Whole Foods Plaza • FEIS •
For: Whole Foods Plaza, Town of Brighton County of Monroe, New York
Prepared for:
Brighton Town Board as Lead Agency Brighton Town Hall 2300 Elmwood Avenue Rochester, NY14618 585-784-5250 Contact: Ramsey A. Boehner, Environmental Review Liaison Officer
On behalf of: Daniele Family Companies 2851 Monroe Avenue Rochester, NY 14618 585-271-1111
Contributors / Preparers: Passero Associates SRF Associates 242 West Main Street, S100 3495 Winton Place Rochester, NY 14614 Building E, Suite 110 585-325-1000 Rochester, NY 14623 585-272-4660
Date of Acceptance: January 24, 2018
FEIS January 2018 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ...... 9 LIST OF FIGURES ...... 9 LIST OF APPENDICES ...... 10 Executive Summary ...... 11 1.0 Introduction ...... 17 1.1 Summary of the Approval Process to Date ...... 17 1.2 Process Moving Forwad ...... 19 1.3 Summary of the Current Project ...... 19 1.4 Changes to the Project based on DEIS and SDEIS comments ...... 21 1.5 Incentives ...... 26 1.6 Amenities ...... 30
2.0 Summary of Public Comments Received ...... 32 2.1 Density ...... 32 2.2 Traffic ...... 33 2.3 Alternatives Analysis ...... 51 2.4 Truck Traffic ...... 54 2.5 Phasing ...... 54 2.6 Lot Coverage and Green Space ...... 55
3.0 Evaluation of Potential Environmental Impacts assocaited with changes to project since acceptance of the SDEIS ...... 57
3.1 Modified Traffic Improvements ...... 57 3.1a Geology, Topography & Soils...... 57 3.1b Surface Waters/Stormwater Management ...... 57 3.1c Terrestrial & Aquatic Ecology ...... 57 3.1d Transportation ...... 57 3.1e Land Use & Zoning ...... 57 3.1f Community Services ...... 58 3.1g Visual Resources ...... 58
FEIS January 2018 2
3.1h Cultural Resources ...... 58 3.1i Noise ...... 58 3.1j Construction Impacts ...... 58 3.2 Additional Improvements to Auburn Trail ...... 58 3.2a Geology, Topography & Soils ...... 58 3.2b Surface Waters/Stormwater Management ...... 59 3.2c Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology ...... 59 3.2d Transportation ...... 59 3.2e Land Use & Zoning ...... 59 3.2f Community Services ...... 59 3.2g Visual Resources ...... 59 3.2h Cultural Resources ...... 60 3.2i Noise ...... 60 3.2j Construction Impacts ...... 60 3.3 Access Management Plan...... 60 3.3a Geology, Topography & Soils ...... 60 3.3b Surface Waters/Stormwater Management ...... 60 3.3c Terrestrial & Aquatic Ecology ...... 60 3.3d Transportation ...... 61 3.3e Land Use & Zoning ...... 61 3.3f Community Services ...... 61 3.3g Visual Resources ...... 61 3.3h Cultural Resources ...... 61 3.3i Noise ...... 61 3.3j Construction Impacts ...... 62 3.4 Architecture...... 62 3.4a Geology, Topography & Soils ...... 62 3.4b Surface Waters/Stormwater Management ...... 62 3.4c Terrestrial & Aquatic Ecology ...... 62 3.4d Trasnportation ...... 62 3.4e Land Use & Zoning ...... 62 3.4f Community Services ...... 62
FEIS January 2018 3
3.4g Visual Resources ...... 62 3.4h Cultural Resources ...... 63 3.4i Noise ...... 63 3.4j Construction Impacts ...... 63 4.0 Substantive DEIS and SDEIS Public Comments Received & Lead Agency Responses ...... 64
4.1 Responses to SDEIS Written Comments received May 22, 2017 ...... 64 (1) Stantec Consulting Services Inc...... 64 (2) Brighton Supervisor William Moehle – May 22, 2017 ...... 76 (3) Louise Novros (Councilwoman) ...... 87 (4) Town of Brighton Planning Board (Ramsey Boehner) ...... 92 (5) Brighton Fire District (Stephen W. MacAdam) ...... 95 (6) MCDOT -Brent Penwarden III, PE ...... 96 (7) NYSDOT -David Goehring, P.E., Letter May 19, 2017 ...... 97 (8) NYSDOT Region 4 – Kevin C. Bush, PE, Letter May 19, 2017 ...... 99 (9) Nixon Peabody -Robert Burgdorf...... 101 (10) McFarland Johnson – Letters 5/8/17 & 5/22/17 ...... 105 & 110 (11) Hodgson Russ, LLP – Daniel Spitzer Letters 3/24/17 & 5/22/17 ...... 112 & 117 (12) Brisbane Consulting Group LLC ...... 140
4.2 Summary Chart of SDEIS Public Written Comments Received ...... 141 Topic 1 – Monroe Avenue Traffic ...... 143 Topic 2 – Clover Street Traffic ...... 147 Topic 3 – Allen’s Creek Traffic ...... 148 Topic 4 – Environmental ...... 148 Topic 5 – Aesthetics and Lighting ...... 149 Topic 6 – Consideration of Residents ...... 149 Topic 7 – Access Roads ...... 150 Topic 8 – Need for / Type of Retail ...... 151 Topic 9 – Proximity to Residential Property ...... 152 Topic 10 – Quality of Life and/or Character ...... 152 Topic 11 - Taxes ...... 153 Topic 12 – USAGE / Whole Foods as Anchor Tenant ...... 154
FEIS January 2018 4
Topic 13 – Scale and Density ...... 156 Topic 14 – Surface Water and Drainage ...... 157 Topic 15 – Buffer ...... 157 Topic 16 – Amenities ...... 158 Topic 17 – Noise ...... 160 Topic 18 – Residential Street Traffic & Safety ...... 160 Topic 19 – Shoreham Drive Traffic & Safety ...... 160 Topic 20 – Schoolhouse Lane Traffic & Safety ...... 160 Topic 21 – Pickwick Drive Traffic & Safety ...... 160 Topic 22 – Property Values ...... 161 Topic 23 – Zoning and Code ...... 162 Topic 24 – Truck Traffic ...... 164 Topic 25 – Comprehensive Town Plans ...... 164 Topic 26 – Figures and DEIS Traffic Study ...... 165 Topic 27 – Impact on Local Businesses ...... 166 Topic 28 – Public Hearing ...... 166 Topic 29 – The Developer ...... 167 Topic 30 – Brighton Town Government ...... 168 Topic 31 – Motorists ...... 168 Topic 32 – Economic Development ...... 168 Topic 33 – Alternatives ...... 168
4.3 Responses to Comments Received at May 10, 2017 SDEIS Public Hearing ...... 169 Summary Chart of Public Comments ...... 169 Topic 1 – Monroe Avenue Traffic ...... 170 Topic 2 – Clover Street Traffic ...... 174 Topic 3 – Allen’s Creek Traffic ...... 176 Topic 4 – Environmental ...... 177 Topic 5 – Aesthetics and Lighting ...... 178 Topic 6 – Consideration of Residents ...... 179 Topic 7 – Access Roads ...... 181 Topic 8 – Need for / Type of Retail ...... 183 Topic 9 – Proximity to Residential Property ...... 183 Topic 10 – Quality of Life and/or Character ...... 184
FEIS January 2018 5
Topic 11 - Taxes ...... 185 Topic 12 – USAGE / Whole Foods as Anchor Tenant ...... 186 Topic 13 – Scale and Density ...... 187 Topic 14 – Surface Water and Drainage ...... 189 Topic 15 – Buffer ...... 189 Topic 16 – Amenities ...... 190 Topic 17 – Noise ...... 192 Topic 18 – Residential Street Traffic & Safety ...... 193 Topic 19 – Shoreham Drive Traffic & Safety ...... 194 Topic 20 – Schoolhouse Lane Traffic & Safety ...... 194 Topic 21 – Pickwick Drive Traffic & Safety ...... 194 Topic 22 – Property Values ...... 194 Topic 23 – Zoning and Code ...... 195 Topic 24 – Truck Traffic ...... 197 Topic 25 – Comprehensive Town Plans ...... 197 Topic 26 – Figures and DEIS Traffic Study ...... 197 Topic 27 – Impact on Local Businesses ...... 198 Topic 28 – Public Hearing ...... 199 Topic 29 – The Developer ...... 200 Topic 30 – Brighton Town Government ...... 202 Topic 31 – Motorists ...... 203 Topic 32 – Economic Development ...... 203 Topic 33 – Alternatives ...... 204
4.4 Responses to Public Hearing & Written Comments Received during June 22, 2016 & July 13, 2016 DEIS Public Hearings ...... 205
(1) Stantec Consulting Services Inc...... 205 (2) Brighton Supervisor William Moehle ...... 262 (3) Jason S. DiPonzio (Councilman) ...... 285 (4) Louise Novros (Councilwoman) ...... 291 (5) James R. Vogel (Councilman) ...... 293 (6) Christopher K. Werner (Councilman) ...... 296 (7) Town of Brighton Planning Board (Ramsey Boehner) ...... 303
FEIS January 2018 6
(8) Town of Brighton Sustainability Oversight Committee ...... 310 (9) NYSDOT – David Goehring, PE, Letters 4/4/16 and 7/25/16 ...... 316 (10) Hodgson Russ, LLP Attorneys – Daniel Spitzer ...... 320 (11) Nixon Peabody – Robert Burgdorf – Reference McFarland Johnson ...... 325 (12) McFarland Johnson...... 326 (13) Rick DiStefano (Conservation Board Town of Brighton) ...... 340 (14) MCDOT - Brent Penwarden, III P.E...... 341 (15) Renee Casler, Planner II (MC Dept. of Planning & Development) ...... 342 (16) Monroe County Development Review Committee ...... 343
4.5 Summary Chart of DEIS Public Comments Received 344 Topic 1 – Monroe Avenue Traffic ...... 351 Topic 2 – Clover Street Traffic ...... 364 Topic 3 – Allen’s Creek Traffic ...... 368 Topic 4 – Environmental ...... 371 Topic 5 – Aesthetics and Lighting ...... 375 Topic 6 – Consideration of Residents ...... 379 Topic 7 – Access Roads ...... 383 Topic 8 – Need for / Type of Retail ...... 389 Topic 9 – Proximity to Residential Property ...... 393 Topic 10 – Quality of Life and/or Character ...... 394 Topic 11 - Taxes ...... 402 Topic 12 – USAGE / Whole Foods as Anchor Tenant ...... 408 Topic 13 – Scale and Density ...... 418 Topic 14 – Surface Water and Drainage ...... 425 Topic 15 – Buffer ...... 428 Topic 16 – Amenities ...... 430 Topic 17 – Noise ...... 439 Topic 18 – Residential Street Traffic & Safety ...... 441 Topic 19 – Shoreham Drive Traffic & Safety ...... 446 Topic 20 – Schoolhouse Lane Traffic & Safety ...... 450 Topic 21 – Pickwick Drive Traffic & Safety ...... 451 Topic 22 – Property Values ...... 452
FEIS January 2018 7
Topic 23 – Zoning and Code ...... 454 Topic 24 – Truck Traffic ...... 463 Topic 25 – Comprehensive Town Plans ...... 465 Topic 26 – Figures and DEIS Traffic Study ...... 467 Topic 27 – Impact on Local Businesses ...... 486 Topic 28 – Public Hearing ...... 490 Topic 29 – The Developer ...... 492 Topic 30 – Brighton Town Government ...... 498 Topic 31 – Motorists ...... 502 Topic 32 – Economic Development ...... 505 Topic 33 – Alternatives ...... 508
5.0 Conclusion ...... 511
FEIS January 2018 8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 – Building and Lot Summary Table 1.2 – Summary of Bulk Area Requirements Table 1.3 – Summary of Amenities Table 2.1 – Total Primary Trips Table 2.2 - Local Whole Foods Trip Comparison Table 2.3 - ‘Table XV’ – Peak Hour Gap Analysis Result Table 2.4 - Summary of Segment Volumes Table 2.5 - Monroe Ave. EB Queuing Table 2.6 - Full Build Out Queuing Analysis Results PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues in Feet Table 2.7 - Capacity Analysis Results Background & Project Buildout Conditions Signalized. Table 2.7 - Delay Summary and Comparison
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Proposed Site Plan
2. Access Management Plan with and without Use and Occupancy Agreement
3. Trail Map
4. Whole Foods Architectural Elevations
5. Utility Plan
6. Grading and Erosion Control Plan
7. Alternate #6 Site Plan
8. Lighting and Landscaping Plan
FEIS January 2018 9
LIST OF APPENDICES
1. June 22, 2016 DEIS Public Hearing Transcripts
2. July 13, 2016 DEIS Public Hearing Transcripts
3. May 10, 2017 SDEIS Public Hearing Transcripts
4. Written Correspondence Received during SDEIS Public Review
5. Supporting Documentation for Estimate of Trail and AMP Costs
6. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
7. Traffic Impact Study, revised 8/31/17
8. Earthwork Analysis
9. Sanitary Sewer Study
10. Zillow Study of adjacent property values
11. Final Scoping Document
12. Resolutions accepting DEIS and SDEIS as complete
13. Draft Use and Occupancy Agreement
14. SRF 092617 Letter to NYSDOT
15. Incentive Tables & Project Signage
16. NYSDOT McCusker Letter 10/17/2017
LIST OF REFERENCES
Those references listed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement are noted, where relevant, within the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
FEIS January 2018 10
Executive Summary
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and its implementing regulations found at 6 NYCRR Part 617. The content is as specified by the Scoping Outline for the Whole Foods Plaza project adopted by the Town Board acting as Lead Agency and dated September 23, 2015.
Description of Action The proposed action subject to review is an Incentive Zoning Application for the redevelopment of a 10.1± acre site to be redeveloped as Whole Foods Plaza. The lands for the redevelopment project are currently owned by or under contract by the Daniele Family of Companies for redevelopment by the Daniele Family of Companies. The Daniele Family of Companies is the project sponsor.
Whole Foods Plaza is a multitenant retail center proposed for a 10.1 +/- acre site in the Town of Brighton, County of Monroe, New York. The site is located on the north side of New York State Route 31 (Monroe Avenue) approximately 600 feet west of the intersection of Monroe Avenue and Clover Street and approximately at the inter section of the interchange with NYS Route 590 and bordered by Clover Street to the north.
Monroe Avenue in the project site vicinity is an important commercial corridor connecting the Town of Brighton to metropolitan Rochester and eastern suburbs. Approximately 600 feet east of the project site Monroe Avenue connects with Clover Street, NYS Route 590 connects with Monroe Avenue approximately 1600 feet west of the project site. The proposed redevelopment plans to provide access to the redevelopment site via two driveways on Monroe Avenue. Improvements include the implementation of an access management plan (AMP) to benefit commercial properties on the south side of Monroe Avenue and motorists traveling the Monroe Avenue Corridor within the project area.
FEIS January 2018 11
As proposed the Whole Foods Plaza redevelopment project will provide a multitenant retail center within a revitalized commercial setting. The project will provide a variety of specialty upscale retail uses in a pedestrian friendly cohesive redevelopment with enhanced multimodal connectivity to the surrounding residential neighborhoods and Monroe Avenue corridor.
The redevelopment proposal involves the development of 90,000 square-feet of retail space within four buildings. The anchor tenant will be a natural and organic foods market/grocery. The tenant will be Whole Foods Market. The anchor building will be a single story 50,000 square-foot natural and organic foods market/grocery. The redevelopment proposal also includes the development of two single story multitenant retail buildings; 31,780 square-foot retail building and 6,300 square-foot “outparcel” style retail building. The fourth building is planned for a single story 1,920 square-foot specialty coffee shop with a drive through.
The project includes the installation of two traffic signals, one at each of the project entrances, both of which will be operated by a single controller. Based on the traffic impact study provided by the applicant, the impact of the project and traffic signals to motorists traveling along the Monroe Avenue is a delay of approximately 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour from Westfall to Clover Street when compared to background conditions. At other times of the day to delay would be less.. While the delay may be increased somewhat, NYSDOT has acknowledged that the proposed improvements would improve traffic safety along this stretch of Monroe Avenue.
Needs and Benefits The proposed redevelopment project will significantly upgrade the property and this important gateway to the Town of Brighton. An exciting food market anchor, attractive architecture, and cohesive design will help to update and transform this section of Monroe Avenue. The proposal will include quality design, sustainable design and construction, landscaping and architecture, with architecture contemplated to be consistent with the anchor tenant, including use of regional materials and a waste management plan that will look to re-use a substantial amount of the material from the existing buildings that are proposed to be demolished.
FEIS January 2018 12
The Whole Foods Plaza redevelopment project is designed to meet the changing commercial property needs and community business offerings. The redevelopment project will provide needed improvements to the properties to allow them to continue to be commercially viable and sustainable into the future.
Pedestrian access is incorporated in the plan, providing access to, and within, the site for pedestrians and bicycles including bicycle racks, pedestrian gathering areas, wayfinding signage, sidewalks and approximately two miles of improvements to the Auburn Trail system. The pedestrian friendly development will enhance the neighborhood by improving walkability and fostering neighborhood business. The project will create new pedestrian connections, consolidate parking, and improve vehicular access to and from Monroe Avenue.
Multimodal transportation within the project area will be enhanced by the relocation of public transit bus stops, construction of a public bus stop shelter, addition of pedestrian access to the development from the Monroe Avenue sidewalk network, addition of pedestrian crosswalks on Clover Street, Allens Creek Road and Elmwood Avenue for the Auburn Trail, addition of pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian signal elements at the new entrance for connectivity of the north and south side of Monroe Avenue, parking and charging stations for alternative energy vehicles.
The new Lifestyle Center design will also improve vehicular access and circulation. A new traffic signal with pedestrian crosswalk will be installed on Monroe Avenue. The anticipated location will align the Clover Lanes property and the Sakura Home restaurant site. Installation of the traffic signal will allow for the implementation of an access management plan which will benefit businesses on the south side of the Monroe Avenue corridor and provide increased safety to the traveling public. An advanced traffic signal will also be installed at the western project entrance to allow for protected left turns into the development.
In addition to the amenities of this project, this development provides substantial public benefits; among them are:
FEIS January 2018 13
1. Fulfilling the Town of Brighton’s Vision of the Monroe Avenue Corridor Plan. The Monroe Avenue Corridor Plan has a number of distinct elements which are addressed by this plan. Those elements are both aesthetic in nature (such as dealing with the placement of buildings closer to Monroe Avenue to create a traffic calming effect) and safety-related (relative to Monroe Avenue vehicular, pedestrian, multimodal and bicycle access). The project also includes the installation of a safe pedestrian crossing of Monroe Avenue between Clover Street and 590 which was identified in the corridor plan.
The proposed action will also comply with the Town’s comprehensive plan by meeting the following pertinent goals: • Provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages between neighborhoods and commercial areas; • Permit quality commercial development that provides a sound economic base; • Provision of a balance in the type of grocery retail; • Preservation of priority areas of open space and residential buffer; • Satisfaction of recreational needs of Town residents through pedestrian and bicycle access and improvements to the Auburn Trail; • Maintenance and enhancement of the visual character of the community;
2. Diversity of Retail Offerings within the Town of Brighton. The addition of a natural and organic foods market/grocery is a benefit to the residents of the Town of Brighton. At present, the Town is home to a Tops Market on South Clinton Avenue, several pharmacies selling some grocery items and occasional specialty or convenience type stores. Residents currently have access to full service grocery stores in their adjacent communities requiring residents to shop for groceries outside of the Town, such as at the Pittsford or East Avenue Wegman's stores. Whole Foods is a highly regarded and sought after retailer also brings to the market a focus on all-natural and organic, promoting a healthy living lifestyle that is not necessarily the focus of existing competition. In addition, the lead tenant within the plaza enhances the possibility of bringing new and upscale retailers to the remainder of the Center.
FEIS January 2018 14
Incentives The Whole Foods Plaza redevelopment project involves proposed incentives associated with redevelopment of the site and implementation of the access management plan. The proposed incentive categories relate to bulk area requirements, relief from obtaining individual conditional use permits for the uses proposed, construction of a parking area in the RLA zoned land and signage.
The bulk area incentives relate primarily to dimensional deviations from the Code, in large part dictated by the split zoning of the development lands. The addition of RLA zoned land to the northern portion of the site (behind the current Mario's and Clover Lanes properties) generates the need for a use incentive to allow commercial improvements and activity to extend into the adjacent RLA District. Other use incentives proposed relate to conditional permit uses which carry a favorable legal presumption of being permitted and in harmony with the neighborhood. To that end, the incentives seek to avoid unnecessary duplication in the review process.
Bulk area incentives related to the implementation of the access management plan serve to address the use of lands on the south side of Monroe Avenue for the rear lot access drive and shared parking areas. In many cases, the lots contain pre-existing non-conforming lot coverage, setbacks, parking, and setbacks. The AMP will have little to no impact to those the lots on the south side of Monroe Avenue as it relates to the bulk area requirements. Implementation of the AMP will provide additional shared parking for the properties thereby improving the preexisting non-conforming parking deficiencies, the preexisting non-conforming site conditions within the access plan are beyond the control of the project sponsor. The AMP will also provide an opportunity for safe ingress and egress at a new signalized intersection.
Amenities The Whole Foods Plaza redevelopment will provide amenities which will be of public benefit. Typically, amenities address specific infrastructure or development needs or improvements in the area of the proposed development project.
FEIS January 2018 15
Several such amenities of benefit to the community are offered as part of the application. The amenities associated with the Whole Foods redevelopment project include:
• Improvements to the Auburn Trail System; • Implementation of the access management plan for the southern properties on the Monroe Avenue Corridor from 590 east to Clover Street; • Preservation of Open Space along Clover Street & buffering to residential properties.
The proposed amenities are further detailed at Section 1.6 and summarized in Table 1.3. The value of the amenities is estimated to be approximately $1,710,576.48, before including on- going maintenance costs for certain amenities.
