. Since the M-1 zoning district already allows for large scale retail use the second factor is not a significant change to land use and zoning policy. The Proposed Actions include implementation of widening, and other roadway improvements. However, these actions are primarily associated with minimization of project impacts-not the creation of new and greater traffic capacity. The actual change in land use within the Redevelopment Area would substantially increase the number of persons and vehicles visiting the area. Most of these visitors and vehicles would travel along area roadways to and from the access points to the major roadways serving the area. These roadways include Fifth Avenue, Potter Avenue, and Palmer Avenue. In terms of the growth inducing aspects of the proposed Retail Center Project itself, the influx of people to the area is projected to bring attention to the area. The Retail Center Project however, is not projected to serve in the same capacity as an "anchor" in a large retail center or mall, which would generate interest in "satellite stores" all around it. This is due in large part to existing land use and geographic constraints and the following reasons: 1) The population base necessary to attract large scale retailers already exists in southern Westchester County. If such retailers believed that it were financially attractive to locate in this area of New Rochelle, efforts would have already occurred to assemble land and develop under the provisions of the M-1 zoning which allows retail use. However, other factors such as access and land costs have constrained such actions. 2) Even with the "anchoring" effect of a large retailer such as IKEA, people would still need to get in their cars to travel to other potential retail locations. This also presents an impediment to market focus and reduces growth inducing potential. The following sections examine the circumstances in surrounding areas with respect to development potential, constraining factors to growth. 5-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Growth Inducing Impacts September 14, 2000 New Rochelle The potential for growth within most of the New Rochelle portion of the Secondary Study Area is constrained in spite of increased activity that may occur in conjunction with the Proposed Actions. These include: limited areas of relatively flat, visually accessible land; the presence of William Flower Park to the north; and the presence of relatively dense single-family residential neighborhoods to the north and northwest with strong land values. The neighborhood to the west of the Redevelopment Area consists of mixed residential, commercial and industrial uses. Like the Redevelopment Area, this area is primarily zoned M-1; parcels lining the western side of Potter Avenue are zoned C-1. The overall character of this area is similar to the Redevelopment Area. In total, this area is slightly larger in size than the Redevelopment Area. (See Figure 3.1-8 in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy.) Because of its proximity, its slightly increased accessibility due to improvements to Potter Avenue and at the Interchange 16 to the New England Thruway, and its increased visibility to those visiting the proposed Retail Center, this area could potentially be influenced by the proposed Retail Center Project. Land use effects could include pressure for assemblage of these parcels and subsequent redevelopment, and/or changes in real estate values causing turnover of the existing uses. Potter Avenue, the area's only north-south connection over the New England Thruway, divides this area. Its presence limits the size of potential retail use in this area. Nevertheless, opportunities for assemblage of properties to accommodate retail uses, albeit significantly smaller than the proposed Retail Center Project, would exist in this area, particularly east of Potter Avenue. The area to the west of Potter Avenue has been assumed to support smaller retail uses or other commercial uses arranged in a linear configuration along Potter Avenue, with a potential node of more intense retail use near the intersection of Potter and Fifth Avenues. Usable land in this area comprises approximately six acres, roughly two thirds of which are zoned M-1. Area East of Potter Avenue This area lies immediately to the west of the proposed Redevelopment Area. It is generally bounded by Fifth Avenue to the north, Potter Avenue to the west, the New England Thruway to the south, and Portman Road to the east. It currently supports a mix of residential, light industrial and vehicle repair uses, similar to those within the Redevelopment Area. As discussed in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, in 1989, the City of New Rochelle, in its effort to identify potential sites to expand industrial development opportunities and/or relocate the City Yard, conducted an Industrial Development Study of the Fifth Avenue Area. A field survey was conducted by the Department of Development to determine the character of the 22-acre area from Potter Avenue east to Valley Place, and to inventory visible physical deficiencies of existing structures. As outlined in the 1989 Study, the Redevelopment Area and the area along the New England Thruway west of Biehn Street to Potter Avenue, contained the greatest proportion of properties exhibiting intermediate and critical deficiencies. These two areas were identified as potential industrial development sites. 