Comments have been made that the number and nature of “incentives” requested is too great. Those comments are not substantive. There is nothing in the Town Zoning Law that limits the number or extent of incentives that the Town Board may approve. This determination is left to the sound discretion of the Town Board.
In any event, the incentive zoning procedures are essentially the same as those applicable to a rezoning. Incentive zoning is, in effect, a tool to achieve rezoning and can be considered its functional equivalent. It would be entirely appropriate for the Town Board to consider an adjustment to the BF-2 zoning line to include those commercial portions of the project that fall within the RLA zoning district. The portion of the parking lot which falls within the RLA zone is in the same location as an existing parking lot which currently services the church. It is also immediately adjacent to the much larger church parking lot to the north and west and is not out of character with the surrounding area. The applicant has represented that the lone resident near the area in question supports the project, while the lot immediately to the east along Clover Street is an RG&E building. There is ample area to provide appropriate screening between the different land uses.
FEIS January 2018 16
1.0 Introduction This document in combination with the accepted Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of May 25, 2016 and the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) accepted as complete and adequate for public review on April 12, 2017 for the proposed development of the “Whole Foods Plaza”, comprises the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project. The purpose of the FEIS is to incorporate all substantive comments received on the DEIS and on the SDEIS during the public comment periods and to provide responses to them. This FEIS and the associated revised figures and appendices include changes made in response to the comments including an evaluation of whether any such changes result in a new or inadequately addressed environmental impact. The changes are described in Section 1.4 below, and further addressed in the responses to comments made during the Public Hearing and public review of the DEIS and SDEIS. The technical reports and information provided in the document were prepared by the applicant and their technical consultants. The Town Board and its consultants have reviewed the documents and found them complete and accurate.
1.1 Summary of the Approval Process to Date On February 18, 2015, the Daniele Family Companies (the “applicant”) submitted a request to the Brighton Town Board (“Town Board”) for Incentive zoning for the Whole Foods Plaza in accordance with Chapter 209 of the Brighton Town Code. That application was later amended on May 15th, 2015 to include a Traffic Impact Study (TIS), Access Management Plan (AMP), Full Environmental Assessment Form, revised lighting plan and expanded engineers report.
Upon review of the submitted materials, the Town Board acting as Lead Agency issued a Positive Declaration on July 8, 2015 pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and its implementing regulations found at 6 NYCRR Part 617.
The Town Board conducted a scoping hearing on September 9, 2015 with written comments on the proposed scope accepted through September 11, 2015. The Scoping Outline for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was then adopted by the Town Board on September 24, 2015.
FEIS January 2018 17
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was submitted by the applicant on January 20, 2016. The Town Board determined that the DEIS was not complete and adequate for public review. The applicant submitted a revised DEIS on April 22, 2016 which was supplemented by correspondence dated May 6, 2016. The revised DEIS was then accepted as complete and accepted for public review (as such term is used in SEQRA) by the Town Board on May 25, 2016 beginning the public comment period. Public Hearings were conducted on June 22, 2016 and July 13, 2016. The comment period was then closed on August 1, 2016 after written comments were received.
The Town Board issued Resolution #11 requiring the preparation of Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) on August 24, 2016 due to discrepancies in the DEIS concerning traffic signal timings, amongst other things, at the intersection of Monroe Avenue and Clover Street. The Town Board required that that such SDEIS “re-analyzes the potential significant adverse traffic impacts of this proposed project and that such SDEIS be based on the transportation sections, together with any other transportation related topics contained in the scope adopted by the Town Board on September 24, 2015”. The Town Board further directed the applicant to “prepare a new Traffic Study” and “…provide written responses to all substantive transportation comments received during the Public Hearing and written comment period”.
The applicant submitted an SDEIS on November 29th, 2016 which was deemed not complete by the Town Board. The applicant then submitted a revised SDEIS on February 14th which was supplemented by correspondence on March 14th, 2017. The Town Board determined that the revised SDEIS was complete and adequate and accepted it for public review on April 12, 2017 opening the public comment period.
A public hearing was conducted on May 10th, 2017. The public comment period ended on May 22, 2017 with comments received.
FEIS January 2018 18
1.2 Process Moving Forward The Town Board, as Lead Agency is charged with the preparation of the FEIS. Once the Town Board adopts the FEIS, they will issue a findings statement concluding the environmental review and SEQRA process. Upon completion of SEQRA and after the findings are issued, the Town Board may consider the applicant’s Incentive Zoning request. If an Incentive Zoning approval is granted by the Town Board, the applicant may choose to proceed with Site Plan review.
1.3 Summary of the Current Project The proposed action subject to review is the redevelopment of a 10.1± acre site for the proposed Whole Foods Plaza. The lands for the project are currently owned by or under contract by the Daniele Family of Companies who is the project sponsor and developer of the Plaza. The key governmental approval to be obtained for the Plaza is Incentive Zoning approval from the Brighton Town Board. Further details of the Incentive Zoning Application are contained within the DEIS, Section 2.2 and Appendix 1. Current details regarding the proposed amenities and incentives are provided at sections 1.5 and 1.6 as well as appendices 5, 10 and 15.
Whole Foods Plaza is proposed to be a multitenant retail center. The site is located on the north side of New York State Route 31 (Monroe Avenue) approximately 600 feet west of the intersection of Monroe Avenue and Clover Street, adjacent to the interchange with NYS Route 590 on the west and bordered by Clover Street to the north/northeast.
Monroe Avenue in the project site vicinity is a busy commercial corridor connecting the Town of Brighton to the City of Rochester and eastern suburbs. The proposed redevelopment plans to provide vehicular access to the project via two driveways on Monroe Avenue, both of which will be controlled by a traffic signal. The western driveway will include a three-way traffic signal providing protected left turns into the project.
The eastern driveway will include a four-way signal including a protected left turn signal for motorists entering the commercial properties on the south side of Monroe Avenue.
FEIS January 2018 19
The redevelopment proposal involves the development of 90,000 square-feet of retail space within four buildings. The anchor tenant will be a natural and organic foods market/grocery known as Whole Foods Market. The anchor building (Building #1) will be single story with a 50,000-sf footprint.
The redevelopment proposal also includes the development of two single story multitenant retail buildings; a 31,780 square-foot retail building (Building II) and a 6,300 square-foot “outparcel” style retail building (Building IV). The fourth building is planned for a single story 1,920 square-foot specialty coffee shop with a drive through (Building III). Building I (Whole Foods) will be contained on an individual subdivided lot.
Table 1.1 – Building and Lot Summary
Building Lot No. Size (sf) Use Lot Area (sf) I I 50,000 Market/grocery 275,651 II II 31,780 Specialty Retail 167,227 III II 1,920 Coffee Shop Same lot as Bldg. II IV II 6,300 Specialty Retail Same lot as Bldg. II Total 90,000 442,878
As depicted by the Site Plan, vehicles accessing the site will use one of two entrance points; the eastern entrance on Monroe Avenue aligned with the existing Sakura Home driveway on the south side of Monroe Avenue or a second proposed driveway approximately 150 feet west of the eastern driveway which is near the existing entrance to the former Mario’s Restaurant. Both entrances will include a traffic signal which will share a controller. Vehicles exiting the site and traveling eastbound, towards Wegmans and Pittsford Plaza, would utilize the eastern driveway while vehicles traveling west may use either of the two entrances. No additional vehicular access points are proposed from Monroe Avenue, Clover Street, or Allen’s Creek Road.
The project also includes substantial upgrades to the Auburn Trail system which traverses the site. The applicant will install a new trail from the subject site approximately 1½ miles to the north to Highland Avenue. The trail improvements extend through the redevelopment site and then east to the Pittsford Town line including crosswalks across Clover Street, Allens Creek Road, Elmwood Avenue
FEIS January 2018 20
and Highland Avenue. Further details of the proposed trail are provided at Figure 3 and Section 1.4.
In addition to the improvements proposed within the plaza on the north side of Monroe Avenue, the project also includes improvements along the south side of Monroe Avenue, referred to as the “Access Management Plan” (AMP). Section 1.4 of this FEIS provides further detail on the AMP.
1.4 Changes to the Project based on DEIS and SDEIS comments As a result of comments received during the public review of the DEIS and the SDEIS, the applicant has made changes to the project. Two of the changes are improvements to amenities that are offered as part of the project, the Auburn Trail and the Access Management Plan (AMP). The third change is the elimination of the 3,900 SF mezzanine as detailed in section 2.1 of the SDEIS. Lastly, the configuration of the proposed signal light was modified to provide an advanced eastbound protected left turn signal at the western entrance and a protected westbound turn signal at the eastern entrance.
Modified Traffic Improvements – Monroe Avenue The introduction of left-turn arrows at the new signal for traffic entering both sides of Monroe Avenue was considered, however it was initially determined by NYSDOT to result in a reduced amount of green time afforded to Monroe Avenue east-west through traffic, thereby potentially increasing delays and queues for traffic along the segment. This option was proposed to the NYSDOT by the applicant and addressed in their most recent response dated April 4, 2016. The NYSDOT asked that the left turn arrow be removed from the proposed plan. This option was again proposed to NYSDOT in a letter dated August 24, 2017. After reviewing the options, NYSDOT then suggested an alternative involving signalizing the left turn movement entering the site at the westerly driveway.
This alternative is now the preferred mitigation option and is discussed in greater detail in Section XI of the Traffic Impact Study – “Intersection Capacity Analysis, Intersection
FEIS January 2018 21
Mitigation Discussion and Results”. Refer to appendix 14 for a letter from SRF to the NYSDOT containing the revised analysis.
As proposed, the new traffic signals will be coordinated with certain other signals along Monroe Avenue. During the more critical weekday PM peak hour, the green phase for traffic exiting the Whole Foods Plaza from the eastern access point will be coordinated with the green phase for Clover Street southbound. This increases the time afforded to vehicles making the left turn out of the proposed development and takes advantage of the time where eastbound Monroe Avenue traffic at Clover Street has cleared its queue.
Environmental impacts associated with the additional of the turn arrows are identified and evaluated in Section 3.0 of this FEIS.
Additional Improvements to Auburn Trail The applicant’s original proposal included improvements to the Auburn Trail within the limits of the parcel. Based on public comments regarding the trail, the applicant has increased the scope of the trail improvements to extend approximately 1 ½ miles north of the parcel to the existing sidewalk on the north side of Highland Avenue, including the Elmwood Avenue, Allen’s Creek Road and Highland Avenue crossings. The trail will be contained within a 20’ wide easement area granted from RG&E to the Town of Brighton except for those areas where it falls within the State or County right-of-way. The applicant has indicated that RG&E has agreed to the concept of easement. It is anticipated that RG&E will provide a temporary license or grading release to allow the construction of the trail. After construction is complete, an easement will be filed with the Monroe County Clerks Office. . Additionally, at the request of the MCDOT, 140 lf of concrete sidewalk in the north right-of- way of Elmwood Avenue has been included in order to connect the trail to the sidewalks along Grosvenor Road.
The trail will generally be 10’ wide with a stone base and stone dust surface with 2’ of clear space on either side. In several small areas where the existing topography does not permit the
FEIS January 2018 22
full 14-foot section, the trail may be reduced to less than 8’ in width with up to 2’ of clear space on either side.
The upgrades include straightening out the trail behind the Mamasan’s property creating safe passage and extending east across Clover Street to the Pittsford Town line (refer to Figure 3).
Collectively, approximately two miles of trail will be redeveloped improving pedestrian access and safety for residents of the Town of Brighton.
Environmental impacts associated with the additional trail improvements are identified and evaluated in Section 3.0 of this FEIS.
Access Management Plan The access management plan was originally presented in the DEIS and includes road and access improvements along the south side of Monroe Avenue intended to channel traffic from the properties located south of Monroe Avenue to the new traffic signal at the eastern exit from the Plaza, thereby eliminating several existing and dangerous traffic movements. The AMP presents an opportunity to significantly improve safety for the segment of Monroe Avenue between 590 and Clover Street. The installation of the signal lights, “backage” road and cross access will allow vehicles to more safely exit the south side of Monroe Avenue at a signalized driveway.
As detailed in the SDEIS, the scope of Phase I of the AMP included the acquisition of NYSDOT owned land and construction of a “backage” (as contrasted with frontage) road to provide access to the proposed signal light for five properties: 1. 2717 Monroe Avenue – City Mattress 2. 2729 Monroe Avenue – Comfort Inn 3. 2735 Monroe Avenue – Former Pizza Hut 4. 2775 Monroe Avenue – Sakura Home Restaurant 5. 2787 Monroe Avenue – Dunkin Donuts
FEIS January 2018 23
Improvements to properties east of 2787 Monroe Avenue were considered Phase II of the AMP. As detailed in the DEIS and SDEIS, construction of Phase II of the AMP was not part of the project scope. Instead, it was simply noted that the construction of Phase I of the AMP would allow for future improvements on parcels to the east at such time those properties are redeveloped. In response to comments received during the DEIS and SDEIS review, the applicant has committed to include additional properties in the AMP as detailed below. Properties included in AMP: 1. 2717 Monroe Avenue – City Mattress 2. 2729 Monroe Avenue – Comfort Inn 3. 2735 Monroe Avenue – Former Pizza Hut 4. 2775 Monroe Avenue – Sakura Home Restaurant 5. 2787 Monroe Avenue – Dunkin Donuts 6. 2799 Monroe Avenue - Maximum Tan (added as part of FEIS) 7. 2815 Monroe Avenue - California Closets (added as part of FEIS) 8. 2835 Monroe Avenue – Brick Pizza and Country Inn & Suites (added as part of FEIS) 9. 2851 Monroe Avenue – Palazzo Jewelers (added as part of FEIS) 10. 2875 Monroe Avenue – Royal Carwash (added as part of FEIS) 11. 2425 Clover Street – Clover Park Professional Building (added as part of FEIS)
Refer to Figure 2 for a revised site plan illustrating the proposed limits of improvements. The AMP now connects eight properties to the eastern proposed signal light and includes all of the properties south of Monroe Avenue from 590 to Clover Street. The implementation of the AMP will serve as a tool for guiding both current and future development along Monroe Avenue.
The AMP as presented in both the DEIS and SDEIS included the acquisition of NYSDOT owned property south of 2717, 2729 and 2735 Monroe Avenue. Instead of attempting to acquire the land, the applicant may establish access through a “Use and Occupancy Agreement” (UOA) which would allow for the construction of the AMP improvements as originally contemplated in the DEIS and SDEIS.
FEIS January 2018 24
The “Use and Occupancy Agreement” will allow for the construction of pavement and parking as currently planned. If for some reason the NYSDOT does not issue the UOA, the applicant will complete the AMP using the lands currently available as shown at Figure 2- “AMP Without UAO”. The primary difference in constructing the AMP without the UOA is a reduction in total parking for the three western most parcels. See appendix 13 for the draft UOA.
The “backage” (as contrasted with frontage) road that was previously depicted as connecting 2717-2787 Monroe Avenue has been extended across 2799 and 2815 Monroe Avenue with corresponding improvements to the parking lots on those parcels.
Due to an existing building positioned at the back of 2835 Monroe Avenue, the “backage” (as contrasted with frontage) road cannot be extended further east. However, properties east of 2835 Monroe Avenue currently have cross access through their parking areas. An updated analysis of the new signal lights including the implementation of the AMP is provided at Appendix 7. Once the AMP is implemented, the curb cut at City Mattress will be converted from full access to right in-right out. The form of financial assurance to guarantee the completion of the AMP will be established as directed by the laws of the Town of Brighton.
Further developments such as the old Pizza Hut building currently under application review will be able to convert to right in-right out to the extent the Town permits or directs during its approval process. The determination of which curb cuts will be eliminated and which curb cuts will be converted to right-in, right-out will occur on a case-by-case basis as each of the lots within the AMP are redeveloped over the course of time. The maintenance obligations of the property owners within the AMP will be provided in an agreement satisfactory to the Town.
For properties that do not have a pending application and contain existing curb cuts, patrons of properties west of 2835 Monroe Avenue will still have the ability to utilize the proposed signalized driveway which will increase their safety when entering and existing the properties.
FEIS January 2018 25
Environmental Impacts associated with the enhancements to the AMP are identified and evaluated in Section 3.0 of this FEIS.
Architecture The building elevation for Whole Foods was initially presented in the DEIS at Figure 2.3.2D as prepared by SBLM architects. That elevation included a 3,900 SF mezzanine level which has been removed from the scope of the project to reduce the overall density. The revised building elevation is found at Figure 4. The Architecture for the Whole Foods building and the rest of the plaza is subject to review by the Town’s Architectural Review Board. Environmental Impacts associated with the removal of the mezzanine are identified and evaluated in Section 3.0 of this FEIS.
1.5 Incentives
Appendix 15 provides a summary of the requested incentives. The requested incentives do not take into account existing conditions. Except for the RLA-zoned lands, all of the project lands and the lands affected by the AMP are already developed. The requested incentives for bulk area requirements (lot coverage, setbacks, etc) have changed slightly since the applicants original application due to minor changes in the site layout and AMP resulting from comments during the DEIS review.
The tables below provide a summary of the bulk areas for the proposed conditions compared to the zoning requirements for all parcels proposed to be developed. In addition to the information provided below, appendix 15 provides a detailed explanation of the various incentives requested for the project including project signage. Refer to attachment in appendix 15 for sign locations and sizes.
FEIS January 2018 26
Table 1.2 – Summary of Bulk Area Requirements
FEIS January 2018 27
*Note, there are no improvements or modifications proposed for 2851 & 2875 Monroe Avenue or 2425 Clover Street.
FEIS January 2018 28
AMP Lands
As demonstrated in the Table above, of the 8 affected sites: there are no changes from the existing condition for: • lot size • lot width • front setback • side setback • rear setback • site/rear pavement setback; and • density
There are no changes from the existing condition for front pavement setback (Lots D,F,G and H currently are at “0”), except as follows: • Lot E – decreases from 50 ft to 20 ft, but still complies with zoning
There are no changes from the existing condition for lot coverage (each lot currently exceeds the 65% coverage requirement), except as follows: • Lot B – decreases from 93% to 90% • Lot C – increases from 70% to 72% • Lot D – decreases from 96% to 90% • Lot E – increases from 66% to 73% • Lot F – increases from 85% to 87%
The incentives summarized at appendix 15 are based on the current site plan and AMP and are meant to provide an outline of the various deviations from the BF-2 zoning district. Most of the requested incentives are a function of internal lot lines and the existing uses on the south side of Monroe Avenue. The incentive zoning process will be completed after the culmination of the environmental review.
FEIS January 2018 29
1.6 Amenities Section 209 of the Town Code authorizes the Town Board to approve the requested incentives
(see §209-4). Its purpose is to make the specified incentives available to those that commit to
provide amenities that “assist the Town to implement specific physical, cultural and social
policies” of the Town. The determination whether to grant the proposed incentives has not yet
been made. The Town Board would not do so until the SEQRA process has been completed.
Historically, the Town Board excludes those measures that would otherwise be required, such
as mitigating measures, in its assessment of proposed amenities. It does note that in this case,
certain measures are being proposed that may be partly mitigation and partly amenities. The
Town Board would exercise its sound discretion in determining the value and proper weight
to be given to those. Nevertheless, environmental impacts associated with the project,
including the proposed amenities, and assuming the incentives are approved, have been and
will continue to be considered in this SEQRA process.
FEIS January 2018 30
Table 1.3 – Summary of Amenities Description of Amenity Identified in Code Section 209-3
AUBURN TRAIL RELOCATION & MULTIMODAL Yes, Active ACCESS: Recreation
Relocation of the Auburn Trail is planned through the site and Claimed Value by the connectivity to the development and adjoining commercial applicant: corridor. $727,790.50
Features include: Approximately two miles of 10’ wide See appendix 5 improved stone dust trail, 800 s.f. pedestrian gathering areas with kiosks, way finding signage, trash receptacles, a bus shelter; and pedestrian crosswalk markings
Description of Amenity Identified in Code Section 209-3
ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN: Yes, Road Improvement
The development proposal includes the development of a Claimed Value by the managed access plan for the south side of Monroe Avenue applicant: $867,785.98 from 590 east to Clover Street. The improvements will provide interconnectivity between properties and connectivity See appendix 5 to the proposed signalized intersection. The managed access plan will provide a common rear lot access drive, stormwater management facilities, and cross lot access among the properties, and to the proposed intersection. The project includes construction of the AMP from 2717 Monroe Avenue to 2835 Monroe Avenue.
The development proposal includes the creation of long term comprehensive access management plan for the town, residents, and businesses to refer to in the future as growth continues and further access points are altered and removed for safety and traffic mitigation purposes.
FEIS January 2018 31
PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE: Yes, Passive Recreation
The development proposal includes the preservation of Claimed Value by the approximately 1.0 acres of land as open space. applicant: 1.0 acres of the 2.2 acres of land being acquired from the $115,000 First Baptist Home will be preserved as open space rather than be incorporated into the commercial redevelopment, or See appendix 10 developed as a residential property. The open space will serve as a permanent buffer to single family homes along Clover Street. The value is based on assessments and recent sales of similar vacant land along Clover Street.
2.0 Summary of Public Comments Received The Town Board has received hundreds of comments relating to the Project. All the comments received during the public review of both the DEIS and SDEIS have been addressed with responses by the applicant included in Section 4 of this FEIS. The responses were reviewed by the Town and its consultants for adequacy and accuracy. Based on a comprehensive review of those comments, there are several categories that were consistently mentioned by the public. This section provides a summary of those items with further detail provided in the individual responses in Section 4.
2.1 Density Many commenters have claimed that the proposed +/- 90,000 SF project on a +/- 10.1-acre site is too large.
While the proposed intensity of the use in the BF-2 district increases, the proposal will eliminate development from otherwise developable lands along Clover Street. Based on the Town’s zoning ordinance, the portion of the project within the RLA zoned land could support 9,282 sf of residential development. Given this analysis, the applicant is permitted as of right to construct 70,400 SF of commercial development in the BF-2 Zoning District and 9,282 SF of residential development in the RLA zoned land for a total of 79,682 SF. The practical effect is to shift development away from the Clover Street residential neighborhoods and closer to the commercial Monroe Avenue corridor.