5-2 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Growth Inducing Impacts September 14,2000 Northwestern portions of the 1989 study area exhibited fewer intermediate or critical deficiencies than these two other areas. As such, the 1989 Study concluded that "the scattered location and noncontiguous nature of buildings and structures with critical and intermediate deficiencies could hamper efforts to piece together six (6) contiguous acres. While none of these constraints are insurmountable, the decision to purchase certain buildings and structures with intermediate deficiencies could produce significant cost implications." The City, therefore, has concentrated its efforts to foster redevelopment on the portions of the 1989 study area east of Portman Road. Based on its M-1 zoning, and assuming that off-street parking is provided at the rate of one space for every 200 square feet of floor area (typical for most retail developments), up to 175,000 square feet of retail floor area could be constructed in the area between Potter Avenue and Portman Road. (See Figure 3.1-8 Zoning Map - New Rochelle). Area West of Potter Avenue For purposes of assessing potential growth inducing effects, the area east of Potter Avenue has been assumed to be potentially able to support a single-user retail store or shopping center. Including public streets, usable land in this area comprises approximately 12 acres. Based on the M-1 zoning standards, and assuming that off-street parking is provided at the rate of one space for every 200 square feet of floor area (typical for most retail developments), up to a maximum of between 50,000 and 60,000 square feet of retail floor area could be constructed in the four-acre area southwest of Potter and Fifth Avenues. Based on the C-1 zoning standards, and assuming that off-street parking is provided at the rate of one space for every 200 square feet of floor area (typical for most retail developments), a maximum of 20,000 square feet of retail floor area could be constructed along the west side of Potter Avenue. Parking requirements; and buffering for adjacent residential land area would be likely to reduce this amount significantly (see Figure 3.1-8). Other Areas Because of the limited number of opportunities left in the remainder of the City, the likelihood that the Proposed Actions would trigger similar actions elsewhere within New Rochelle is considered low. Large-scale retail projects have already been approved and/or constructed at the Weyman Avenue site (which now houses two major retailers), and at the former Price Club property along Palmer Avenue (Expo Design Center). New Roc City has also replaced the former New Rochelle Mall. Town of Mamaroneck As outlined in Chapter 3.1 Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, the nature of development in the nearest Mamaroneck portions of the Secondary Study Area is comprised of a mix of auto repair, service, light manufacturing, and residential uses. For example, the east side of Valley Place includes an auto repair garage, a party supply rental business, a millwork company, a bus parking lot, two residential properties, and a bus maintenance facility. 5-3 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Growth Inducing Impacts September 14, 2000 The general area east of Valley Place is diagonally bisected by the exit ramp of the New England Thruway exit ramp to Madison Avenue. Immediately abutting the uses along Valley Place is the New York State Thruway Authority maintenance yard. Uses along the south side of Fifth Avenue east to Madison Avenue include a construction contractor, parking lot, and a lawn care business. Across from these uses on the north side of Fifth Avenue are two gas stations, two residences, a moving company, and a pet supply business. Angled to the southeast of the Thruway exit ramp and northwest of Byron Place in the Town of Mamaroneck, is the former site of an incinerator, currently used to house and store garbage trucks. Northeast of that site are three residences, a parking lot for a small shopping plaza, several retail stores in the plaza, a restaurant, a medical office on the corner of Madison and Byron, and a tree cutting business on Byron Place. Many of these uses are marginal and at risk for redevelopment if land values change significantly in the future with construction and operation of the proposed Retail Center. For retail use, the contiguous area between Fifth Avenue and the ramp to the southbound New England Thruway (from Madison Street), and the mixed-use area south of the Thruway ramps are most at risk for redevelopment. As discussed in Chapter 3.1 and elsewhere throughout this document, the latter area has been subject to discussion recently regarding a possible rezoning by the Town of Mamaroneck to accommodate an assisted living facility, housing, ball fields or light industrial businesses. The existing SB-Service Business District mapped adjacent to the Redevelopment Area's eastern border in the Town of Mamaroneck currently allows retail use (see Figure 3.1-9 Zoning Map- Mamaroneck, Larchmont). With an overall FAR limitation of 0.5, a maximum allowable building coverage of 25 percent, and the requirement that five off-street parking spaces be provided for each 1,000 square feet of floor area for retail uses, the overall intensity of retail use allowed in the SB district is somewhat lower than that currently allowed in the M-1 district covering the Redevelopment Area. According to the Town of Mamaroneck's SB regulations, this area, which