FEIS January 2018 32
The applicant proposes to reserve approximately one acre of RLA land as open space. Such lands will remain undeveloped to act as a buffer between the Project and the Clover Street residential neighborhoods.
It is noted that no building construction is proposed within the RLA zoning district. The RLA zoning district lands are being used for: the relocated and enhanced Auburn Trail segment, landscaping and buffering, parking, drive aisles and stormwater management. All of these uses are located more than 150 feet away from the nearest property along Clover Street and buffered by the proposed open space area.
2.2 Traffic
The BF-2 zoned lands are currently developed with a total of 60,202 SF (Mario’s: 10,853 sf, Clover Lanes: 44,649 sf, Mamasans: 4,700 sf). They are zoned to permit up to 70,400 SF of commercial development. Those lands also have existing driveways providing direct access to Monroe Avenue.
Access to the site will be provided by existing/relocated driveways as follows:
• Main Signalized Driveway located approximately on current Clover Lanes Driveway alignment opposite Sakura Home; • Restricted Whole Foods driveway (located approximately on existing Mario’s Driveway alignment) – Permitted movements will include right turns in, and right turns out; left turns exiting the driveway to Monroe Avenue will be prohibited. Left turns from Monroe Avenue will be protected with a green arrow The applicant’s traffic engineer has represented that without establishing direct access to Allens Creek Road and Clover Street in place, all of the alternatives studied in the EIS would trigger the need for a traffic signal. Accordingly, based on existing volumes and traffic patterns along Monroe Avenue, a traffic signal is needed, whether as part of this proposal or any other of the studied alternatives. The project includes the construction of traffic signals at both the west and east driveways. The western signal will operate as part of the main driveway signal using a single controller.
FEIS January 2018 33
The applicants engineer has also represented that the traffic signal creates more organized and safer movements along this segment of Monroe Avenue. Conflicting movements between vehicles exiting and entering the site and through traffic are reduced. Additionally, the AMP, once fully implemented, provides the opportunity to further reduce conflicting movements involving non-project lands by providing access to the signal.
Providing multiple points of access to this development and most developments is good planning and should be pursued within the context and environment of the project. The Whole Foods plaza can operate without access to Clover Street and Allens Creek Road. However, customer traffic exiting to Monroe Avenue at the new signal during the weekday afternoon peak commuter period will experience increased queuing and delays as a result.
The site plan has been designed to provide two full exiting lanes with no driveway interruptions to accommodate the vehicles using this exit. Access to Allens Creek and Clover Street was recommended by the NYSDOT and considered by the developer. However, the developer does not have legal full access to these alternate access points within the BF-2 Zoned land. The applicant does have frontage on Clover Street, north of the project. That 1 acre of land will be preserved in an agreement acceptable to the Town.
The Town’s independent traffic consultant has examined and evaluated the TIS prepared as part of the SDEIS. The consultant’s report concurs with the Applicant’s recommendation for the coordination of the new signal with existing signals at Clover Street and the I-590 ramps. See Stantec’s comment letter dated May 22, 2017. The NYSDOT has examined and evaluated the revised TIS. It concluded that the new “traffic signal at the Sakura Restaurant driveway intersection with Route 31 is warranted based on full development traffic volumes. The signal will provide a safe alternative that is most efficient for vehicles and pedestrians to access Route 31.
Such measure “and the efforts to eliminate the driveways and attain cross access agreements to adjoining properties will provide improved access and egress for businesses [and patrons] on both sides of Route 31 and will aid in improving safety. Additionally, crosswalks and sidewalk within the Monroe Avenue frontage of the project is also warranted to accommodate
FEIS January 2018 34
pedestrians.” See NYSDOT letter from David Goehring, P.E. to Boehner, dated May 19, 2017.
NYSDOT also recommended the following: • Eliminate the driveway for the proposed Mamasan’s • Eliminate or change + right-in/right-out the Friendly’s and Comfort Inn driveways • To minimize the projected significant traffic impacts, NYSDOT intends to use signal timing and optimization of signal progression along the Monroe Avenue corridor
Another traffic consultant has examined and evaluated the revised TIS. Responses to those comments can be found in the FEIS, Section 4.1 (12).
The introduction of left-turn arrows at the new signal for traffic entering the Whole Foods Plaza and AMP driveways was considered; however, it was initially determined by NYSDOT to result in a reduced amount of green time afforded to Monroe Avenue east-west through traffic, thereby potentially increasing delays and queues for traffic along the segment. This option was proposed to the NYSDOT and addressed in their response dated April 4, 2016. The NYSDOT asked that the left turn arrow be removed from the proposed plan. This option was again proposed to NYSDOT in a letter dated August 24, 2017. After reviewing the options, NYSDOT then suggested an alternative involving a westbound left turn arrow at the eastern driveway together with signalizing the left turn movement entering the site at the westerly driveway. See Appendix 16 for the NYSDOT letter dated 10/17/17 from Daniel McCusker which includes the NYSDOT comments regarding this additional mitigation measure. This alternative is now the preferred mitigation option and is discussed in greater detail in Section XI of the Traffic Impact Study – “Intersection Capacity Analysis, Intersection Mitigation Discussion and Results”.
A new signal would be located on the alignment with the existing Sakura Home driveway. The properties on the south side of Monroe Avenue have agreed to cross access and shared parking between the properties to gain access to the new signal immediately. A second signal with an eastbound left turn arrow will be provided at the westerly entrance to Whole Foods Plaza which will provide protected left turns for eastbound patrons entering the plaza at the same time that southbound vehicles exiting the plaza have a green light as not to take away from the total
FEIS January 2018 35
green time allotted to Monroe Avenue. Both the eastbound and westbound left turn signals will include flashing yellow arrows to permit left turns. The implementation of the shared parking, cross access and access to the new traffic signals will be completed by the applicant at its sole cost. The determination of which curb cuts will be eliminated and which curb cuts will be converted to right-in, right-out will occur on a case-by- case basis as each of the lots within the AMP are redeveloped over the course of time. The maintenance obligations of the property owners within the AMP will be provided in an agreement satisfactory to the Town. In addition to providing safe traffic ingress and egress for adjacent properties, the new easterly signal makes available a controlled pedestrian crossing on Monroe Avenue, where currently, the existing crosswalks are approximately one-half mile apart, situated at the Westfall Road/Allens Creek Road and Clover Street intersections with Monroe Avenue. The new traffic signals will be coordinated with other certain signals along Monroe Avenue. During the weekday PM peak hour, the green phase for traffic exiting the Whole Foods Plaza will be coordinated with the green phase for Clover Street southbound. This increases the time afforded to vehicles making the left turn out of the development and takes advantage of the time where eastbound Monroe Avenue traffic at Clover Street has cleared its queue.
The majority of comments received during public review relate to the concern of increased traffic at the Monroe Avenue Corridor resulting from the build out of the project and installation of a new traffic signal. Some of the adverse traffic impacts from increased Monroe Avenue Traffic have been mitigated through the methodologies and improvements identified in the revised TIS. In addition, the Access Management Plan (AMP) proposes to improve safety and access to properties along the south side of Monroe Avenue by providing a new signalized intersection that will service many of the south side properties between I-590 and Clover Street with various cross access, shared parking agreements, and backage roads. The proposed easterly site driveway signal also provides a controlled pedestrian crossing across Monroe Avenue, particularly for patrons of the existing hotels and restaurants. (See additional details of the AMP in the revised TIS, Section XIII, Pages 34-36 and Appendix 7 of this FEIS).
Trip Projections Based on the projections of the TIS, the redevelopment of the plaza will increase the number of vehicles utilizing the site. Additional detail regarding the number of trips generated by the proposal is provided at Section VII(C) of the Traffic Impact Study and summarized below:
FEIS January 2018 36
Table 2.1 Total Primary Trips
AM Peak PM Peak SAT Peak
Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Total Primary Trips 130 79 200 207 279 284
The applicants Traffic Engineer has indicated that the totals in the table above represent the final adjusted trip generation when considering pass-by and multi-use factors.
Data for several urban Whole Foods Stores showed extremely varied trip rates from very low to slightly high as compared to ITE trip rates for Supermarket. The following studies for Whole Foods Stores were reviewed:
• Whole Foods Traffic Study (Gowanus, Brooklyn), Eng-Wong, Taub & Associates, March 2011 • Trip Generation Study Report for Chuck’s 2 Produce Market (Portland, Oregon), Charbonneau Engineering LLC, September 2011 • Whole Foods Traffic Impact Study (Mill Valley, CA), Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc., June 19, 2009 • Fremont Whole Foods Transportation Impact Analysis (City of Fremont, CA), Hexagon Transportation Consultants, April 6, 2012 • Traffic Impact Study Wegmans Foods Market & Bank, East Avenue (Rochester, NY), FRA Engineering, P.C., June 2004 • Transportation and Traffic Section of the EIR based upon Traffic Impact Study for the Talaria at Burbank Mixed-Use Project (Burbank, CA), Fehr & Peers, April 2014 • Traffic Impact and Access Study Proposed Shopping Center (Beverly, MA), Ron Muller & Associates, August 25, 2014 • Trip Generation & Parking Occupancy Data Collection: Grocery Stores, Student Chapter of the ITE at UCLA, Spring 2014 • Whole Foods Market Ledge Road Traffic Volume “After” Review (Darien, CT), BL Companies, November 29, 2010
FEIS January 2018 37
The above studies, related to Whole Foods Stores and other similar supermarkets, were reviewed to determine how trips were estimated. In some cases, before and after studies were also conducted. In all cases either ITE Supermarket data or local data were used to project future trip generation. The majority of the sites studied are located in dense urban areas and take into consideration significant pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips. The most comparable site is the Whole Foods located in Darien, CT which provided a before and after comparison of trip generation. During the Friday PM peak hour, the site was found to generate 158 fewer total trips than projected in the traffic study; during the Saturday peak hour the site generated 128 fewer trips than projected. The Whole Foods Market in Darien, CT is a 40,000 store with a 10,000 s.f. mezzanine for office and support spaces. Applying the rates calculated using the Darien Whole Foods after data would result in 78 fewer trips to the Monroe Avenue site during the PM peak hour and 183 fewer trips during the Saturday peak hour.
The proposed Whole Foods store will be the first Whole Foods in the Rochester area. A new Whole Foods store recently opened in the Buffalo area on September 15, 2017. The novelty of the new store attracted greater than normal traffic immediately after the store opened for a short period of approximately one to two weeks. This was evidenced by traffic counts conducted by SRF on Wednesday September 27th (one and half weeks after the store opened) and again on Wednesday October 4th (two and half weeks after the store opened). The Table below compares the ITE data used for analysis purposes in this report to the counts taken at the Buffalo Whole Foods Store on these two dates. Based on this study, the applicants Traffic Engineer has asserted that actual trip generations associated with the project would likely be less than those value used in the Traffic Impact Study.
Table 2.2 Local Whole Foods Trip Comparison PM Peak Land Use Size Enter Exit Whole Foods Supermarket Used in TIS 50,000 SF 238 228 Buffalo Whole Foods Counts 09/27/17* 50,000 SF 276 400 Buffalo Whole Foods Counts 10/04/17* 50,000 SF 192 188 Difference Between ITE and 10/4 counts: -46 -40 * Note – count data was obtained using 15 min drone footage of the entire site during the peak time of adjacent street traffic. 15-minute counts were multiplied by 4 to obtain hourly
FEIS January 2018 38
values in order to provide a basis of comparison to the rates used in the Traffic Impact Study. This likely produces higher hourly counts than actually occurred and is therefore conservative.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate typical daily traffic conditions for design purposes. During the first few weeks after the store opens it may be necessary to employ special traffic control measures such as contracting local law enforcement to control traffic during peak times in this store opening period. The decision as to whether special traffic control will be required and for how long will be made by the Brighton Police Department, who will provide contracted service. This is a typical practice whose expense would be borne by the property owner. The applicant has represented that the store opening is not expected to coincide with the “Holiday Peak” traffic time and conditions during this opening period are not expected to exceed typical Monroe Avenue “Holiday” traffic conditions. The applicant has also represented that the tenant will provide temporary off-site employee parking and employee shuttle service to accommodate an increase in parking capacity during this opening period. There will be several vacancies in the retail space in the plaza when Whole Foods opens initially which will also provide additional traffic and parking capacity on-site. Refer to phasing discussion at Section 2.5 of this FEIS.
The above trip generations have been reviewed and accepted as reliable by the NYSDOT and Stantec, the Town’s traffic Engineer.
Gap Analysis at Unsignalized Intersections & Trail Crossing
SRF & Associates performed a gap analysis at the locations listed above during the AM and PM peak hours on Thursday, October 8, 2015 and Thursday, October 15, 2015 to evaluate existing and potential future operating conditions. The table below indicates the acceptable gap duration, the theoretical number of gaps based on the duration, the projected traffic volume for the movement, and the resulting theoretical reserve capacity (number of additional cars able to exit intersection) during the AM and PM peak hours.
FEIS January 2018 39
Table 2.3 Peak Hour GAP Analysis Results
TABLE XV: PEAK HOUR GAP ANALYSIS RESULTS EXISTING GAPS EXISTING RESERVE ACCEPTABLE IN # OF VOLUME CAPACITY INTERSECTION MOVEMENT GAP VEHICLES BASED IN # OF IN # OF DURATION ON COLLECTED VEHICLES VEHICLES DATA Right turns 6.2 sec 306(302) 11(12) 295(290) exiting site Clover Left turns Street/Shoreham 6.4 sec 182(193) 30(11) 152(182) exiting site Drive Left turns 4.1 sec 449(502) 6(23) 443(479) entering site Right turns 6.9 sec 250(148) 15(11) 235(137) exiting site Clover Left turns Street/Towpath 7.5 sec 41(29) 37(11) 4(18) exiting site Lane Left turns 4.1 sec 453(259) 6(7) 447(252) entering site Right turns 6.2 sec 430(212) 12(15) 418(197) exiting site Clover Left turns Street/Warren 6.4 sec 142(92) 46(30) 96(62) exiting site Avenue Left turns 4.1 sec 721(359) 10(17) 711(342) entering site Right turns 6.2 sec 372(466) 4(5) 368(461) exiting site Allens Creek Left turns Road/Schoolhouse 6.4 sec 208(110) 3(2) 205(108) exiting site Lane Left turns 4.1 sec 605(567) 4(5) 601(562) entering site Right turns 6.2 sec 374(296) 14(8) 360(288) exiting site Allens Creek Left turns Road/Whitestone 6.4 sec 200(174) 19(8) 181(166) exiting site Lane Left turns 4.1 sec 553(493) 3(11) 550(482) entering site Note: 00(00) = AM(PM) Peak Hour
Based on the field observations, gap study, and existing traffic volumes, there are sufficient gaps during the weekday AM and PM peak hours to accommodate the existing turning
FEIS January 2018 40
movements at the unsignalized intersections studied. The reserve capacity indicates the additional gaps available for turning movements into and out of the side roads. All of the locations and movements have a reserve capacity greater than 60 vehicles during the two peak hours based on existing conditions with the exception of left turns exiting the Towpath Lane intersection. Existing AM peak hour delays were measured in the field for traffic exiting Towpath Lane. During the AM peak hour, 52 vehicles were observed exiting Towpath Lane with an average delay 17.63 seconds per vehicle (this equates to LOS “C” at unsignalized intersections). The proposed development is projected to add 50 vehicles to Clover Street during the AM peak hour for an increase of 3.4% over the existing through volume of 1,488 vehicles. The calculation below projects the future AM vehicle delay for motorists exiting Towpath Lane based upon the existing documented volumes and delays as well as projected increases in through traffic on Clover Street. The future projected average delay is 18.2 seconds per vehicle which continues to operate at LOS “C”. Existing Conditions Delay = 17.63 Critical Gaps = 291 gaps (from Towpath) Side Street Volume (actual @ time of gap study) = 52 vehicles Mainline Volume (actual @ time of gap study) = 1488 vehicles Side Street Volume per gap = 52/291 = 0.179 veh/gap
Background Conditions Side Street Volume = 52 vehicles % increase side street approach volume = 0% Mainline Volume = 1506 % increase mainline volume = 1.19% • Background Gaps = 291 gaps/1.0119 = 288 • Side Street vehicles/gap = 52/288 = 0.1805 veh/gap • Proportional increase in side street vehicles/gap = 0.1805/0.179 = 1.008 • Background Delay = 1.008 * 17.63 = 17.77 sec/veh
Future Conditions Side Street Volume = 52 vehicles % increase side street approach volume = 0% Mainline Volume = 1542 % increase mainline volume = 2.33% • Future Gaps = 288/1.0233 = 281 gaps • Side Street vehicles/gap = 52/281= 0.185 veh/gap • Proportional increase in side street vehicles/gap = 0.185/0.1805 = 1.0249 • Future Delay = 1.0249*17.77= 18.2 sec/veh
FEIS January 2018 41
A pedestrian gap analysis was performed at the Clover Street and Allens Creek Road trail crossing locations using the gap data collected at Clover Street/Shoreham Drive and Allens Creek Road/Schoolhouse Lane. The gap analysis used a 3.0 feet/second pedestrian crossing speed, which is recommended by the NYSDOT. The crossing distance for each crossing location was measured and combined with the 3.0 feet/second pedestrian crossing speed to determine the time needed for a pedestrian to cross the subject roadway.
A crossing time of 13.3 seconds is needed for a pedestrian to safely cross Clover Street. Based on this, there are 27 gap opportunities during the AM peak hour and 13 gap opportunities during the PM peak hour.
A crossing time of 14.6 seconds is needed for a pedestrian to safely cross Allens Creek Road. Based on this, there are 28 gap opportunities during the AM peak hour and eight (8) gap opportunities during the PM peak hour.
During the AM peak hour, there is approximately one gap every two minutes for both study roadways. On average, there is approximately one gap every four and a half minutes (4.5) on Clover Street and one gap every seven and a half minutes (7.5) on Allens Creek Road during the PM peak hour. To assure there are sufficient gap opportunities for pedestrians to cross Clover Street and Allens Creek Road given the volume of traffic on both roadways during the peak travel periods. Additionally, as mitigation to promote vehicles to stop at the crosswalk, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB’s) are proposed at the trail crossings to increase the safety for pedestrians.
Segment Volumes
The increase in segment volumes under full development are expected to be between 77(155)[300] vehicles per hour (vph) during the AM(PM)[SAT] peak hours respectively on Monroe Avenue. Similarly, the segment volumes are expected to increase 7(10)[28] vph on Clover Street and 21(52)[69] vph on Allens Creek Road. To put these increases in perspective,
FEIS January 2018 42
60 vph equates to one additional car per minute, 30 vph equates to one additional vehicle per every two minutes. A summary of the segment volume increase is provided in the table below:
Table 2.4 Summary of Segment Volumes Clover Street Allens Creek Road Monroe Ave West between between the of Clover Street Shoreham Drive & Schoolhouse Lane Allens Creek Road & Clover Street AM PM SAT AM PM SAT AM PM SAT Increase in Segment Traffic Volumes 77 155 300 7 10 28 21 52 69 (Background to Alternative 1)
Queuing The existing conditions on this segment of Monroe Avenue are at peak times congested with traffic sometimes backed up 500’ to 890’ heading eastbound typically for a period of approximately 45 minutes, Monday thru Friday evenings. This condition is expected to continue for this short period of peak travel. The graph below illustrates the measured queue lengths during the peak hour.
Table 2.5 Monroe Avenue EB Queuing
FEIS January 2018 43
The maximum queue occurs during a 15-minute period between 5:10 and 5:25pm. The anticipated queue lengths under developed conditions are illustrated in the table below:
TABLE 2.6 - FULL BUILD OUT QUEUING ANALYSIS RESULTS PM PEAK HOUR 95th PERCENTILE QUEUES IN FEET
2018 Alt 1 2018 Alt 1 Full 2016 2018 Full Development Intersection Existing Background Development Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions w/Mitigation Monroe/Clover Eastbound Thru - Monroe 893 (500*) 831 932 815 Eastbound Thru - Monroe 880 (500*) 822 960 809 Eastbound Right - Monroe 573 524 607 469 Westbound Left – Monroe 304 279 1583 738 Westbound Thru – Monroe 1997 1959 1580 1179 Westbound Thru/Right – Monroe 1968 1971 1651 1198 Northbound Left – Clover 355 389 360 379 Northbound Left – Clover 346 337 376 349 Northbound Thru/Right - Clover 340 364 290 386 Southbound Left – Clover 124 90 111 120 Southbound Left – Clover 395 244 136 144 Southbound Thru – Clover 521 328 166 206 Southbound Thru/Right – Clover 418 416 212 236 Monroe/Proposed Main Site Driveway Eastbound Left - Monroe 161 148 Eastbound Thru - Monroe 269 232 Eastbound Thru/Right- Monroe 241 229 Westbound Left - Monroe 206 237 Westbound Thru - Monroe 733 365 N/A Westbound Thru/Right - Monroe 741 497 Northbound Left – S. Side D’way 102 117 Northbound Thru/Right -S. Side D’way 66 62 Southbound Left – Whole Foods Plaza 251 221 Southbound Thru/Right – Whole Foods Plaza 28 56 Monroe/Proposed Westerly Driveway Eastbound Left - Monroe 215 313 Eastbound Thru - Monroe 352 499 Eastbound Thru - Monroe 375 467
Westbound Thru - Monroe 16 147 Westbound Thru/Right - Monroe 15 204 Southbound Right – Whole Foods Plaza 158 158 Monroe/I-590 NB (Exit 2A) Eastbound Thru - Monroe 550 579 401 675 Eastbound Thru - Monroe 552 558 416 662 Westbound Thru - Monroe 132 206 161 208 Westbound Thru - Monroe 155 243 199 249 Northbound Left - I-590 NB 67 96 47 73 Northbound Left - I-590 NB 102 129 114 96 Northbound Right - I-590 NB 215 214 263 241 Northbound Right - I-590 NB 117 160 108 164 Monroe/I-590 SB (Exit 2B)
FEIS January 2018 44
2018 Alt 1 2018 Alt 1 Full 2016 2018 Full Development Intersection Existing Background Development Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions w/Mitigation Eastbound Thru - Monroe 226 220 218 222 Eastbound Thru - Monroe 229 229 237 228 Westbound Left - Monroe 91 109 131 107 Northbound Right - I-590 SB 243 231 227 274 Northbound Right - I-590 SB 235 231 208 243 Monroe/Westfall Eastbound Left - Monroe 47 53 52 48 Eastbound Thru - Monroe 142 151 146 148 Eastbound Thru/Right - Monroe 141 138 162 140 Westbound Left - Monroe 99 128 165 133 Westbound Thru - Monroe 163 162 168 166 Westbound Thru/Right - Monroe 190 191 205 130 Northbound Left/Thru- Westfall 199 292 350 444 Northbound Thru/Right- Westfall 163 163 162 177 Southbound Left/Thru- Allens Creek 183 164 303 313 Southbound Right - Allens Creek 118 140 169 167 * 95th percentile queues documented in the field between 5-6 PM on November 2, 2016
The PM peak hour capacity and queuing analysis results indicate that in general, most of the approaches at the study intersections will operate similar to 2018 Background conditions with a new traffic signal at the proposed driveway.
Following is a discussion of queuing conditions in the corridor identified as potential areas of concern as provided by the applicants Traffic Engineer: 1. Eastbound Monroe Avenue at Clover Street The recommended signal timing mitigation will reduce eastbound queuing on Monroe Avenue at Clover Street such that queuing will be consistent with, or possibly less than, current observed queues. This signal will be coordinated with the signal at the main site driveway to minimize spillback from Clover Street into the new signalized intersection
2. Eastbound queuing at the Proposed Main Site Driveway and Westerly Driveway Signal(s) PM peak hour queuing at the proposed main site driveway will be on the order of approximately 148 feet in the left turn lane. The through lanes will queue through the westerly driveway intersection but this does not impact anything at that intersection because there are no exiting left turns and the eastbound movement at the westerly intersection will not stop for
FEIS January 2018 45
a red signal. The eastbound queue is expected to extend approximately 467 to 499 feet west of the westerly driveway intersection based upon the 95th percentile queues. It is unlikely that this would block the I-590 ramp intersection except for rare occasions and short durations during the PM peak hour only.
3. Westbound Monroe Avenue at the Proposed Signal(s) The 95th percentile queue in the westbound direction on Monroe Avenue at the proposed signal is expected to be approximately 365’ during the PM peak hour with the proposed mitigation in place. The distance between the westbound stop bar at the proposed signal and the west side of the Clover Street intersection is approximately 750’. Therefore, queuing at the proposed traffic signal is not expected to impact operations at the Clover Street intersection. The westbound queue on Monroe Avenue at the westerly driveway with a signal in place as currently proposed is 204’. This is approximately the distance to the main signalized driveway. Given the very low volume of right turns exiting the site via the main site driveway, this is not expected to impact operations at the main site driveway.
4. Southbound Proposed Site Driveway at Monroe Avenue During the PM and Saturday peak hours, the southbound traffic exiting the site will, at times, experience LOS “F” conditions with delays of 87.2 and 132.5 seconds per vehicle respectively. This is typical of signals with long cycle lengths and short side road green times. Queuing in the driveway is expected to reach approximately 221 ft in the left turn lane. The site driveway is over 300 ft long which exceeds the 95th percentile queue.
5. Northbound Right Turn from I-590 Exit 2A Ramp to Monroe Avenue This movement will be minimally impacted by additional queuing on Monroe Avenue that will result from the new traffic signal. The capacity analysis indicates that the delay will be approximately the same or slightly shorter than the background conditions for the northbound right turn movement during the PM peak hour.
FEIS January 2018 46
6. Eastbound Monroe Avenue at I-590 Northbound ramp The queue will increase from 558 feet under background conditions to approximately 662 feet under build with mitigation. The “Build with Mitigation” queue is longer than the “Build Condition” as a result of the introduction of the turn signal which results in additional queuing and delays for eastbound through traffic on Monroe Avenue at this intersection which, in turn, results in additional eastbound queuing and delays for intersections to the west on Monroe Avenue.
Capacity Analysis The proposed changes in cycle length will be coordinated with the new signal at the proposed driveway. The Table below shows the resulting operating conditions with the proposed mitigation in place. No other intersections require mitigation and no changes in LOS result at other intersections due to the proposed mitigation. Overall Levels of service at the Monroe Avenue/Clover Street intersection are maintained at the same levels as 2018 Background Conditions or better.
Certain movements are improved from background conditions while others degrade slightly. This is a result of balancing signal timings for the more critical approaches with heavier traffic volumes. For example, the PM Clover Street northbound left at Monroe Avenue improves from a delay of 94.2 seconds under background conditions to 73.9 seconds under developed, mitigated conditions while the westbound left increases from 88.5 seconds under background conditions to 113.8 seconds under developed mitigated conditions.
FEIS January 2018 47
TABLE 2.7 - CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS BACKGROUND & PROJECT BUILD OUT CONDITIONS SIGNALIZED
Preferred Alternative (Alt 1) Full 2018 Background Conditions Development Conditions Intersection w/Mitigation AM PM SAT AM PM SAT Monroe Avenue/Clover Street Eastbound Thru – Monroe Ave D(41.9)[0.84] D(48.3)[0.94] D(40.0)[0.91] D(40.8)[0.92] D(36.0)[0.99] D(43.0)[0.93] Eastbound Right – Monroe Ave A(1.2)[0.25] B(11.3)[0.58] A(6.1)[0.34] A(2.9)[0.46] A(7.3)[0.61] A(6.7)[0.38] Westbound Left – Monroe Ave C(34.1)[0.31] F(88.5)[0.90] F(83.5)[0.90] C(29.9)[0.24] F(113.8)[1.02] F(98.8)[0.96] Westbound Thru/Right – Monroe Ave C(28.3)[0.67] C(27.6)[0.83] C(20.0)[0.71] C(24.4)[0.62] C(28.2)[0.86] C(21.0)[0.73] Northbound Left – Clover St D(38.9)[0.80] F(94.2)[1.03] E(58.8)[0.80] D(46.1)[0.90] E(73.9)[0.96] E(65.3)[0.85] Northbound Thru/right – Clover St C(33.1)[0.51] E(61.4)[0.69] D(51.4)[0.60] C(33.1)[0.56] D(51.4)[0.63] D(53.3)[0.60] Southbound Left – Clover St D(51.9)[0.50] E(63.5)[0.65] E(66.3)[0.79] D(49.5)[0.56] E(66.4)[0.74] E(73.0)[0.83] Southbound Thru/right – Clover St D(46.7)[0.54] E(62.3)[0.73] D(47.7)[0.53] D(41.2)[0.59] E(71.4)[0.86] D(52.4)[0.64] Overall LOS (delay) C(34.8)[0.84] D(46.5)[1.03] D(37.3)[0.91] C(34.8)[0.92] D(41.4)[1.02] D(40.3)[0.96] Monroe Avenue/Proposed Driveway Eastbound Left – Monroe Ave B(13.7) C(18.2) C(15.9) B(10.2)[0.10] C(20.1)[0.35] C(21.0)[0.56] Eastbound Thru – Monroe Ave n/a n/a n/a B(13.8)[0.57] C(28.6)[0.96] D(50.5)[0.56] Westbound Left – Monroe Ave n/a n/a n/a A(2.1)[0.19] B(18.8)[0.45] B(10.9)[0.36] Westbound Thru/Right – Monroe Ave n/a n/a n/a A(3.5)[0.68] A(8.9)[0.82] C(21.9)[0.91] Northbound Left – S. Side Dwy n/a n/a F(329.4) D(40.4)[0.38] D(48.9)[0.32] C(30.0)[0.29] Northbound Thru/right – S. Side Dwy n/a n/a n/a A(0.0)[0.0] A(0.4)[0.08] A(0.2)[0.05] F(132.5)[1.15 F(163.2) n/a F(1023.8) D(39.8)[0.34] F(87.2)[0.88] Southbound Left - Proposed Dwy ] Southbound Right - Proposed Dwy C(15.9) C(20.8) C(18.7) A(0.4)[0.06] A(4.3)[0.09] A(3.6)[0.12] Overall LOS (delay) n/a n/a n/a A(9.4)[0.68] C(22.0)[0.96] D(42.4)[1.15] Monroe Avenue/Proposed Westerly Driveway Eastbound Left – Monroe Ave A(1.4)[0.19] B(18.9)[0.45] B(14.6)[0.40] Eastbound Thru – Monroe Ave A(0.4)[0.34] A(1.7)[0.60] A(2.7)[0.58] Westbound Thru/Right – Monroe Ave NA A(2.9)[0.64] A(3.9)[0.75] A(8.3)[0.64] Southbound Right - Proposed Dwy C(21.3)[0.33] D(43.7)[0.55] C(32.6)[0.57] Overall LOS (delay) A(2.5)[0.68] A(4.9)[0.96] A(7.2)[1.15] Monroe Avenue/I-590 NB (Exit 2A Ramp) Eastbound – Monroe Ave B(11.6)[0.59] B(19.8)[0.85] B(18.9)[0.87] B(11.2)[0.60] C(20.2)[0.87] C(24.5)[0.94] Westbound Thru – Monroe Ave A(6.6)[0.34] B(10.3)[0.50] A(8.7)[0.45] A(6.7)[0.35] B(11.5)[0.52] A(8.2)[0.52] Westbound Right – Monroe Ave A(1.1)[0.50] A(1.4)[0.56] A(1.0)[0.47] A(1.1)[0.50] A(1.3)[0.55] A(0.5)[0.48] Northbound Left - I-590 NB Ramp C(30.4)[0.21] C(25.6)[0.25] C(25.8)[0.16] C(30.5)[0.22] C(25.4)[0.25] C(24.4)[0.14] Northbound Right - I-590 NB Ramp A(6.5)[0.23] B(19.2)[0.55] B(15.8)[0.39] A(7.6)[0.24] B(19.3)[0.56] B(16.3)[0.41] Overall LOS (delay) A(7.7)[0.59] B(13.8)[0.85] B(12.5)[0.87] A(7.8)[0.60] B(14.3)[0.87] B(14.5)[0.94] Monroe Avenue/I-590 SB (Exit 2B Ramp) Eastbound Thru – Monroe Ave C(28.9)[0.46] C(30.5)[0.78] C(28.9)[0.72] C(28.2)[0.47] C(32.8)[0.83] C(31.8)[0.80] Westbound Left – Monroe Ave B(10.6)[0.14] B(14.5)[0.18] B(14.2)[0.09] B(10.9)[0.14] B(14.1)[0.18] B(11.7)[0.10] Westbound Thru – Monroe Ave A(0.1)[0.22] A(0.2)[0.32] A(0.2)[0.32] A(0.2)[0.23] A(0.2)[0.34] A(0.3)[0.35] Northbound - I-590 SB Ramp A(0.5)[0.29] B(13.4)[0.55] B(13.2)[0.50] A(1.0)[0.30] B(13.5)[0.54] B(13.6)[0.51] Overall LOS (delay) A(7.4)[0.59] B(13.8)[0.85] B(12.8)[0.87] A(7.6)[0.60] B(14.5)[0.87] B(13.8)[0.94] Monroe Avenue/Westfall Road-Allens Creek Road Eastbound Left – Monroe Ave B(10.8)[0.27] B(13.7)[0.43] A(6.1)[0.25] B(10.4)[0.27] B(16.0)[0.49] A(6.0)[0.23] Eastbound Thru/Right – Monroe Ave B(18.0)[0.45] B(19.0)[0.58] B(14.3)[0.54] B(17.6)[0.45] C(20.3)[0.61] B(14.3)[0.56] Westbound Left – Monroe Ave B(13.0)[0.45] B(19.7)[0.62] A(6.6)[0.29] B(12.6)[0.46] C(25.9)[0.71] A(6.7)[0.32] Westbound Thru/Right – Monroe Ave B(18.3)[0.54] C(21.6)[0.73] B(13.2)[0.55] B(17.7)[0.54] C(23.7)[0.78] B(12.0)[0.49]
FEIS January 2018 48
Preferred Alternative (Alt 1) Full 2018 Background Conditions Development Conditions Intersection w/Mitigation AM PM SAT AM PM SAT Northbound – Westfall Rd B(18.9[0.59] C(24.2)[0.78] B(11.7)[0.38] n/a n/a n/a Northbound Left/Thru – Westfall Rd C(26.7)[0.69] C(33.2)[0.66] C(23.2)[0.33] C(23.1)[0.52] D(42.7)[0.87] C(24.1)[0.36] Northbound Right – Westfall Rd A(2.3)[0.25] A(7.8)[0.30] A(3.7)[0.16] A(2.3)[0.18] B(10.1)[0.39] A(3.5)[0.23] Southbound Left/Thru - Allens Creek Rd B(17.4)[0.69] C(20.9)[0.78] C(23.2)[0.55] C(28.6)[0.73] D(39.9)[0.73] C(24.4)[0.37] Southbound Right - Allens Creek Rd A(2.3) A(7.8) A(3.7) A(2.4)[0.26] A(7.9)[0.29] A(4.0)[0.19] Overall LOS (delay) B(17.4) C(20.9) B(12.6) B(16.7)[0.73] C(24.2)[0.87] B(12.5)[0.56] Clover Street/Allens Creek Road Eastbound Left – Allens Creek Rd C(30.4)[0.63] C(20.7)[0.54] B(11.4)[0.15] D(35.7)[0.69] C(20.7)[0.59] B(12.7)(0.23) Eastbound Thru/Right – Allens Creek Rd B(14.1)[0.41] C(27.6)[0.83] B(10.6)[0.37] B(14.3)[0.41] C(26.7)[0.83] B(11.9)(0.40) Westbound Left – Allens Creek Rd B(13.7)[0.22] E(67.9)[0.84] B(12.9)[0.27] B(13.9)[0.23] E(79.6)[0.90] B(14.2)(0.32) Westbound Thru/Right – Allens Creek Rd C(22.9)[0.76] B(14.7)[0.36] B(11.5)[0.27] C(23.3)[0.76] B(13.6)[0.36] B(12)(0.28) Northbound Left – Clover St B(18.3)[0.26] C(22.6)[0.24] A(7.2)[0.04] B(18.6)[0.26] C(27.7)[0.28] A(7.5)(0.04) Northbound Thru/right – Clover St B(19.2)[0.64] C(27.2)[0.76] A(8.3)[0.37] B(19.2)[0.63] C(29.6)[0.77] A(8.5)(0.37) Southbound Left – Clover St B(16.5)[0.23] C(20.2)[0.25] A(7.0)[0.02] B(16.5)[0.23] C(22.4)[0.26] A(7.3)(0.02) Southbound Thru/right – Clover St C(27.1)[0.79] D(37.2)[0.88] A(9.3)[0.40] C(27.8)[0.80] D(43.0)[0.91] A(9.8)(.42) Overall LOS (delay) C(21.7)[0.79] C(29.6)[0.88] A(9.8)[0.40] C(22.4)[0.80] C(31.8)[0.91] B(10.6)(0.42)
As shown in the table above, the Levels of Service (LOS) at the studied intersections, taking into account the project, remain at the same or acceptable levels of service. See TIS section XI for additional discussion regarding intersection LOS.
Unsignalized Driveway Analysis for South Side Properties
The properties along the south side of Monroe Avenue between the I-590 ramps and Clover Street currently experience poor operating conditions when trying to enter and exit their site driveways. As an example of this, the proposed City Mattress driveway was analyzed. The site is projected to generate 11 entering trips and 15 exiting trips during the PM peak hour. The entering left turn movement currently operates at LOS “C” with delays on the order of 21 seconds per vehicle; while vehicles currently exiting the site to the west operate at LOS “F” with delays on the order of 55 seconds per vehicle.
The City Mattress generates the least number of vehicles when compared to the other uses on the south side of Monroe Avenue. Therefore, the applicants Traffic Engineers concluded that all the vehicles exiting the driveways would experience an “F” level of service.
FEIS January 2018 49
Connecting all of the south side properties will provide access to a signalized driveway providing both decreased delays as well as increased safety for traffic entering and exiting these connected sites.
Summary As demonstrated in the revised TIS, the proposed traffic mitigation, including the signal and proposed synchronization, is designed so that vehicles interior to the project will not have a significant detrimental impact on Monroe Avenue. This is accomplished by synchronizing the system so that people turning left out of the plaza can enter the corridor when there are breaks in the traffic. The primary impact to the corridor is the presence of the light itself.
Signal coordination and recommended changes to the peak hour cycle length at the Clover Street intersection will result in similar eastbound queuing on Monroe Avenue in the full development condition.
The applicants engineer and NYSDOT have asserted that traffic could operate better than existing conditions if limited access from the project site to Clover Street and Allens Creek Road were implemented. Such access points are no longer being proposed, and the applicant does not have legal rights to such access points within the BF-2 zoned land. The applicant does have access rights to the north through the approximately one acre of RLA zoned land, however they have agreed to preserve that land by a legal means acceptable to the Town as an amenity for the project.
Through implementation of the AMP, the Project sponsor is either improving, upgrading or eliminating certain conflicting movements. By reducing conflicting movements across the three (3) lanes of traffic on this section of the Monroe Avenue Corridor, the applicants Traffic Engineer has represented and NYSDOT agreed that there will be increased safety. Additionally, such improvements would reduce numerous existing unsafe movements along this stretch of Monroe Avenue. The future growth of this segment of the Monroe Avenue Corridor depends largely on achieving a better balance between the future transportation and land use demands within the corridor.
The applicant’s Traffic Engineer has represented that, taking into account the proposed improvements,
FEIS January 2018 50
the traffic capacity of Monroe Avenue and the surrounding study area is sufficient to accommodate the project at existing or otherwise acceptable levels of service with some minor exceptions. The project will result in delay and queue increases along Monroe Avenue during peak periods but full mitigation for these conditions is not feasible due to the corridor and interchange constraints. Outside of the peak hour, delays and levels of service will be better than those provided during the peak time of travel. It is reasonable to assume that some motorists who may be inconvenienced by delays during the peak hour will change their driving habits, so they are traveling the corridor off peak, similar to other heavily traveling corridors in the County.
A summary of the eastbound travel delays from Westfall Road to Clover Street is provided in Table 2.8: TABLE 2.8 – DELAY SUMMARY & COMPARISION PM Peak Hour EB Thru Movement Delay in seconds per vehicle Overall Intersection Delay in Seconds per Vehicle
Alt 1 - Preferred Alt 1 - Preferred Intersection: Background Conditions Alternative Background Conditions Alternative Clover 48.3 36 46.5 41.4 Site Driveway 0 28.6 0 22 West Driveway 1.7 4.9 590 NB 19.8 20.2 13.8 14.3 590 SB 30.5 32.8 13.8 14.5 Westfall 19 20.3 20.9 24.2 Total 117.6 139.6 95 121.3 Comparison to Alt 1: -22 -26.3 SAT Peak Hour EB Thru Movement Delay in seconds per vehicle Overall Intersection Delay in Seconds per Vehicle Alt 1 - Preferred Alt 1 - Preferred Intersection: Background Conditions Alternative Background Conditions Alternative Clover 40 43 37.3 40.3 Site Driveway 0 50.5 0 42.4 West Driveway 0 2.7 0 7.2 590 NB 18.9 24.5 12.5 14.5 590 SB 28.9 31.8 12.8 13.8 Westfall 14.3 14.3 12.6 12.5 Total 102.1 166.8 75.2 130.7 Comparison to Alt 1: -64.7 -55.5
FEIS January 2018 51
The applicant has represented that all of the alternatives studied would warrant the installation of a traffic signal and similar impacts as the current proposal. The project provides the opportunity to provide pedestrian and vehicular safety improvements to the corridor including the AMP and Trail improvement; neither of which could be required to be incorporated into the project without the use of incentive zoning. Because of the project, the average increase in delay for drivers traveling along the Monroe Avenue corridor from Westfall to Clover will be up to 22.0 seconds during PM peak times and 64.7 seconds on Saturday during the peak hour when compared to background conditions.
2.3 Alternatives Analysis Many of the public comments questioned the scope of the Alternatives Analysis specifically as it related to the preparation of an alternative which included the density allowed by code (70,400 sf) and the maximum allowable building size allowed by code.
The comments are looking to interject alternatives which are not included in the Town's Final Scope. Per the NYSDEC SEQR Handbook, “essentially, the final scope acts as a contract between the lead agency and project sponsor to give both certainty and reliance as to expectations for the actual EIS that is to be produced. Therefore, the regulations give the project sponsor discretion whether to include a later-raised issue in the [DEIS].” The SEQR Handbook, p. 109 (3d Ed. 2010); 6 NYCRR 617.8(h).
There is no requirement for a "baseline" alternative (in fact, utilizing an "as of right" plan as a baseline for SEQR review has been expressly rejected by the appellate courts. Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass'n v. Town Bd., 106 A.D.2d 868 (4th Dep't 1984).
The list of alternatives provided in the DEIS and SDEIS is far more extensive than that required by the Town Board in the approved Scope. The DEIS and SDEIS address those alternatives which the Town Board deemed reasonable to analyze, based on the subject site and the Town's development experience. Not all alternatives need be analyzed – there must be a "hard look" at reasonable alternatives but an EIS is to be "analytical, not encyclopedic." (Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 422 (1986).