comprises between 8.5 and 9.0 acres, could support up to approximately 100,000 square feet of retail space. North of Fifth Avenue, a smaller SB-zoned area comprises approximately 2.5 acres of land area in a generally linear configuration. This area, if redeveloped, could support a maximum of 20,000 to 25,000 square feet of space. Parking requirements and buffering for adjacent residential land area would be likely to reduce this amount significantly. South of the Interchange 17 ramps to the Thruway, another area is also currently zoned for nonresidential use, including retail stores. This area, which comprises between four and five acres, currently supports three residences, a construction yard and a tree service. In the past, portions of this area supported a water pumping facility and refuse incineration facility. In order to consider development of a retail facility, one or more of the existing uses would need to be displaced. This area is primarily zoned LI Light Industrial and B-MUB (Business -- Mixed Use Business). Portions of the area within the beds of the streets are zoned B (Business). 5-4 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Growth Inducing Impacts September 14, 2000 The maximum permissible floor area ratio (FAR) in the LI district is 1.0, while the maximum in the B and B-MUB districts is 0.5. With a maximum FAR of 0.5, the maximum amount of retail floor area, which could be constructed on an assembled site in this area, would range between 65,000 and 75,000 square feet. For mixed use development (Le., including a mix of multifamily dwellings, business and professional offices, and retail stores and personal service establishments), the maximum FAR in B-MUB district is 1.0. In the event that redevelopment activities occur in the aforementioned areas, they would be subject to individual site specific reviews by the respective municipalities under the provision of current zoning law and SEQRA. Growth Inducing Effects of Relocation As part of the Proposed Actions, existing residents and businesses within the Redevelopment Area would be relocated. In identifying potential relocation sites, priority would be given to existing sites adjacent to and near the Redevelopment Area. With the proposed Retail Center in place, and considering the relocation of existing residents and businesses to sites in the immediate area, it is not anticipated that existing utilities, including municipal water and sewer services, electric and gas service, or telephone service would need to be upgraded. As such, no growth inducing impacts are expected as a result of the installation of new or expanded infrastructure. Potential relocation plans and sites are discussed in Chapter 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions, the Retail Center Project will promote increased construction employment and, on a cumulative basis, an increased long term demand for goods and services that would have a steady multiplier effect. 5-5 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project DEIS Unavoidable Impacts September 14, 2000 6.0 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS The proposed Retail Center Project may result in several environmental impacts, which cannot be avoided. Some of these impacts would be temporary or short term impacts associated with the construction phase, while others would be long term impacts associated with operation of the Retail Center Project. Short Term Impacts • presence of demolition, construction and delivery vehicles, and construction worker vehicles in the Redevelopment Area and surrounding roads • increase in truck traffic from the removal of soil, rock, demolition debris from the Redevelopment Area • localized increase in noise levels and vibrations due to development-related activities • localized construction-related air emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust from development activities • temporary pedestrian and vehicular re-routing during construction Long Term Impacts • removal of up to 33 commercial or mixed commercial structures, two churches, and 31 residential structures and accessory structures, currently located in the Redevelopment Area, with concomitant changes on land use and neighborhood character • displacement of the existing residential neighborhood and business community, with concomitant loss of unrelocated jobs and wages; such impacts could be minimized or eliminated depending upon relocation services, voluntary acquisitions and personal circumstances • addition of Retail Center-generated automobile and truck traffic to local roadways and concomitant change in air quality and neighborhood character 6-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources September 14,2000 7.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Development of the proposed Retail Center Project would commit the Redevelopment Area to retail and restaurant use. Once committed to this use, this area would be unavailable to other uses for the foreseeable future. The Retail Center Project would involve the commitment of a variety of resources. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, concrete, asphalt, steel, paint, and other construction materials. The operation of construction equipment would involve the consumption of fossil fuels and other finite energy sources. When completed, the operation of the Retail Center Project would require electricity and the use of fossil fuels. The construction phase of the Retail Center Project would require a substantial commitment of person hours of labor. However, the expanded construction employment is viewed as a beneficial impact to the construction industry and the local economy. Other labor commitments would include the services of police department, fire department, and other public services personnel. 