FEIS January 2018 52
The Final Scope which was adopted by the Town Board on September 25, 2015 limited the alternatives to be analyzed to the following:
1. Development of site under the density limits permitted under the existing zoning designations OR amenities; 2. Alternative land uses allowed under existing zoning including residential, retail and other non-residential uses; 3. An investigation of design and layout alternatives, including a reduction in size of either the proposed grocery building and plaza building; elimination of some or all of the proposed drive through facilities; and alternative paving surfaces to provide green space at the project site consistent with the requirements of the Town Code; 4. Potential allowable future uses of the buildings for tenants other than those intended and disclosed, with a commensurate discussion of the potential greater or lesser impacts associated by such alternative relative to the proposed alternative; 5. No action alternative.
Each of the alternatives identified in the Final Scope have been sufficiently identified and comparatively analyzed in the DEIS (Section 6.1) and SDEIS (Section 7.0), as well as additional alternatives which the applicant has agreed to include.
The SDEIS does not consider the alternatives requested by some of the commenters (i.e., alternative proposed by the traffic engineers for Save Monroe Avenue, Inc. that seeks an alternative without conditional use permit or area variance relief that are routinely granted by the Town) because there is no obligation to consider all alternatives to the action. Id. at 417 (“Not every conceivable environmental impact, mitigating measure or alternative must be identified and addressed before a FEIS will satisfy the substantive requirements of SEQRA”). Moreover, the Town Board has already determined that the proper interpretation of what is permitted under the existing zoning designation is as set forth in Alternative 6.
FEIS January 2018 53
2.4 Truck Traffic Several people who commented during the public review expressed concerns over the frequency of truck traffic for deliveries to the retail plaza, namely the Whole Foods Store. Specific concerns included, potential conflict with pedestrians along internal access roads, noise, access, and impact on traffic.
The Whole Foods store has two loading berths compared to approximately 13 at the Wegman’s store in Pittsford. The applicant has represented that there will only be two truck deliveries per day to Whole Foods except for the holidays such as Thanksgiving and Christmas when there may be three. The first will most likely occur between 7am and 8am before the store opens. During this delivery, there will be very few cars and pedestrians in the plaza.
The second daily delivery will most likely occur mid-day and prior to 1pm, outside the peak hour of site activity. The access to the stores loading area has been designed to be outside of the primary parking area for Whole Foods. It is noted that the truck access will cross three pedestrian ways which will be striped and signed for safety. Given that there will only be two deliveries, the impact of the truck traffic on the site and in the corridor is negligible. Internal crosswalks, signage and sidewalks are provided to keep pedestrians safe.
The applicant has represented that, based on experience at other stores, deliveries to the balance of the retail stores will be accomplished utilizing small to medium size box trucks with many of the deliveries entering via hand cart through the front door.
The SDEIS also included an update to the site plan to provide 360-degree access around building two so deliveries could also enter from the north.
2.5 Phasing In response to comments received during the DEIS and SDEIS, project occupancy will be phased so that all 90,000 SF of leasable building area is not opened at the same time. The applicant has indicated that the following schedule will be followed as it relates to the occupancy of space within the plaza.
FEIS January 2018 54
Phase I: 0-6 Months – No more than 30,000 sf of space will be opened within the first 6 months measured from the first certificate of occupancy (C of O)
Phase II: 6-12 Months – Occupancy of the Whole Foods tenant (50,000 sf) will occur a minimum of 6 months after the first C of O.*
Phase III: 12 Months-24 Months - The remaining 10,000 sf of space will not be opened until at least one year after the first certificate of occupancy.
*No additional certificates of occupancy for other buildings in the development will be issued within 30 days of the date that the certificate of occupancy is issued for the Whole Foods Store.
Phasing Summary: Phase I – 30,000 sf maximum (30,000 sf total) Phase II – 50,000 sf maximum (80,000 sf total) Phase III – 10,000 sf (90,000 sf total) The phasing of the occupancy will help offset the potential increase in traffic sometimes associated with the opening of a retail store, especially when it is new to the region, therefor, reducing potential impacts with respect to traffic. While the occupancy will be phased, construction will occur in a single phase.
Note that the physical construction of the buildings within the plaza is not restricted by schedule but rather the occupancy and opening of those stores and associated traffic impacts as outlined in the phasing plan above.
2.6 Lot Coverage and Green Spaces When compared to existing conditions, the proposal represents a total increase of 21,780 sf of impervious area (buildings, pavement, and sidewalk). Within the BF-2 zoned portion of the property (7.04 acres), there is currently 6.26 acres of impervious surfaces with little landscaping or greenspace. Comparatively, under developed conditions, the area of
FEIS January 2018 55
impervious surface within the BF-2 is reduced to 6.16 acres. The reduction is a result of the inclusion of green space, landscaping and sustainable stormwater practices.
Nearly all the parking aisles include curbed green island at the endpoints with proposed shade trees. The introduction of shade trees to the property will reduce the heat island impact of the pavement and greatly improve the properties’ aesthetic value. Additionally, in front of Whole Foods, the Monroe Avenue right of way widens to accommodate the 590-entrance ramp. This area contains a significant green space between the building and edge of pavement (0.6 acres) which is not included in any of the lot coverage or greenspace calculations.
The overall increase in lot coverage is attributed to that portion of the Whole Foods parking lot which extends north into portions of the RLA zoning district and the employee parking behind building two. In each case, there is significant existing buffering to adjacent land uses. There is ample area in the RLA zoned land to develop a single-family residence or two and still provide a significant green buffer to the commercial use. The development proposal includes the installation of 6,500 sf of pervious pavement in the employee parking area, within the RLA zoned land to mitigate potential impact from paved surfaces.
The redevelopment of the site also provides the opportunity to introduce stormwater management and water quality treatment. Under existing conditions, runoff from the existing parking lots will flow into the receiving waters without pollutant removal or engineered release rates.
Stormwater runoff from the project will be designed to enter a series of treatment areas which are designed to filter the water removing suspended solids, phosphorus, nitrogen and other pollutants. The water will then be detained on site and released at a controlled rate which will decrease downstream flows. While the project does include an increase in impervious surfaces, there will be a net benefit to the environment as a result of the implementation of stormwater management. The Stormwater Management Plan will be fully compliant with the “Town Stormwater Management” code and the SPDES General Permit.
FEIS January 2018 56
3.0 Evaluation of Potential Environmental Impacts associated with changes to project since acceptance of the SDEIS
As a result of comments received during the DEIS and SDEIS, there have been several changes made to the proposal in an effort to improve the project and reduce its potential impact on the community. Those changes are explained in detail at Section 1.4 of this FEIS. Each of those changes has been analyzed in accordance with the approved scope to examine any potential impact resulting from the change which was not considered as part of the DEIS and SDEIS.
3.1 Modified Traffic Improvements
3.1a Geology, Topography and Soils – The addition of left turn signals will have no impact on geology, topography and soils.
3.1b Surface Waters/Stormwater Management – The addition of left turn signals will have no impact on surface waters and stormwater management. There will be minor ground disturbances associated with the installation of an additional signal pole.
3.1c Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology- The addition of left turn signals will have no impact on terrestrial and aquatic ecology.
3.1d Transportation – The addition of a signal light at the west entrance and eastbound and westbound turn arrows will improve traffic conditions along Monroe Avenue when compared to the results of the Traffic Impact Study contained within the SDEIS. Queue lengths for vehicles entering the plaza and the south side of Monroe Avenue will be reduced as shown in Section 2.2. The left turns also provide a safe alternative for accessing both sides of Monroe Avenue from Whole Foods Plaza and from the AMP area.
3.1e Land Use and Zoning – The addition of left turn signals will have no impact on land use and zoning.
FEIS January 2018 57
3.1f Community Services – The addition of left turn signals will provide a protected left turn which will improve traffic flow and the ability of emergency vehicles to access both the north and south sides of Monroe Avenue. Refer to Section 2.2 for updated queue lengths and level of service.
3.1g Visual Resources – The addition of left turn signals will have no impact on visual resources.
3.1h Cultural Resources – The addition of left turn signals will have no impact on cultural resources.
3.1i Noise – The addition of left turn signals will reduce the amount of time cars are idling when traveling both eastbound and westbound.
3.1j Construction Impacts – The addition of the light at the western entrance will be completed at the same time the light at the eastern entrance is installed. The construction will be scheduled so that one of the access points is open at all times during construction.
3.2 Additional Improvements to Auburn Trail
3.2a Geology, Topography and Soils – The improvements associated with the project now include an additional 7,500 linear feet of 10’ wide improved trail when compared to the applicant’s original proposal. The proposed trail expansion will be constructed within an RG&E easement along the former railroad bed from Highland Avenue south to the project site. Although the subject area does not have a formalized access agreement, it is currently an unimproved informal trail used by pedestrians for walking, running and biking. The area is relatively flat with some overgrown vegetation at the edges. The installation of the entire trail improvement will include general earthwork of approximately 2,000 yards of material which will be regraded, or a portion of which may be exported, and replaced with a stone base and stone dust surface. The existing topography allows the trail to be installed on an existing flat area so that it will not require significant grading or potential erosion. The trail will be graded so that it is pitched in the natural flow of drainage so that it is free of low spots and puddles.
FEIS January 2018 58
Trail improvements also include the installation of approximately 140’ of concrete sidewalk along the north right-of-way of Elmwood Avenue to connect to the existing sidewalk at Grosvenor Road as requested by MCDOT.
3.2b Surface Waters/Stormwater Management – The trail improvement will be installed to meet existing grade and will not alter drainage patterns. The trail will be stone dust in lieu of pavement. The construction of the trail is included in and covered by the projects stormwater pollution prevention plan. Per SPDES GP-0-02-15 Appendix B Table 1, Trails and Bike paths only require a SWPPP that includes Erosion and Sediment Controls. Preparation of a SWPPP and compliance with GP-0-02-15 will avoid any significant adverse impacts.
3.2c Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology- The area of the trail improvement is currently used by pedestrians, was formerly a railroad bed and contains no significant vegetation or aquatic ecology. The construction of the trail will require minimal clearing of vegetation that may include overhanging limbs that may be a hazard to the user.
3.2d Transportation – It is anticipated that the improvement will result in more residents using the trail in lieu of their vehicle to access destinations along the corridor which will result in less traffic. The Traffic Impact Study contained within this FEIS does not discount the number of vehicles as a result of this trail improvement and is therefore conservative.
3.2e Land Use and Zoning – The trail area is currently used by pedestrians except for a small portion east of Clover Street, there will be no change in land use other than that area which is currently overgrown with vegetation. Zoning does not prohibit the improvement.
3.2f Community Services – The improvement will make it easier for emergency services to reach pedestrians or bicycles along the trail. It is a positive impact for public safety, ie. Less crime on formal trails.
3.2g Visual Resources – The trail improvement will not impact any significant vegetation and will not significantly impact existing sight lines from adjoining properties. It is reasonable to expect additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the trail, who will be visible
FEIS January 2018 59
from adjoining properties. There is ample flat area to avoid significant grading and most of the trail is currently free of vegetation aside from some overgrowth along the edges.
3.2h Cultural Resources – The trail area was previously filled and disturbed when the railroad was original constructed. No additional impacts to cultural resources are anticipated.
3.2i Noise – There will be some temporary noise associated with construction. It is also reasonable to expect that as the trail usage increases there will be very minor noise generated from pedestrians and bicyclists. It will not be a significant change as people are currently using the trail area.
3.2j Construction Impacts – There will be minor impacts associated with construction. The trail will be installed using and excavator and trucks to import the stone and export the boxout material. Construction will adhere to the approved stormwater pollution prevention plan and be limited to approximately one month. The trail will be contained either within the RG&E lands or the State and County right-of-way. In the RG&E areas, the trail will be dedicated for public use once construction is completed. For areas inside the County and State right-of-way, the construction of the trail will be subject to highway work permits from the County and State depending on the jurisdiction of the roadway.
3.3 Access Management Plan
3.3a Geology, Topography and Soils – The increase in the scope of the access management plan includes lots containing area with existing pavement. There will be minor soil disturbance during regrading and boxout for the new pavement section.
3.3b Surface Waters/Stormwater Management – The additional areas included in the AMP are currently paved with impervious surfaces. Disturbance to those areas will comply with the approved stormwater pollution prevention plan.
3.3c Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology- The additional areas included in the AMP are currently paved with impervious surfaces. There will be no additional impact to terrestrial and aquatic ecology.
FEIS January 2018 60
3.3d Transportation – The additional lots included in the AMP will result in more vehicles being able to safely exit the south side of Monroe Avenue by utilizing the proposed traffic signal. As a result, there will be an increase in the northbound queue as vehicles wait to exit the site. More westbound vehicles will enter the site through the traffic signal; this condition is mitigated with the installation of the proposed left turn arrow. See Section 2.2 for queue lengths and level of service.
The inclusion of additional properties in the AMP will allow the Town to impose access modifications as the parcels on the south side of Monroe Avenue are redeveloped over time. Currently, vehicles exiting those parcels do not have a protected turning movement resulting in a level of service of “F” and an unsafe condition. Vehicles will have the opportunity to safely exit the parcels through the AMP and the proposed signal light.
3.3e Land Use and Zoning – The inclusion of the additional properties in the AMP will result in modifications to the parking and drive aisle arrangements. As a result, several additional incentives primarily dealing with parking and pavement setbacks will be required. They are set forth in this FEIS.
3.3f Community Services – The improvement will make it easier for emergency services to access properties on the south side of Monroe Avenue and safely exit the sites. The AMP will also allow for travel between properties without the need to exit onto Monroe Avenue creating a safer condition.
3.3g Visual Resources – The improvement to the AMP will have no impact on visual resources.
3.3h Cultural Resources – The additional areas included in the AMP are currently paved with impervious surfaces. There will be no additional impact to cultural resources.
3.3i Noise – The additional areas included in the AMP are currently paved with parking areas and drive aisles There will be no additional impact to noise which hasn’t been previously considered as part of the DEIS and SDEIS.
FEIS January 2018 61
3.3j Construction Impacts – There will be minor impacts associated with construction. Temporary impacts identified in the DEIS and SDEIS will extend approximately one week to account for the additional construction associated with the parcels added to the AMP. Construction will adhere to the approved stormwater pollution prevention plan.
3.4 Architecture
3.4a Geology, Topography and Soils – The building footprint is the same as presented in the DEIS and SDEIS. The removal of the mezzanine and change in façade will have no impact to geology, topography or soils.
3.4b Surface Waters/Stormwater Management – The building footprint is the same as presented in the DEIS and SDEIS. The removal of the mezzanine and change in façade will have no impact to surface waters or stormwater management.
3.4c Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology- The building footprint is the same as presented in the DEIS and SDEIS. The removal of the mezzanine and change in façade will have no impact to terrestrial and aquatic ecology.
3.4d Transportation – The removal of the mezzanine results in a smaller building and less traffic, approximately 4-10 trips during the peak hours. The reduction in trips is considered in the Traffic Impact Study contained within this FEIS.
3.4e Land Use and Zoning – The removal of the mezzanine reduces the overall density of the development. The change does not impact the required approvals associated with the required architectural review.
3.4f Community Services – The removal of the mezzanine and change in building façade will not impact community services.
3.4g Visual Resources – The removal of the mezzanine and change in building façade will not visual resources.
FEIS January 2018 62
3.4h Cultural Resources – The building footprint is the same as presented in the DEIS and SDEIS. The removal of the mezzanine and change in façade will have no impact to cultural resources.
3.4i Noise – The building footprint is the same as presented in the DEIS and SDEIS. The removal of the mezzanine and change in façade will have no impact to noise.
3.4j Construction Impacts – The building footprint is the same as presented in the DEIS and SDEIS. The removal of the mezzanine and change in façade will have no construction impacts.
FEIS January 2018 63
4.0 Substantive DEIS Public Comments Received & Lead Agency Responses
The Town Board has received hundreds of comments relating to the Project. Many comments did not relate to environmental impacts or other SEQRA-related issues. Many comments relating to environmental impacts and other SEQRA-related issues were not substantive. In an effort to be as responsive as possible to the public, the Town Board has addressed those non-environmental and otherwise non-substantive comments in this FEIS, even though it has no legal obligation to do so. The Town Board will rely on substantive environmental issues in making its SEQRA determination with respect to the Project, including the Findings Statement. The responses to technical questions provided below were done so with the assistance of the applicant’s technical consultants including SRF Associates and Passero Associates.
4.1 Responses to Written Comments Received May 22, 2017 1. Stantec Consulting Services Inc - Comments May 22, 2017 Description of the Proposed Action:
1. The Applicant needs to clearly state why they are not constructing the project in 2 phases, hence why this approach is not a viable alternative. Or, conversely, please analyze this as an alternative. Response: The applicant states that the lease agreement with the anchor tenant requires the project to be constructed in a single phase to mitigate potential impact from ongoing construction and to ensure actively within the plaza. Occupancy of the project will be phased to limit potential traffic impacts which may occur if the project was opened at the same time. Refer to Section 2.5 of this FEIS.
2. Page 45 – an exhibit/figure should be provided that depicts the access management areas and improvements in Groups 1, 2 and 3. This figure is in addition to Figure 5 (reference on page 50), which only depicts Group 1. Response: See section 1.4 and Figure 2.
FEIS January 2018 64
3. Bicycle parking is proposed in 2 locations that are remote from the commercial uses. Explain why the bicycle parking is not at that actual destination. Response: Bicycle parking has been added at the building entrances, see figure 1.
4. Variances/Incentives that may be required to institute the Access Management Plan (AMP) need to be identified so they can be included in the overall analysis. Response: See Section 1.5 which includes each of the lots within the AMP.
5. The AMP is subject to the Town’s subdivision process and should be listed as a needed Approval. Response: The developer has indicated that no subdivision is currently proposed for the implementation of the AMP.
6. The Access Management Plan description must identify which curb cuts should be modified to a right-in, right-out configuration or be eliminated entirely for all proposed phases of the Plan. The Access Management description must also identify who will be responsible for maintaining the access improvements. Will a business improvement association be created to insure proper ongoing maintenance of the shared access improvements? Response: The determination of which curb cuts will be eliminated, and which curbs curb cuts will be converted to right-in right-out will occur on a case by case basis as each of the lots within the AMP are redeveloped over the course of time. Ideally, the curbs cuts closer to the signal lights would be eliminated, especially to the west of the proposed signal light. The maintenance obligations of the property owners within the AMP will be provided in an agreement satisfactory to the Town. If no business improvement district is formed, the agreement will require that the maintenance will be provided by the property owners within the AMP.
7. The project sponsor has proposed providing an assurance bond to guarantee the construction of the access management improvements. The improvements should be guaranteed by letter of credit as required by the Town.
FEIS January 2018 65
Response: The form of financial assurance will be mutually agreed upon between the applicant and the Town.
8. Signage needs to be reviewed to confirm requirements of the Town Code are being met. If not, these variances to the Town Code need to be incorporated in the Incentive Zoning approval. Response: Signage is addressed with the requested incentives. See Section 1.5
9. Section 3.11 should also reference Appendix 12 of the SDEIS. Response: Comment noted.
10. Since the acceptance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the site plan has been modified. The “Incentives” presented in the DEIS should be reviewed and revised to insure all incentives are properly identified. Response: See Section 1.5.
Transportation: 1. We concur with the Applicant’s recommendation for the coordination of the new signal with the signal at Clover Street (AM/PM and Saturday peaks) and the I-590 ramps. Review and approval by the NYSDOT is required for this coordination and should be identified as an approval. Additionally, further consideration and investigation should be given to the coordination of the signals from Edgewood Avenue to Clover Street. The use of “Smart Technologies” should also be investigated. Response: The details regarding signal coordination between the proposed new traffic signal and other signals in the corridor will ultimately be determined by NYSDOT. However, an evaluation of the desirability of coordinating the intersections of Edgewood Avenue and Westfall Road with the I-590 ramps has been conducted by using Synchro 10. Synchro 10 provides a Coordinatability Factor (CF) which is a measure of how desirable it would be to coordinate intersections within a corridor. The CF ranges from 0 to 100 where any score above 80 indicates that the intersections should be coordinated to avoid blocking problems and any score below 20 indicates that the intersections are too far apart, or coordination is otherwise undesirable.
FEIS January 2018 66
The CF calculation considers factors such as travel time between intersections, how often the average traffic per signal cycle exceeds the distance to the adjacent intersection, how much of the traffic arrives in platoons from the adjacent intersection, actual arterial volumes, and compatibility of cycle lengths.
The PM peak hour CFs range from 85 to 103 between Edgewood Avenue and Clover Street which indicates that all of the signals should be considered for coordination. The AM peak hour CFs range from 76 between Edgewood Ave and Westfall Rd to 92-110 between Westfall Road and Clover Street. During the Saturday peak hour, the CFs range from 80 to 112 between Edgewood Avenue and Clover Street. Smart Technologies have been considered and dismissed by NYSDOT, which claims that viable and effective technology has not been proven in operation.”
2. What is the anticipated average delay (in seconds) that the travelling public can expect to see during the Saturday and PM peak hours because of the proposed development in comparison to existing and No Build conditions? Response: The traveling public on eastbound Monroe Ave between Westfall and Clover Street would expect to see an average delay increase of 22.0 seconds per vehicle during the PM peak hour and 64.7 seconds per vehicle during the Saturday peak hour when compared to background conditionals because of the proposed development. This increase in user delay is in comparison to 2016 existing conditions on Monroe Ave with previous development on the site (Mario’s Restaurant and Clover Lanes Bowling Alley which are currently closed).
3. The first paragraph on Page 9 of the TIS, and the third paragraph on Page 79 of the SDEIS state that “LOS F does not mean that traffic is not moving or that improvements are needed”. A LOS F or a Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio of greater than 1.0 does indicate the need to correct a capacity deficiency. There were several instances where the reported LOS was D or E, but the V/C ratio was greater than 1.0 or greater, which based on the HCM 2010 always indicates a LOS F. It should be acknowledged that is not feasible to correct the capacity deficiency. This should be addressed further in the FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 67
Response: The HCM 6th Edition (2016) provides the following definitions for LOS F:
Urban streets (Chapter 17) “LOS F is characterized by flow at extremely low speed. Congestion is likely occurring at the boundary intersections, as indicated by high delay and extensive queuing. The travel speed is 30% or less of the base free flow speed, or the volume-to-capacity ratio is greater than 1.0.”
Signalized Intersections (Chapter 19) “LOS F describes operations with control delay exceeding 80 s/veh or a volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor, and the cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue.
A lane group can incur delay less than 80 s/veh when the volume-to-capacity ratio exceeds 1.0. This condition typically occurs when the cycle length is short, the signal progression is favorable, or both. As a result, both the delay and volume-to-capacity ratio are considered when lane group LOS is established. A ratio of 1.0 or more indicates cycle capacity is fully utilized and represents failure from a capacity perspective (just as delay in excess of 80 s/veh represents failure from a delay perspective).”
Nowhere in the Manual does it state that LOS F or a volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0 indicate the need to correct a capacity deficiency. If this were the case, our roadways and intersections would be large seas of asphalt and most unsignalized intersections would be signalized. Instead the need to correct capacity deficiencies is left to the discretion of the controlling agency or community. Many communities choose to live with capacity deficiencies as a trade-off for other benefits such as shorter crossing distances for pedestrians, space for bicycle travel, and green space.
FEIS January 2018 68
Also, see comment 4 below.
4. The proposed site would add additional peak hour trips to Monroe Avenue, impacting existing peak period congestion and queuing experienced within the study area. Large-scale roadway improvements to mitigate the impact of the site, such as additional travel lanes are not possible, nor recommended in this area. Therefore, mitigation measures should include strategies to maximize existing capacity by promoting other modes of travel, enhancing local connections, and utilizing technology. These strategies include:
• Well-defined pedestrian and bicycle connections to/from the site, as well as within the site. Connections between external sidewalks, pathways, and bicycle lanes and the “front door” of site businesses should be clearly defined and separated from vehicle traffic wherever possible. Bike racks and/or lockers should also be provided near storefronts.
While the applicant is proposing most of these items, they are not to be considered amenities, but rather mitigation for external impacts that are not mitigatable. Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS for a summary of the proposed amenities.
• Provide bus shelters (not just stops) are now proposed at the new relocated bus stops. They need to be linked to the site via well-defined pedestrian pathways (sidewalks and crosswalks) that clearly and safely connect the “front door” of site businesses with nearby transit. Again, these are to be considered as a mitigation measure and not as an amenity. Response: Well defined pedestrian access from the bus stop to the destinations within the site is included with the Site Plan. See also Section 6.
5. The proposed plan shows a single left-turn bay that is striped past the unsignalized driveway, which is intended to serve both left-turn movements. This configuration is undesirable from a safety standpoint, as a vehicle in the left-turn lane destined for the signal may not anticipate a vehicle in front of them stopping in the left-turn bay to enter the unsignalized driveway.
FEIS January 2018 69
Furthermore, it would likely have a negative impact on the capacity of the left-turn bay as vehicles that are intending to turn left at the signal may get stuck behind vehicles waiting to turn left at the unsignalized location. In addition, queuing from the signal may block the ability for vehicles to utilize the unsignalized access. Consideration should be given to separating the left-turn bays for the two movements. However, a queue analysis will need to be conducted to determine if the resulting shorter left-turn bay would be adequate to accommodate peak period queuing at the signalized intersection. Response: According to the queue report provided in the TIS, the eastbound left turn 95th percentile queue length at the signalized intersection is 118 ft and the average queue is 101 ft during the PM peak hour. The left turn bay storage provided is 100 ft. The queue analysis results indicate that the majority of the peak hour (>75%), the left turn bay provided will be sufficient to store the anticipated volume of left turning vehicles. This is based upon the trip distribution and trip generation projections which are noted to be over-estimated and conservative. A 100 ft left turn bay will be sufficient and the lanes can be striped as separate lanes and not one continuous lane. However, it is noted that the design of the lane striping is ultimately up to the NYSDOT.
6. NYSDOT has required that the new signalized intersection provide permitted left-turns rather than protected-permitted. However, providing permitted left-turns would lead to queue spillback, which would block through lanes negating the intended benefit of the permitted lefts to the through movements, and would likely lead to more aggressive/risky driving behavior given the limited gaps in traffic during the peak periods. For example, the PM peak hour model shows that queues for the westbound left-turn movement into the south side driveway would extend through the Clover Street intersection, spilling back into the through lanes. Furthermore, all adjacent signalized intersections within the commercialized corridor of Monroe Avenue have left-turn lanes with protected-permitted left-turn movements.
For these reasons, we recommend that the need for “protected-permitted” left turn lanes be furthered considered by the Applicant and NYSDOT.
FEIS January 2018 70
Response: The project has been revised to include protected eastbound and westbound left turns as explained in Section 2.2 of this FEIS. 7. We are opposed to centralized bicycle rack locations. The development should be pedestrian/bike friendly to be livable. Forcing the site to be “walk only” is not good planning practice, not sustainable, nor enforceable. Cyclists will want to park their bike as close to the building entrances as possible for safety and security reasons. We are in concurrence with the additional bike rack at the coffee shop location.
Additional racks should be provided immediately outside each retail building, hopefully with cover from the elements. Bike racks and other cycling amenities are not to be considered as “amenities”; as they are needed to accommodate all users and should be considered as a required element of all sites. Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS. Bike racks are proposed at the entrances to each of the buildings as shown on the site plan, Figure 1. In addition to those racks, the project also includes a more elaborate bike rack along the proposed trail improvements. That area is designed to serve the community and people resting while using the trail and not necessarily the patrons of the plaza. The availability of bicycle racks is not a mandated requirement of the Town Zoning Law. Rather, it is discretionary with the Planning Board. The offer of bicycle racks by the applicant as part of incentive zoning means that the bike racks would become a zoning requirement, not a discretionary Planning Board right. Accordingly, the Planning Board discretionary authority would be unnecessary or duplicative. Moreover, the Comment letter of the Planning Board dated August 1, 2016) does not specifically indicate that bicycle racks will be required.
8. The proposed Auburn Trail improvements should be continued to Allens Creek Road and Clover Street. Figures 3 and 4 should be revised to show this trail alignment. We are in concurrence with the adjacent crossings along Allens Creek Road and on Clover Street. In addition to the warning signs and crosswalks, the following additional elements are recommended based on the high speeds recorded along these streets:
• Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (solar powered) – pedestrian actuated flashing beacons; and
FEIS January 2018 71
• Sidewalk to the next immediate intersections/cross streets north and south of both crossings. This will fulfill a goal to provide safe pedestrian linkages among neighborhoods, commercial districts, and recreation areas. Response: The extent of the trail improvements has been extended. Refer to Figure 3. Sidewalks are not proposed along Allens Creek Road or Clover Street.
9. The traffic signal at the Plaza entrance along with any pedestrian crossings are not to be considered “amenities” but rather as required mitigation measures for the transportation network to accommodate all users. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
10. We recommend that the Project Sponsor coordinate with NYSDOT to institute high visibility crosswalks at the subject intersections due to the congestion and volume of traffic along the Monroe Avenue corridor. High visibility crosswalks may not be the standard specifications; however, they are used in the region including on Monroe Avenue east of this area. Response: The applicant is not averse to high visibility crosswalks and will work with the NYSDOT as suggested.
11. The applicant should consider the use of off-site employee parking and shuttle service to maximize available parking during the holidays. Response: The future tenants may consider offsite parking and shuttles during peak periods if there is an issue with parking capacity. The anchor tenant (Whole Foods) and the applicant do not believe this would occur often, if ever as ample parking is provided on site.
12. Page 109, “Monroe Avenue at Clover Street”. It is stated that all the decreases in levels of service can be mitigated through optimization of signal cycle length. Please elaborate on how effective this mitigation would truly be. Also, if the NYSDOT does not allow for optimization of signal length cycle lengths, how else might this impact be mitigated?
FEIS January 2018 72
Conversely, if not allowed by the NYSDOT, would this be an unavoidable traffic impact at this intersection? Response: This mitigation helps reduce potential impacts as shown in the LOS results and simulations. This is explained in greater detail on page 24 of the TIS in the discussion relating to coordination of the Clover Street signal with the new signal at the site driveway. Specifically, the Clover St signal currently operates at a cycle length of 140 seconds during the PM peak hour. Discussions with NYSDOT while they were adjusting the signal timings to accommodate the existing traffic and ongoing malfunctions indicated that they felt a shorter cycle length would be more appropriate, however they went with 140 seconds for the time being expecting that this would change in the future if the Whole Foods project were to move forward. The Whole Foods project proposes a cycle of 120 seconds during the PM peak hour to facilitate more efficient operations and coordination with the proposed signal at the new driveway. In fact, the NYSDOT review letter dated May 19, 2017 states “We will look to minimize impacts through signal timing and optimization of a signal progression along the corridor…”
13. Page 109, “Monroe Avenue at the Proposed Signal”. How long will the “moderate to long delays during peak hours” be for motorists leaving the proposed site? Response: The delays for southbound traffic exiting the proposed east site driveway are projected as follows: AM peak hour exiting left turn = 39.8 seconds per vehicle, exiting through/right turn = 0.4 seconds per vehicle; PM peak hour exiting left turn = 87.2 seconds per vehicle, exiting through/right turn = 4.3 seconds per vehicle; SAT peak hour exiting left turn = 132.5 seconds per vehicle, exiting through/right turn = 3.6 seconds per vehicle.
Community Services: 1. We recommend that incorporation of an emergency vehicle pre-empt for the new signal. Response: The applicant will coordinate with NYSDOT and provide the emergency vehicle pre-empt if permitted by the NYSDOT.
FEIS January 2018 73
2. It is stated on page 135 that improved traffic improvements on Monroe Avenue has the potential to reduce the number of responses by the police department associated with motor vehicle accidents. How many accidents typically occur in each year during the peak hours, and how many of those required emergency service responders? Response: According to the 5-Year trend report provided by the Brighton Police Department on July 6, 2016, there were 58 accidents in the “Monroe / Clover area” in 2016, down from 111 in 2013, before the completion of the NYSDOT Safety project in 2104. Of those 58, 11 included injuries with emergency response.
3. Pages 136 and 138, please provide letters from Brighton Volunteer Ambulance and Brighton Fire Department confirming that no additional impacts on providing services is anticipated. Response: Comments from the Brighton Fire Department confirming no additional impact is provided as part of the comments in Section 4.5 of this FEIS.
Construction Impacts: 1. Please elaborate on what is meant by “dust will be monitored daily during construction and will be controlled with water on an as needed basis”. Will there be a water truck or tank available on site throughout the construction period? Response: Dust control will be provided in accordance with the approved SWPPP and may include on site water trucks if needed for compliance.
2. Please provide more specific information on what is envisioned to be contained in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and how it will be monitored and enforced throughout construction. Response: The SWPPP is provided at Appendix 6 of this FEIS. The site will be monitored in accordance with the NYSDEC General Permit and Town of Brighton regulations. At a minimum, the contractor will have qualified personnel on site at all times, the applicant will hire a third party Professional inspector and the Town’s Stormwater Officer will monitor the site, all to ensure compliance with the approved SWPPP.
FEIS January 2018 74
3. Please expand upon the construction related traffic impacts/mitigation narrative. How many trucks might be expected for disposing of waste, import and export of fill material, construction workers, etc.? How will construction staging areas be provided throughout the site for each major phase of construction? Response: A summary of the number of trucks needed for earthwork is provided at Appendix 8. The staging area is depicted on the Grading and Erosion Control Plan. It is anticipated that at peak times there will be approximately 100 workers. The workers will arrive prior to the peak hour of AM traffic and leave the site prior to the PM peak hour.
4. Page 22 – Indicate that a NYSDOT Highway Work Permit and an application to install and operate a traffic signal will be required along with a yearly maintenance fee and energy costs. These should also be added to the list in the Approvals section. Response: Comment noted, the applicant will obtain a Highway Work Permit prior to performing work in the State right-of-way.
5. Please describe how the site will be secured during construction. Response: The site will be secured with a chainlink fence installed around the perimeter of the project.
Alternatives: 1. When a conditional use permit is granted for a building area greater than 20,000 sf the side setback requirement increases to 25 ft. Therefore, Alternative 6 needs to be modified accordingly. Response: The setback illustrated on the Alternative 6 site plan has been adjusted as suggested.
Miscellaneous: 1. Page 88, second bullet: There is a reference to see Figure 3 for the 2,500-sf area of “low to moderate” petroleum impacts. This figure is provided in Appendix 9, Figure 3. Please correct this reference in the FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 75
Response: Comment noted. The figure is provided in Appendix 9, Figure 3 of the SDEIS.
FEIS January 2018 76
2. Brighton Supervisor William Moehle- Comments May 22, 2017
1. In response to my previous comment concerning the value of Phase 1 of the Access Management Plan ("AMP"), the developer assumed that the value of the AMP is equal to its cost. The developer also assumed that the value of the trail work and other claimed amenities is equal to its cost of construction/installation. The Town Board will conduct its own evaluation of the value of amenities, and will discount for any portion it determines to be mitigation (e.g. traffic signal/crosswalk), or if other factors reduce its actual value (such as the fact that trail improvements not connecting to any street or trail access off developer's own property have little value as an amenity). Response: Substantial time and effort was expended by the developer in negotiating with the stakeholders on the south side of Monroe Avenue to (1) obtain their consent to allow the addition to their properties (and the attendant tax expense increase), (2) reconfiguring of their properties to allow the cross-access and (3) for all but the most outlying property, allowing further traffic from other properties on their site. Given the valuation of amenities (as balanced against Incentives) are not a “dollar for dollar” or calculated by some other formula; the value of amenities should not be limited to a mathematical calculation, but should be reviewed in the context of overall value to the community (better access management off-site and enhancement of pedestrian/bicycle availability for the general public). See also Section 1.6.
2. There has been no analysis of any traffic benefit or detriment from the completion of Phase 2 of the AMP. Please provide. Response: As described in section 1.4, the scope of the AMP has been significantly increased to include a total of eight parcels extending from City Mattress to the Country Inn and Suites. All eight parcels will now have access to the proposed signal light. An updated analysis is provided at Appendix 7. By including the additional parcels in the scope of the proposed improvements, the project improves safety by allowing people exiting and entering the AMP to utilize the new signal light for left turns. This safety improvement includes the additional parcels added to the AMP.
FEIS January 2018 77
3. During the Synchro simulation, developer was asked about traffic delays caused by drivers making left turns into Clover Commons parking lot, just east of Clover Street. The answer was that the model artificially added traffic to simulate occasional delays caused by such turns. Since it is acknowledged that such left turns exacerbate traffic delays, because the proximity of that left turn to the left turn lane from westbound Monroe to southbound Clover makes it difficult for traffic left turning into that plaza to exit the through lane into the left turn lane, and since that plaza and the next plaza, share an internal drive, please discuss an amendment to the Access Management Plan that would eliminate the Clover Commons driveway on Monroe, or examine egress alternatives such as right only egress, moving the access point to the next plaza to the east on Monroe, and discuss the potential impact that would have in easing traffic delays for eastbound traffic on Monroe at the Clover-Monroe intersection.
Response: The existing Clover Commons driveway on Monroe Ave is located approximately 115 ft. east of Clover St; this is considered to be within the “functional boundary” of the intersection. As noted, under existing conditions, eastbound left turning vehicles typically cannot use the westbound left turn lane for Clover Street as it is being used by westbound left turning vehicles.
This distance allows for approximately 4 to 5 cars to queue in the eastbound through lane behind a motorist waiting to turn left into the Plaza. Observations of existing traffic indicate that this can be problematic, particularly during the peak hours, as queuing sometimes spills back into the Monroe Ave/Clover St intersection. The proposed Whole Foods development is projected to add approximately 74 eastbound through vehicles and 40 westbound through vehicles to the 1,666 eastbound vehicles and 1,775 westbound vehicles that currently pass this driveway during the PM peak hour. If this plaza is re- developed in the future, restricting and/or closing this driveway would certainly improve operating conditions and safety at the Monroe Ave./Clover St. intersection.
FEIS January 2018 78
4. The applicant has not shown how the Saturday synchronization between I-590 lights and the new light on Monroe would work, through the Synchro simulation or otherwise. The applicant should explain why it believes that optimum synchronization is binary between the new light and a single light, in this case, Clover Street at PM rush and 1-590 on Saturday. Response: The details regarding signal coordination between the proposed new traffic signal and other signals in the corridor will ultimately be determined by NYSDOT. The signal at Clover St must operate at a different cycle length than the signals at the I-590 ramps due to the differences in phasing and traffic volumes. Therefore, Clover St cannot be coordinated with the I-590 ramps. Unless, the NYSDOT chooses to install interactive demand based signalization, which it has sated it will not do. This results in a choice for the new signal, it can be coordinated with either the Clover Street signal or the I-590 signal but not both at the same time.
For the purposes of analysis for the TIS, it was determined through an iterative review process with the NYSDOT and Stantec that the best corridor operations are provided when the new signal is coordinated with the Clover Street signal during the AM and PM peak hours and with the I-590 signals to the west during the Saturday peak hour.
The other signals to the west at Westfall Road and Edgewood Avenue are not currently coordinated with the I-590 ramps.
In addition, mitigation for this project will provide upgrades to the signal at Clover Street as well as conduit connecting the new signal to both the signal at Clover Street as well as the I-590 ramps. The actual phasing, timing, and coordination settings will be determined by NYSDOT after the new signal is in operation.
FEIS January 2018 79
5. Please discuss the impact of the new light allowing traffic to turn left from Monroe Avenue onto 590 South instead of using the existing right turn onto 590 that is northwest of Allens Creek on PM rush backups on Westfall, eastbound at Monroe, and whether elimination of that turn and the elimination of the left turn and the light or at least the shortening of the red cycle on eastbound Monroe would significantly reduce congestion and delays at the Westfall/Monroe intersection. Response: The new signal at the I-590 SB on/off ramp intersection with Monroe Avenue was installed to provide controlled access for the right turn movement to flow from the off- ramp on Monroe Avenue. Unfortunately, this requires the eastbound traffic on Monroe Avenue to stop to allow this movement to proceed. The westbound left turn movement entering the on-ramp only has a green arrow when the northbound right turn movement from the ramp also has a green arrow. Elimination of the traffic signal would allow the eastbound traffic on Monroe Avenue to continue through the intersection to the signal at the next ramp. However, the right turns exiting the ramp would have difficulty entering Monroe Avenue which the NYSDOT believes may lead to queuing on the ramp that could then back up onto the I-590 southbound mainline. They have not provided modeling to support this assertion. Signage directing right turning traffic to use two lanes would protect against queues backing into the mainline
FEIS January 2018 80
6. How, if at all, has the reconfiguration of the proposed Starbucks drive-through affected the number of parking spaces? Response: The original site plan contained within the accepted DEIS included 19 spaces for Starbucks, the revised site plan provided as part of the SDEIS included 16 for a difference of three spaces.
The plaza as a whole conforms with the Town’s parking requirements.
7. Pages 11 and 16 of the SDEIS continue to refer to the AMP as an amenity offered by the developer. Only Phase 1 of the AMP is offered by the developer as an amenity. Response: See response to comment 2 and also Sections 1.4 and 1.6.
8. Will any of the area affected by the soil contamination identified in the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, completed by LaBella Associates in June 2016, be disturbed by any of the construction work required for the construction of the proposed Whole Foods Plaza? If so, how will the impacts of disturbance be mitigated? If not, what steps will developer take to ensure that it is not disturbed in the future without mitigation of impacts? Response: Yes, portions of the area with petroleum impacts will be disturbed during the installation of sidewalks and pavement. The project includes and a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) and a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) which prescribe the necessary procedures for disposing and mitigating contaminated soil if it is identified during construction with oversight by the NYSDEC if necessary. See appendix 10 of the SDEIS for further details.
9. Page 14 also references crosswalks on Clover and Allens Creek connecting to the Auburn Trail. The developer does not propose constructing the Trail to connect with either crosswalk; at a minimum, the developer should commit to constructing and maintaining the Trail from Clover Street to Aliens Creek Road. Response: The scope of the trail improvements has been increased since the SDEIS was accepted.
FEIS January 2018 81
As outlined in section 1.4, the trail improvements are proposed to extend from approximately 1 ½ miles north of the site at Highland Avenue south across Allens Creek Road, through the subject property, across Clover Street and finally East to the Pittsford Town line. The developer will maintain the trail at the locations where the trail is on the applicant’s property.
10. A discussion of traffic mitigation on page 17 of the SDEIS incorrectly states that the Plaza already exists. Response: The discussion in the SDEIS erroneously referred to the existing development (Mario’s, Clover Lanes, etc.) as a Plaza.
11. Page 18 of the SDEIS notes that the AMP will allow vehicles to travel between the five parcels included in Phase 1 of the AMP without reentering Monroe Ave. Phase 1 of the AMP should include interior infrastructure, including safety infrastructure, to allow pedestrians to travel safely between the five parcels. Response: Sidewalks have been included with the updated AMP as depicted at Figure 2.
12. Page 19 of the SDEIS lists mitigations for the impact of additional pedestrian volume along Monroe Ave. The addition of crosswalks for a trail that the developer does not propose to extend to those streets is neither an amenity nor a mitigation. Please specify which curb cuts are being eliminated on Allens Creek and Clover. Response: See response to comment 9. No existing curb cuts on Allen’s Creek Road or Clover Street are proposed to be removed. The trail improvements do include the installation of bollards to prevent vehicles from attempting to enter the plaza via the trail. Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
13. The discussion of Amenities on page 27 and elsewhere in the SDEIS, incorrectly characterizes items that are elsewhere identified as mitigation measures, such as the traffic signal/crosswalk, as amenities.
FEIS January 2018 82
It also dramatically overvalues or overstates other claimed amenities, such as claiming the "Construction of a safe and new Auburn Trail System," when in fact, the developer is proposing merely trail improvements on its own property, not connected to any other property, trail or street/sidewalk. Response: See response to comment 9 and Sections 1.4 and 1.6.