7-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Report Preparers and Persons Contacted September 14, 2000 8.0 REPORT PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONTACTED This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by Tim Miller Associates, Inc., Environmental Planners, with the assistance of IKEA North America; Bohler Engineering, P.C.; Vollmer Associates, LLP; MCG Architecture; and Shamberg, Marwell, Hocherman, Davis & Hollis, P.C. The project's air quality consultant was Ronald D. Petherbridge. The project's archeologic/historic consultant was Ernest A.Wiegand. The Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessments were conducted by Tim Miller Associates, Inc. The project team consisted of the following individuals: Tim Miller Associates, Inc., Planning, Environmental Studies, EIS Authors T. Miller, AICP, Principal-in-Charge E. Carruth, MPH, Project Manger J. Lynch, AICP, Senior Planner J. Dahlgren, Senior Environmental Geologist A. Mavian, AICP, Senior Environmental Planner F. Wells, RLA, Registered Landscape Architect S. Lopez, RLA, Registered Landscape Architect J. Maloney, Graphics M. Dahlia, Production Bohler Enqineerinq,P.C., Civil Engineering, Stormwater Management K. Haney, PE, Principal-in-Charge D. Andreeko, P.E., Project Engineer MCG Architecture, Architecture, Visuals D. Faren, Principal-in-Charge Vollmer Associates, LLP, Traffic Engineering G. Nielsten, PE, Partner R. Chudd, PE, Principal Engineer R. Valderrama, Junior Engineer Shamberq, Marwell, Hocherman, Davis & Hollis, PC, Legal Counsel F. Koelsch, Esq., Project Attorney Air Quality Consultant R. Petherbridge Archeological Consultant E. Wiegand 8-1 Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area Plan and Retail Center Project Draft EIS Report Preparers and Persons Contacted September 14, 2000 Persons contacted during preparation of this report include the following: City of New Rochelle T. Idoni, Mayor P. Korn, City Manager H. Rattner, Commissioner of Finance D. Allen, City Clerk L. Perone, City Assessor B. Nelson, Corporation Counsel M. Zarin, Special Legal Counsel E. Applebome, AKRF, Inc., Planning Consultant E. Singer, AKRF, Inc., Planning Consultant S. Rosen, AKRF, Inc., Planning Consultant, Air Qual y and Noise A. Russo, AKRF, Inc., Planning Consultant, Traffic A. Rudko, AKRF, Inc., Planning Consultant, Hazardous Materials B. Kalus, AKRF, Inc., Planning Consultant, Infrastructure and Stormwater J. R. Dolan, Commissioner of Public Works R. Mehta, Department of Public Works J. Clemente, City Engineer R. Kiernan, Fire Commissioner, New Rochelle Fire Department L. Demeglio, Code Enforcement Officer, New Rochelle Fire Department P. Carroll, Police Commissioner, New Rochelle Police Department N. Shaw, Building Official M. Ritchie, Commissioner of Development J. Madonna, (former) Commissioner of Development M. Stellato, Program Management Director D. Douglas, (former Executive Director), Overall Economic Development Corporation C. DePasquale, New Rochelle Neighborhood Revitalization Corporation B. Watkins, Assistant School Superintendent Town of Mamaroneck S. Altieri, Town Administrator Village of Larchmont C. Lewy, Mayor R. Carroll, Building Department Village of Scarsdale P. Van De Water, Planning Consultant New York State T. Quennelle, Empire State Development E. Arace, Empire State Development L. Kirven, Empire State Developoment New York State Department of Taxation and Finance 82 Fifth Atieltdia rbate Renewal Area'Rah aad Re:ait Lznter Project Draft Z» Report Preparers and Persons Contacted September 14, 2000 Westchester County E. Burroughs, Assistant Commissioner, Westchester County Department of Planning K. Kennedy, Westchester County Department of Planning K. Duffy, Westchester County Department of Planning M. Swee, Westchester County Department of Planning R. Doscher, Westchester County Department of Planning M. Landrigan, Westchester County Health Department T. Waivada, Deputy Director, Westchester County Economic Development R. Kopenhaver, Finance Office K. Roseman, Westchester County Department of Public Works City of Yonkers L. Ellman, Director, Planning Bureau L. Mrijaj, Economic Development L. Sykes, Economic Development City of Mount Vernon D. Woods, Director, Planning Department Other Agencies and Persons T. Mackey, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (Region 3) E. Goldsmith, NYS Thruway Authority R. Mehta, NYS Thruway Authority J. Hohman, NYS Thruway Authority R. Pierpont, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation P. Shaver, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation A. Mandzy, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation J. Annicchiarico, United Water Company M. Davis, Westchester Residential Opportunities, Inc. A. Griffin, Arthur Anderson Consulting J. Casson, Cushman and Wakefield S. Buno, Cushman and Wakefield L. White, Claritas National Decision Systems C. Zelent, Claritas National Decision Systems D. Restey, Claritas National Decision Systems T. Masterson, Westchester Economic Development Partnership 1c �U2r}O ) Gi' r 931L3 fid :,(1 SX i i rr')iileerrthsriaCI atsl 8-3 E Fifth Avenue Urban Renewal Area PJ ,;and Retail Center.Projert,rgftiEIS