14. Bicycle racks should be placed immediately adjacent to buildings. Response: Bike racks are shown immediately next to buildings on the site plan provided at Figure 1.
15. What is the basis for the statement on page 47 that 2787, 2815 and 2835 Monroe Ave. are not affected by queuing at a light, when the simulation shows ques backing up to those properties? The developer should provide analysis of the benefits/detriments of completing the AMP, including an addition of the AMP to consolidate curb cuts immediately east of the Clover/Monroe intersection. The developer has also alleged an informal agreement with the owner of 2425 Clover Street for cross access, in exchange for drainage maintenance. A written agreement should be produced for this "informal agreement" as well as for other "private agreements" referenced on Page 65. Response: The statement is intended to reference queues from the proposed signal, not the signal at Clover St. and Monroe Avenue. When the eastbound traffic is stopped at the new light, vehicles exiting the referenced properties will have a “gap” which allows them to exit the property. There is not a formal agreement available with the owner of 2425 Clover Street, an access easement will be provided that includes the eight properties within the AMP prior to final site plan approval.
16. On Page 59, developer makes a statement that the amenity of trail improvements provides a linkage from Clover Street to Allens Creek Road because improvements are only proposed on developer’s property, this is not an accurate statement. Response: See response to Comment 9.
FEIS January 2018 83
17. On page 75, in the discussion of holiday peak traffic volumes, the statement is made that a sizeable increase in design requirements would be necessary to accommodate "a very few hours of the year." Later in the same paragraph, the elevated traffic volumes during the Christmas season accounts for "approximately 10% of the year and should not be used for design purposes." 10% of the year is very different from "a very few hours of the year," and if conditions are likely to persist for that extended a period, they should be examined. What is the basis for the statement in the same paragraph that traffic volumes increase by 1015% during peak holiday season? Response: The statement that elevated traffic volumes during the Christmas season accounts for “approximately 10% of the year and should not be used for design purposes” refers to the 5-6-week time period between late November and early January. A 5-6-week time period is approximately 10% of the 52-week long year. Hence a generalization was made that indicates this time period accounts for 10% of the year. Traffic volumes are elevated during peak shopping time periods which are considerably less than a full 24- hour time period. Even if it was assumed that traffic volumes are elevated for 12 of the 24- hour day, this would reduce the percentage by half resulting in elevated volumes for 5% of the year. It is likely that traffic volumes are elevated for even less time than this.
The following charts show the comparison of holiday traffic to other times of the year as well as the overall average traffic volume for the year during the Friday PM peak hour and Saturday midday peak hour for the time period from July 2014 through June 2015.
This data was obtained from NYSDOT at their continuous count station located on Monroe Avenue just east of French Road. While the actual traffic volumes may not correspond to the volumes in the Monroe Avenue segment between I-590 and Clover Street, the fluctuations in volumes from day-to-day on the corridor will be similar if not identical.
FEIS January 2018 84
The charts indicate that traffic volumes during holiday time periods are not significantly different from traffic volumes during other times of the year. Traffic volumes utilized in the TIS were obtained from various sources and represent many different times of the year including the end of January, early February, early March, early June, and early and mid- October.
Traffic Count Fridays 5PM-6PM Monroe Ave Eastbound - East of French Rd 2500
2000
1500
1000 Volume
500
0 7/4/14 7/18/14 8/1/14 8/15/14 8/29/14 9/12/14 9/26/14 10/10/14 10/24/14 11/7/14 11/21/14 12/5/14 12/19/14 1/2/15 1/16/15 1/30/15 2/13/15 2/27/15 3/13/15 3/27/15 4/10/15 4/24/15 5/8/15 5/22/15 6/5/15 6/19/15
Date
Note: Average Volume = 1644 vph
FEIS January 2018 85
Traffic Count Saturdays 12PM-1PM Monroe Ave Eastbound - East of French Rd 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 Volume 600 400 200 0 7/5/14 7/19/14 8/2/14 8/16/14 8/30/14 9/13/14 9/27/14 10/11/14 10/25/14 11/8/14 11/22/14 12/6/14 12/20/14 1/3/15 1/17/15 1/31/15 2/14/15 2/28/15 3/14/15 3/28/15 4/11/15 4/25/15 5/9/15 5/23/15 6/6/15 6/20/15
Date
Note: Average Volume = 1488 vph
FEIS January 2018 86
3. Louise Novros, Town Councilperson- Comments May 22, 2017 • The proposed 50,000 sq. ft. Whole Foods Market is too large. I have not seen an analysis of the average size of existing Whole Foods Markets throughout the country and whether a 30,000-sq. ft. store is just as viable as one of the size they are proposing. The brand name is what draws the people, not the size of a store. Response: The lease the applicant has with Whole Foods dictates the size of the store. The tenant does not believe they can sufficiently compete with the major retailer down the street if they must compromise the footprint and amenities in the store.
The proposed Whole Foods is the same size as the store recently completed in Buffalo (50,000 sf). The applicant has agreed to phase the occupancy of the project as explained at Section 2.5 in an effort to minimize potential impacts.
• Have the developers actually approached Whole Foods to discuss the size? Response: See response above.
• Will the Whole Foods Market be a 24-hour a day operation? If so, the traffic, noise and lighting pollution can have a significant effect to residential neighbors. Response: No, the hours of operation are 8 am to 10 pm.
• The impact created by having the delivery trucks traverse the parking lot to get to their loading docks is very concerning for the safety of pedestrians. A new pattern for truck traffic within the development should be considered. Response: There will only be an estimated two truck deliveries per day for the anchor tenant with the first occurring prior to the store opening and the daily delivery occurring prior to 1pm. The deliveries for the remainder of the plaza tenants are expected to be small box trucks with many loading through the front entrance.
FEIS January 2018 87
• Alternate ideas for parking should be considered. The whole project could easily be seen as a huge parking lot with a few stores on it. Turning the building so that the entrance is not facing Monroe Avenue or Clover would add to the enhancement of green space being seen from Monroe Avenue instead of a parking lot. The parking could then be put behind this large building.
Perhaps an underground garage should be explored. Response: The presence of rock prohibits the installation of an underground garage. The building could be rotated so that more parking is located to the north, however, in that scenario the back of the building would be facing Monroe Avenue. Also, the building is approximately 210’ x 260’ meaning rotating the building would only reduce the parking area by 50’ or the equivalent of 5 spaces in width.
Since Mario’s was built, the entire frontage of the parcel has been parking with little to no landscaping. The proposal replaces almost 50% of that parking with buildings built close to the right of way as prescribed on the Comprehensive Plan. The parking areas that are constructed will have landscaped island and trees to provide a much more aesthetic view from Monroe Avenue that exists today.
• Installation of a traffic signal on Monroe Avenue, with pedestrian controls, would be an aide to entering and leaving the market; however, it would be a clear detriment to those traveling Monroe Avenue with other destinations in mind. Simply adjusting the timing of the lights will not be a successful solution, especially if a Pedestrian Pushbutton is added to the signal. This would add to the likelihood of throwing the synchronization off, as affirmed from members of the DOT. As the DOT representatives also pointed out, synchronization is always a problem when there are many signals in a row on an avenue. We have been dealing with this same situation for years at 12-Corners in Brighton as well as at the corner of Westfall Road and Winton. Response: The signal synchronization recovers in approximately 2 cycles, or less than 4 minutes.
FEIS January 2018 88
Access Points to the Project • It is not enough to say that the developers “agree” not to use the access points to or from Allens Creek Road or Clover Street. The developers must come up with a permanent, physical barrier to these access points to ensure that they will not be used. Response: The Trail Plan provided at Figure 3 includes a physical barrier (bollards) at the trail.
Drive-Thru Starbucks • A more detailed traffic study should be done on the effects of internal and external traffic from a drive-through coffee shop within a mall site, as well as on adjacent major roads leading to the mall. Response: The Traffic Impact study included internal queue calculations so the impact on the drive thru could be understood. As a result of that study, the location of the entrance to the parcel was relocated.
• A study should be made regarding increased pollution from idling cars waiting at any drive-through. Response: Exhaust from idling cars is negligible when compared to the local traffic. Additionally, many new cars automatically turn off when stationary.
• A determination on the effects that drive-thru customers have on the overall economy of a mall since they don’t leave their vehicles to “shop”. Response: The Starbucks and associated vehicles are only a small portion of the overall development. There is other retail which will promote shoppers to use the plaza.
• A determination should be made as to a reasonable evening closing time for a drive-thru so that neighbors would not be impacted by the added noise of the ordering process. Response: The drive thru will close at 10 pm.
FEIS January 2018 89
Strip Mall • Eleven or more stores for this proposed “strip mall” is too large for this project. Response: Please refer to density discussion provided at Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
• We have never had a description as to what type of businesses are being sought for this space. There is a huge difference in projected traffic between having a few sit-down restaurants and a couple of clothing stores as opposed to an outlet mall or fast-food restaurants (which would probably also require a drive-thru). Response: The business will fall under the category of general retail as regulated by the Town Zoning Ordinance. Any other use, such as a fast food restaurant if proposed, would be subject to additional environmental review.
• We have never been told how many stores per building they are proposing. Response: The number of stores per building would be determined by the tenants interested in the site. For example, if a tenant wanted the whole building there may only be one store.
Amenities It appears to me that none of the amenities listed in the SDEIS are really amenities, but instead mitigations, as state below:
• Improving one block of a multi-mile trail does not improve the trail unless the adjoining portions of the trail are scheduled to be improved as well. Response: The scope of the trail improvements has been increased since the SDEIS was accepted. As outlined in section 1.4, the trail improvements are proposed to extend from approximately1 ½ miles north of the site at Highland Drive south across Allens Creek Road, through the subject property, across Clover Street and finally East to the Pittsford Town line. The developer will maintain the trail at the locations where the trail is on the applicant’s property.
FEIS January 2018 90
• Installation of a traffic signal with Pedestrian Pushbuttons on Monroe Avenue would be a necessity to aid in accessing to the project. Response: Refer to Section 1.6.
• The preservation of open space as a buffer to adjacent neighbors are always expected by the Town as a mitigation for new developments. Response: Preservation of open space may be expected but is not mandated. The applicant, as part of this Incentive Zoning proposal is forgoing residential development on the residentially zoned lands. The maintenance of this property as a comprehensive "green buffer" should be considered an amenity. Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
• Adding to the multimodal access to the site by bike racks cannot be considered an amenity since they are requirements to any new construction. Response: Bike racks are proposed at the entrances to each of the buildings as shown on the site plan, Figure 1. In addition to those racks, the project also includes a more elaborate bike rack along the proposed trail improvements. That area is designed to serve the community and people resting while using the trail and not necessarily the patrons of the plaza. The availability of bicycle racks is not a mandated requirement of the Town Zoning Law. Rather, it is discretionary with the Planning Board. The offer of bicycle racks by the applicant as part of incentive zoning means that the bike racks would become a zoning requirement, not a discretionary Planning Board right. Accordingly, the Planning Board discretionary authority would be unnecessary or duplicative. Moreover, the Comment letter of the Planning Board dated August 1, 2016) does not specifically indicate that bicycle racks will be required.
• The configuration of the strip mall building should be redesigned to encourage walking and biking to these stores. This would be far superior to having two rows of large stores facing a massive parking lot. Response: Pedestrian access ways are proposed throughout the plaza with sidewalks, crosswalks, signage, and access to the improved Auburn Trail.
FEIS January 2018 91
4. Town of Brighton Planning Board – Ramsey Boehner - Comments May 17, 2017 Multi Modal Transportation Considerations:
1. During the Planning Board site plan review process it will be important to continue to further address the safety and accessibility for all residents of the Town to and from the site, as well as within the site. The project sponsor must continue to further address and include multimodal (transit, bicycle, and pedestrian) traffic modes and improvements into the project. Additional consideration must be given to further modification of the project design to better address safety and accessibility along with walking, biking and transit. Response: The applicant will work with the Planning Board during Site Plan review to continue to examine Multi Model Transportation. The proposal currently provides a new bus stop, significant trail improvements, internal pedestrian routes and multiple bicycle accommodations.
2. The Planning Board continues to recommend sidewalks on Monroe Avenue, to Clover Street, Clover Street from Monroe Avenue to Allens Creek Road from Clover Street to Monroe Avenue should be included as part of this project. Response: Refer to section 4.2.2 of the SDEIS.
3. The Planning Board continues to recommend that pedestrian amenities should be included in the project out to ½ mile from the site in all directions. Response: The scope of the trail improvements has been increased since the SDEIS was accepted. As outlined in section 1.4, the trail improvement is proposed to extend from approximately 1 ½ miles north of the site at Highland Avenue south across Allens Creek Road, through the subject property, across Clover Street and finally East to the Pittsford Town line. The developer will maintain the trail at the locations where the trail is on the applicant’s property and an agreement to that effect with the developer should be incorporated in any conditions of approval.
FEIS January 2018 92
Transportation: 1. The Planning Board recommends that further consideration be given to access to both Allens Creek Road and Clover Street. If access is not provided to both Clover Street and Allens Creek as part of this proposal, potential future access to both streets should not be prevented by a deed restriction. Response: Access is not proposed to Allen’s Creek Road or Clover Street in response to concerns expressed by the neighbors. A deed restriction is not proposed.
2. Based on the potential traffic impacts created by the project, this project should include an access management plan (pedestrian and vehicular) for the north side of Monroe Avenue (contiguous to Whole Foods Plaza) from Allens Creek to Clover Street that addresses cross access and shared parking. Response: The parcels to the west of the development, on the north side of Monroe Avenue currently have access of off Allens Creek Road. Connection to their parcel would allow vehicles using the plaza to exit onto Allens Creek Road which is strongly opposed by the neighbors. The parcel to the west (VSES) does not want to be connected to the plaza and has indicated they will not grant the necessary easements for a connection.
Design and Layout: 1. Since the acceptance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the site plan has been revised. The Planning Board is still concerned about the proposed size, scale and configuration of the project as proposed. The plan needs to be revised to reduce impervious surface and include more parking lot landscape and green space. Alternatives should be prepared that address the site with the same impervious coverage as existing and the site with less coverage as existing. The plan also needs to be revised to better address safe pedestrian access into the site and to the proposed buildings. Response: Since Mario’s was built, the entire frontage of the parcel has been parking with little to no landscaping. The proposal replaces almost 50% of that parking with buildings built close to the right of way as prescribed on the Comprehensive Plan. The parking areas that are constructed will have landscaped island and trees to provide a much more aesthetic view from Monroe Avenue.
FEIS January 2018 93
The project also includes the implementation of pervious pavements, bioretention areas and other sustainable features not currently present within the site. There are three separate connections from the sidewalk system to the sidewalk on Monroe Avenue, each building within the development is connected by sidewalks with marked crossings and signage where applicable. See also Section 2.6 which demonstrates that a reduction in impervious area is provided in the commercially zoned portion of the project through the use of pervious pavement and landscaped islands.
2. The applicant should provide a design alternative which illustrates a truck only entrance/exit to Whole Foods off Allens Creek Road. Response: See Transportation response #1.
FEIS January 2018 94
5. Brighton Fire District (Stephen W. MacAdam) - Comments May 19, 2017 The Brighton Fire District does not believe the project will have an impact on our response times and we will still be able to provide the high quality of service to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Clover/Allens Creek Area.
The work that the State of New York recently completed has reduced the number of accidents in the area and we expect that the Town of Brighton and the State of New York will continue to advocate for traffic control measures that will continue to reduce the number of accidents on Monroe Avenue. Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 95
6. MCDOT- Brent Penwarden III, P.E. - Comments May 1, 2017
We have completed our review of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. As we commented in our letter dated July 11, 2016, there are still no plans to access Clover Street directly. Therefore, we have no comments at this time. Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 96
7. NYSDOT (David Goehring, P,E.) - Letter 5/19/17
The proposed new three-color traffic signal at the Sakura Restaurant driveway intersection with Route 31 is warranted based on full development traffic volumes of the proposed alternative. The signal will provide a safe alternative that is most efficient for vehicles and pedestrians to access Route 31. Traffic signal appurtenances will be necessary to provide coordination and consistency in the operation of traffic signals on Route 31. Additionally, crosswalks and sidewalk within the Monroe Avenue frontage of the project is also warranted to accommodate pedestrians. Response: The project will include the appurtenances as required by the NYSDOT for the installation of the signal light.
The proposed cross access to the new traffic signal and the efforts to eliminate driveways and attain cross access agreements to adjoining properties will provide improved access and egress for businesses on both sides of Route 31 and will aid in improving safety. Most critical is the need to eliminate the driveway for the proposed Mamasans. We also recommend either eliminating or changing the Friendly's and Comfort Inn driveways to right-in/right out. Response: The City Mattress curb cut (formerly Friendly’s) will be converted to a right-in right-out as part of the project. Future development of the Comfort Inn would provide the Town the opportunity to require modifications to their curb cut; however, that is not proposed as part of this project.
The provided Simtraffic model is more consistent with observed and expected conditions. When seeded for five minutes with thirty minutes of recording the impacts on Route 31 at the Sakura/site driveway and Mario's driveway included traffic queuing through both Route I-590 ramps and into the Westfall Road/Allen's Creek Road intersection. The limited storage length for eastbound left turns was a contributing factor for the queuing. Lengthening the storage length for eastbound lefts will aid in mitigating this impact. However, there is limited additional storage available. Thus, this may not fully mitigate traffic impacts. Response: Comment noted, the storage length has been maximized given the existing constraints.
FEIS January 2018 97
We conclude that the project, with the introduction of a traffic signal on Route 31 as proposed, will likely have a significant impact on traffic. Increased delays, long queue lengths, and the potential for short periods of gridlock may occur on and approaching Monroe Avenue. These impacts will vary with the more severe conditions occurring less frequently. We will look to minimize impacts through signal timing and optimization of signal progression along the corridor but it should not be viewed as a panacea. Additionally, as conditions stabilize subsequent to the proposed development, we recommend that the corridor be re-evaluated to assess the possible need for other mitigation or modifications along the Route 31 corridor. Potential future improvements would be addressed through the Highway work permit process and all costs would be borne by the developer. Response: See Section 2.2 of this FEIS. As proposed, the new traffic signals will be coordinated with certain other signals along Monroe Avenue. During the more critical weekday PM peak hour, the green phase for traffic exiting the Whole Foods Plaza from the eastern access point will be coordinated with the green phase for Clover Street southbound. This increases the time afforded to vehicles making the left turn out of the proposed development and takes advantage of the time where eastbound Monroe Avenue traffic at Clover Street has cleared its queue.
FEIS January 2018 98
8. NYSDOT Region 4 - (Kevin C. Bush, P.E.) - Letter 5/19/17
The New York State Department of Transportation concurs with the designation of the Town of Brighton as lead agency for the referenced action.
Any work (including access or utility work) within the right of way of any State Highway will require a Highway Work Permit from the Department's Traffic and Safety Office. Also, any such work will require coordination with the Department's planned maintenance and/or capital improvements through our Monroe East County Maintenance Office. Occupancy of any state- owned property (short or long term) may require a Permit for Use of State-Owned Property from the Department's Right-of-Way Office. As a permitting agency under SEORA, the Department should be given the opportunity to review any site plans, environmental impact statements, traffic studies, or drainage plans prior to approval to assure that the negative impacts on State facilities are, mitigated as appropriate. Response: The applicant will work with the NYSDOT to obtain a Highway Work Permit prior to any construction in the right-of-way. The NYSDOT will continue to be provided all relevant project documents for review.
The State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act, found in Section 6 of the Environmental Law, obliges the New York State Department of Transportation to evaluate projects it approves, undertakes, supports, or finances against the enumerated smart growth criteria. It is our expectation that a Smart Growth Checklist and attestation may be required prior to the issuance of either a Highway Work Permit or a Permit for Use of State Owned Property. Response: To the extent required by NYSDOT, the applicant will provide the NYSDOT the Smart Growth Checklist prior to obtaining a Highway Work Permit.
Additional comments: Any work performed in the State ROW shall be included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project and receive coverage under the SPDES permit for the project.
FEIS January 2018 99
There is a wetland in the State ROW near the 590 Northbound on ramp from Route 31 westbound. If there is an impact to any wetlands within the State ROW, applicant to provide copies of the USAGE and DEC permits to the Department for this activity. Response: The SWPPP includes work proposed in the Highway ROW. There are no wetlands in the project area.
FEIS January 2018 100
9. Nixon Peabody (Robert Burgdorf) - Letter 5/22/17
1. The Association incorporates by reference those comments raised by Association President Ben Werzinger and submitted to the Town dated May 17, 2017 for response by the Developer/Town pursuant to the SEQR process. Response: Responses to all public comments are provided in this FEIS at sections 4.2 and 4.5.
2. The Association incorporates by reference all of those comments submitted in the Association's letter dated January 25, 2017 and SaveMonroeAve.org's letters dated January 3, 2017 and March 24, 2017, all to be addressed by the Developer/Ton. pursuant to the SEQR process. Response: See response to comment #1 above.
3. The Association incorporates by reference the May 8, 2017 letter and May 22, 2017 letter from Adam Frosino of McFarland Johnson, which comments are to be addressed by the Developer/Town pursuant to the SEQR process. Response: See response to comment #1 above.
4. The Association joins with and incorporates by reference all the comments submitted by SaveMonroeAve.org dated May 22, 2017, to be addressed by the Developer/Town as part of the SEQR process. Response: See response to comment #1 above.
5. Additionally, the Association submits the following comments for response by the Developer/Town pursuant to the SEQR process:
a. The Developer states in the EIS that it is no longer seeking vehicular ingress and egress via Allen’s Creek Road and Clover Street, but has provided no proposal or willingness to enter into a legally binding document to ensure this occurs, and that the attendant environmental impacts to traffic in the residential neighborhood will be avoided.
FEIS January 2018 101
Please provide the proposed mechanism by which the public will have the right to prevent these access points from being used, and thereby prevent the attendant environmental impacts associated therewith. Response: The applicant does not own of control the lands butting Clover Street and Allens Creek Road and therefore; does not have the ability to enter into a binding agreement. The project does not include access points to Clover Street or Allens Creek Road and has provided physical barriers (bollards) to prevent vehicular traffic.
b. Describe whether the Town is prepared to impose a restrictive covenant or other permanent legally binding prohibition on Developer (not just a condition which can be removed by subsequent Town Boards) to ensure the above- referenced access points remain closed. (I note the Town has already indicated a willingness to require a restrictive covenant to prevent construction on the parcel the Developer has promised will remain "forever wild.") Response: See response to comment (a) above.
c. Please explain why the proposed "amenities" qualify as "amenities" instead of routine mitigation conditions, as they would be for any other project. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
d. Please provide a true baseline of what is "permitted as of right" under existing traditional zoning regulations. This has still not been provided by the Developer. Please require that this study be done without any assumption as to likelihood of obtaining any discretionary permits, including, especially but without limit, without a special permit for a grocery store in excess of 20,000 square feet, and without a use variance to encroach into the adjacent residential neighborhood.' This baseline is also to take into account true traffic density as a result of higher density uses, not just square footage. Response: Refer to Sections 2.1 and 2.3 of this FEIS.
e. Require the Developer to provide better alternatives to mitigate the proposed commercial lighting, and reduce the impact of this lighting adjacent to, and indeed located in a residential zone. The lighting proposal did not explore less intensive alternatives; nor did it adequately analyze reduction or elimination of lighting during closed hours.
FEIS January 2018 102
Response: A revised lighting plan is provided at Figure 8. The plan has been revised to limit impact on neighboring residential properties.
1. With particular emphasis on and consideration given to the proximity of, and indeed location in a residential neighborhood, have Developer provide analysis of hours of operation for the construction phase, and post- construction the hours of operation of the plaza including delivery vehicles, service vehicles, and trash collection, with an emphasis and analysis as to how to effectively minimize the impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood. Response: Yes, refer to the noise study provided as part of the DEIS.
2. The proximity of this Project adjacent to and indeed in a residential neighborhood increases the need to be certain the landscape plan/buffer is sufficient to protect the residential neighborhood from visual impact, lighting and noise. Please have the Developer provide appropriate studies confirming this protection, including line of sight elevations from numerous points along Allens Creek Road and Clover Street; a sound analysis by a qualified professional; and lighting analysis by a qualified professional as the lighting relates to visibility of lights from Allens Creek Road and Clover Street residents, and appropriate alternatives to adequately address these issues through the landscape plan/buffer. Response: A sound analysis, lighting plan and buffering have all been provided as part of the
EIS.
The environmental effects of this property are directly linked to the Town Board’s discretionary decision to permit this process to proceed under the incentive zoning process instead of the traditional zoning process.
Please provide an analysis of how the additional size and intensity of the uses made possible by incentive zoning was balanced against the environmental effects on the adjacent residential district and the general area, and how the proposed amenities adequately compensate for the same. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 103
3. On a number of occasions, the Town Supervisor has indicated that the incentive zoning process must be followed as a matter of state and local law, and that there is no discretion to send this through the traditional zoning process. The environmental impacts are in large degree due to the sizing of this Project under incentive zoning instead of traditional zoning; therefore, please clarify how and why this incentive zoning process is “required” by state law and local law instead of being discretionary, especially given that New York State law says “a Town Board is hereby empowered [but not required to permit incentive zoning]” (New York State Town Law Section 261-b(2)): and local law provides: “the [Brighton} Town Board shall review [an incentive zoning] proposal and inform the applicant whether or not the proposal is worthy of further consideration.” (Emphasis added.) (Brighton Town Code Section 209-5B.) Response: The Town Supervisor has said that the incentive zoning process is set forth in state and local law. The rest of this comment appears to be a misunderstanding of the Supervisor’s comments. Environmental review is not about the process; it is about the evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the action being proposed.
4. Please provide the analysis and rational for the Board’s discretionary decision to permit this Developer to proceed under incentive zoning instead of traditional zoning, and what mechanism/analysis it used to balance the impact of this Project under incentive zoning, versus the baseline (or other) impact under traditional zoning. Response: See response to comment 3 above.
FEIS January 2018 104
10. McFarland Johnson - Letter 5/8/17
1. Baseline “as of right” Alternative:
There is still no alternative that shows how the site/traffic would operate with a development utilizing a density, layout and land uses permitted “as of right” under the current town zoning code. All the alternatives analyzed to date have either increased density or land uses that would require conditional use permits and/or use variances from the zoning/planning boards. Response: The alternatives have been provided in accordance with the approved scope. See Section 2.3 for further detail.
The Alternative 6 “Baseline” alternative has an associated site plan presented in the SDEIS; however, a detailed review showed the following aspects exceed the Town Code.
a. 20,000 sf maximum building size (Code Section 203-84-A) Alternative 6 has a proposed 50,000 SF Whole Foods Building which would require a special use permit for the additional 30,000 SF of high density traffic use. Response: See answer to comment 1 above.
b. 65% maximum overall site coverage of BF-2 parcel (Code Section 205-7) The BF-2 land parcel has approximately 73% Coverage, while 60% is listed on the plan in the Zoning Analysis Table as the table includes the green space within the adjacent residential parcels as well, which is not allowed. An area variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Alternative 6 site plan for the increase in impervious coverage (73%) within the proposed development parcel. Response: The Site Plan for Alternative 6 has been updated to indicate the correct lot coverage. The scope of the EIS does not require the applicant to explore an alternative that complies with all applicable zoning regulations per the approved EIS Scope. The Final Scope does require an alternative which considers the development of the site under the density limitations permitted under the existing zoning designations or amenities. See section VIII #1 in the Final Scope.
FEIS January 2018 105
A code compliant baseline alternative should be prepared showing what can be developed in accordance with existing zoning, which would involve only the 7.3 acres currently in the BF- 2 zone, and would include only those uses permitted as of right. We also note that this analysis was required in the Project Scope, but the SDEIS did not address this item. Response: See response to comment #1 above.
As previously noted, the suggested baseline analysis required in the Scope is especially useful here, where the applicant is requesting incentive zoning. The current Alternative 6 "baseline" has 8% more coverage than is allowed, which results in site plan with roughly a 12.3% more impervious area than is allowed by code. We reiterate again — that without being able to compare the proposed project to an established baseline, one cannot accurately quantify the extent of the incentives being requested, nor conduct a proper SEQR review. The intent of having the baseline alternatives is to determine the code compliant amount of development on the site and associated mitigation that would be required to maintain acceptable levels of traffic operations to have negligible impacts to the off-site traffic. This alternative can then be compared to the proposed development to determine what amenities should be provided for the incentives being requested by the applicant. A baseline alternative is critical and necessary as a starting point for this task. Failure also corrupts the SEQR process by, among other things, masking the necessary extent of mitigation. Response: See response to comment #1 above.
2. Trip Distribution: As previously noted in our previous comment letter, and which was not addressed, was that the Alternative 1 - Preferred Alternative Figure 6C shows the trip distributions at the two proposed Whole Foods Plaza site driveways appear to be inappropriate because:
a. Northbound traffic on Monroe Avenue during the evening and Saturday peaks are shown with more cars going through the proposed signalized entrance in order to enter at the unsignalized entrance further downstream. Based on experience with retail plazas, a larger number of customers will enter at the first driveway as opposed to waiting for the second driveway, especially if the first driveway is signalized.
FEIS January 2018 106
Response: The trip distribution has been presented to the NYSDOT for review with no objection from their office. The western intersection has now been signalized.
b. Southbound traffic on Monroe Avenue during the evening and Saturday peaks are shown with significantly more cars making left turns at the unsignalized entrance as opposed to making a left turn at the signalized entrance. Given the amount of traffic on Monroe Avenue during the evening and Saturday peak hours, it is not realistic to assume the amount of vehicles which will choose to make a left turn at the unsignalized intersection in comparison to the signalized intersection. We understand that there will be gaps in traffic as a result of the new signalized intersection; however, we do not believe that nearly twice as many typical drivers will choose to wait at the unsignalized intersection as opposed to proceeding to the main signalized entrance. This also is apparent in the SimTraffic Simulation model which showed Whole Foods Plaza patrons waiting in the unsignalized left turn lane queue and then proceeding to the signalized intersection to enter the plaza. Response: The trip distribution has been presented to the NYSDOT for review with no objection from their office. See response to 2.a. above.
3. Access Modification Plan: We concur that this would improve the safety and efficiency of the corridor. However, as shown in Figure 5 of the SDEIS, no modifications are proposed/accepted by the existing properties to restrict the left turn movements into/out of their existing driveways. This is a concern, as the existing center median two-way left turn lane that exists today currently allows left turn vehicles a lane to pull off and wait outside of the Monroe Avenue through traffic to make their turn or enter that Monroe Avenue traffic stream.
The proposed modifications to Monroe Avenue would remove the two-way left turn lane currently utilized by all the businesses on the south side. The Assess Modification Plan figure also depicts there will be full access commercial driveways as close as 50' and 100' to the north and south of the proposed signalized intersection and three full access commercial driveways within 250' to the north and three full access driveways within 300' to the south.
FEIS January 2018 107
These six existing full access driveways so close to the new signal present a safety concern with additional conflict points for a corridor that is already has an exceedingly high number of conflict points and an accident rate 2.7 times the statewide average. Response: Vehicles traveling to properties east of the proposed signal light will have the ability to enter the left turn lane and turn left prior to the signal. Vehicles traveling to properties west of the signal will most likely utilize the signal light to enter the AMP area, especially during peak times of travel. Overtime, as parcels are redeveloped the curb cuts will likely be reduced or restricted further improving the condition and safety of the corridor. Parcels on the south side of Monroe Avenue currently experience failing levels of service when exiting which creates unsafe driver movements, see section 2.2 of this FEIS. Those drivers can now safely exit using the protected turning movement at the signal. The conflict points already exist and the diversion of traffic to the signalized intersection will reduce the existing conflict possibility
Additionally, the proposed northbound approach to the new signal has parking spaces along the main ingress/egress for the access management plan area, which unnecessarily poses accident risks as Sakura Homes patrons will block the drive lane while attempting to enter/exit their parking space. Response: The parking is necessary to service the existing land use. There will be times when some of the parking spaces are temporarily blocked; however, the signal clears after one cycle. The AMP also encourages this situation to occur at a single location rather than across multiple properties as is currently the case.
4. Capacity Analysis: The capacity analysis performed within the study and used Synchro 8.0 traffic modeling software and utilized a simulation model developed in a SimTraffic application to the Synchro files. The model printouts and video simulation were reviewed with the following observations and comments associated with the traffic capacity analysis results provided for the Preferred Alternative: • There are still very poor/failing operating LOS at the proposed project’s main signalized entrance as a result of the proposed project:
FEIS January 2018 108
o Southbound Left PM – LOS F (93.5 seconds average delay) o Southbound Left SAT – LOS F (112.7 seconds average delay) o Eastbound Left PM - LOS E (77.4 seconds average delay) o Eastbound Left PM – LOS E (79.0 seconds average delay) Response: The southbound delays are a result of the signal cycle length which is largely dictated by the coordination efforts with other signals. The southbound lane clears out after a single cycle and there is ample storage capacity in the approach lanes. The Eastbound left can experience delays during peak time; however, as shown in the TIS the resulting queue does not have a significant detrimental impact on Monroe Avenue. Additionally, a left turn signal has been added to the western project entrance to reduce potential eastbound queue lengths on Monroe Avenue.
• The proposed signal timing coordination with Clover Street, and the proposed signal and the I-590 ramps as model is very precise and time sensitive in order to obtain the levels over operation shown in the TIS. This will likely need to be accurately monitored by NYSDOT to ensure the proposed levels of operation can be obtained. Typical daily activities such as a pedestrian activating the pedestrian signal, or a bus stop, can cause the intersection to operate a level less than those shown in the study during these times.
In short, poor or failing conditions still remain, even under optimal traffic conditions. Response: See section 2.2
FEIS January 2018 109
10. McFarland Johnson - Letter 5/22/17
1. Our office requests that the applicant’s Synchro files be provided to allow our office to confirm that the simulation videos presented to the public are an accurate representation of the Synchro models established for the project and correspond with the levels of operation portrayed in the project’s Traffic Impact Study and Supplemental DEIS. Without utilizing the actual synchro files, it is not technically possible for our office to confirm the accuracy of the simulation videos. Response: The accuracy of the Synchro files was reviewed and confirmed by both the NYSDOT and the Town’s Engineering consultant. The synchro files can be recreated using the information provided in the appendices of the SDEIS.
2. The Supplemental DEIS notes that the proposed mitigation will require NYSDOT review and approval, which is an accurate statement. We recommend that the Town wait to act upon this project until they have all comments and approval from both NYSDOT and MCDOT regarding the proposed traffic operations resulting from the Whole Foods project. Typically, NYSDOT will not approve a new proposed intersection to have failing and/or near failing movements as currently shown in the project’s Traffic Impact Study at the proposed main entrance. Response: Comments from both the NYSDOT and MCDOT along with Reponses are provided as part of this FEIS.
3. We request that NYSDOT provides concurrence that they can realistically maintain the proposed corridor’s variable traffic signal coordination, timings and synchronization as specified in the future proposed Snychro/SimTraffic model to enable the optimistic operational results shown in the Synchro model and Traffic Impact Study results table. Traffic simulation model results can often by very different than the likelihood that the real- life operations can mimic the model results pending the existing/available traffic signal equipment used by NYSDOT. Response: The applicant represents that multiple variables input into Synchro and Simtraffic are intentionally conservative to ensure that the analysis is not “optimistic.
FEIS January 2018 110
4. The proposed mitigation for the Whole Foods traffic requires a dedicated southbound and northbound left turn lane into the proposed development requiring the elimination of the current two-way left turn lane in the roadway median. This is a critical lane as the existing Monroe Avenue business entrances require this lane to allow their patrons to safety exit and enter the high-volume Monroe Avenue corridor. The effect of removing this lane should be analyzed regarding the safety and capacity impacts. The projects traffic study assumes all entering and exiting left turn vehicles for these businesses will utilize the proposed signal; however, physical left turn restricted entrances will not be installed as part of the Whole Foods project. The access management plan calls modification to be implemented as the properties are redeveloped with not apparent timetable. We are particularly concerned with the existing Dunkin Donut’s three-lane, full access, driveway immediately adjacent to the proposed Whole Foods Plaza traffic signal.
Response: Vehicles traveling to properties east of the proposed signal light will have the ability to enter the left turn lane and turn left prior to the signal. Vehicles traveling to properties west of the signal will most likely utilize the signal light to enter the AMP area, especially during peak times of travel. Overtime, as parcels are redeveloped the curb cuts will be reduced or restricted further improving the condition and safety of the corridor by funneling more vehicles to the signalized intersection, or restricting their turning movements. Currently, the City Mattress and proposed Mamasan’s (formerly Pizza Hut) sites are under review by the Town and the respective driveway permits will be addressed by the Town and NYSDOT as appropriate.
Our review of the Supplemental DEIS and the revised Traffic Impact Study submitted by the applicant found that the above items as well as the previously listed 8 items in the May 8, 2017 letter are critical concerns that should be addressed and analyzed (with mitigation as appropriate) in order for the traffic assessment to provide realistic results. Response: All comments received during the public comments period have been addressed as part of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 111
11. Hodgson Russ, LLP Attorneys (Daniel Spritzer) - Letter 3/24/17
1. As previously noted in our January 6, 2017 submission, the Developer has repeatedly failed to comply with the Town Board’s instructions to address all non-traffic related comments on the draft environmental impact statement (“DEIS”) in the SDEIS submission. As you will remember, at the December 14, 2016 meeting, council for the Developer argued with Supervisor Moehle, stating that the Developer was not required to address non-traffic related public comments. Supervisor Moehle reiterated that the Town Board directed the Developer to do so. We had assumed that the Developer would follow the Town Board’s direct instructions after the Board rejected the first submission of the SDEIS, but we underestimated the Developer’s willingness to openly defy the Board and refuse to address critical public comments.
Indeed, the Developer’s refusal has resulted in even the Town Board members’ comments being ignored. For example, in his August 1, 2016 comment letter, Town Board Member James Vogel raised concerns about the proposed density of the Project. And by letter dated July 28, 2016, Town Board Member Christopher Werner questioned the real value to the community of many of the “amenities” proposed by the Developer. These concerns are a handful among many issues identified by the Town Board and other members of the community during the public comment period on the DEIS that the Developer refuses to respond to. Response: The Resolution of the Town Board adopted on August 24, 2016 clearly defined the content of the SEIS as follows:
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby directs the developer to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) that re- analyzes the potential significant adverse traffic impacts of this proposed project and that such SDEIS be based on the transportation sections, together with any other transportation related topics contained in the scope adopted by the Town Board on September 24,2015;
FEIS January 2018 112
While there may have been subsequent discussions at Town Board meetings about responses to comments received as part of the original DEIS, the above Resolution is clear that the SDEIS is to be clearly focused on traffic related issues and no subsequent Town Board Resolution expanded the scope of the SDEIS to be prepared. Accordingly, the Town Board accepted the SDEIS as adequate for public review and all comments (received both in response to the DEIS and the SDEIS) are being addressed in the FEIS.
2. In addition, the Developer continues to refuse to address all of the issues in the DEIS final project scoping document adopted by the Town of September 23, 2015 (the “Final Scope”). For example, Section IV.A of the Final Scope requires the Developer to explain how the “amenities” offered by the Developer could not be required by the Town’s zoning regulations and/or general SEQRA mitigation principles. The Developer continues to ignore this issue. The Final Scope also required the Developer to provide proof of its right to access the area south of Monroe Avenue for implementation of the proposed Access Management Plan; yet no binding agreements to that effect have been presented to the public or the Town Board. The Town Board (and the public) cannot evaluate the sufficiency of the mitigation if there is no evidence or certainty that the Developer has the legal ability to implement it. Other issues under the Final Scope also remain unaddressed. The Developer should be required to address each and every one of these issues before the SEQRA review process can continue. Response: The SMA attorney letter misconstrues Section IV. A. of the final scope to require explanation of why certain improvements should be considered amenities or mitigation. The Final Scope merely requires an “evaluation of the improvements offered by the project sponsor that are not otherwise mandated by the Town’s Comprehensive Development Regulations”. The developer has set forth what it believes are amenities and not mitigation. Ultimate evaluation of what are considered amenities and what are considered mitigation are less a SEQR issue and more an issue for consideration by the Town Board as part of its Incentive Zoning deliberation.
FEIS January 2018 113
3. Like the Developer’s prior submission, the revised SDEIS is also substantively deficient because it failed to provide a code-compliant, “as-of-right” baseline alternative for the Town Code. As noted by Town Board Member Christopher K. Werner in his July 28, 2016 comment letter, “[a]ccurate background conditions and baseline traffic levels are essential for evaluation of the impact of this project.” (emphasis added); see also Matter of Committee to Preserve Brighton Beach & Manhattan Beach v. Council of City of N.Y., 214 A.D.2d 335, 337 (1st Dep’t 1995) (holding an appropriate baseline condition for impact consideration was an “as of right” development analysis under exciting zoning regulations).
A review of the Developer’s “baseline” proposal, referred to in the SDEIS as Alternative 6, reveals several serious deviations from the permitted development restrictions in the Town Code. For example, under Town Code § 205-1, the term “coverage” is defined as “all buildings on a lot, expressed as a percentage of the total lot area.” As such, total lot coverage in the BF-2 zoning district is calculated by adding building footprints, plus all other impervious services. However, the Developer’s proposed “baseline” alternative improperly separates “building” and “impervious area” coverage. Under Alternative 6, the impervious area alone is 60% of the lot. Coupled with the stated 23% coverage attributable to footprints of the proposed buildings, the actual coverage for the Developer’s purported “baseline” appears to be 83% -- a number well above what is permitted by the Town Code, and only 4% smaller than the coverage proposed for the Developer’s preferred alternative.
The significance of this should not be overlooked. By misrepresenting the development size permitted under the Town Code, the Developer is attempting to mislead the Town Board as to the cumulative impact/increase of traffic generated by its primary proposal in both the SDEIS and TIS. The Developer is also attempting to skew the analysis of the benefits of the use of incentive zoning, versus the amenities proposed. As Town Board Member Werner noted (and the law requires), a proper baseline is “essential” to a proper analysis under SEQRA (e.g., the alternatives analysis and evaluation of traffic impacts) and for incentive zoning.
FEIS January 2018 114
Similarly, the Developer’s baseline analysis is fundamentally flawed as it does not start with what the Developer is permitted to build “as of right.” Instead, the Developer improperly assumes it will obtain a number of special permits and variances. This is not a baseline analysis. While the Developer could theoretically obtain these variances, permits and approvals, it is not entitled to them “as of right” and they have no place in an “as of right” baseline analysis.
We further note that while the Developer may be permitted to seek a special use permit from the Town Board for stores like the proposed Whole Foods that are larger than 20,000 square feet of floor area, again the special permit is not allowed “as of right.” Any such special use must meet two conditions (1) any building larger than 20,000 square feet must be a minimum distance of 25 feet from any side property line; and (2) the proposed use must not result in an adverse change in traffic levels on any street within the Town. Town Code § 203-84(B)(17). The Developer’s proposed “baseline” does not clear either hurdle. The 50,000-square foot grocery store is proposed to be a mere 11 feet from the side property line, and, as discussed at length in the public comment period, the traffic studies for the proposed plaza have definitely stated that the development will negatively affect area traffic. Response: The SMA attorney letter is looking to interject alternatives which are not included in the Town's final scope. There is no requirement for a "baseline" alternative as they have defined it (in fact, utilizing an "as of right" plan as a baseline for SEQR review has been expressly rejected by the appellate courts. Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass'n v. Town Bd., 106 A.D.2d 868 (4th Dep't 1984).
4. Also troubling is the fact that the "Revised TIS" in the SDEIS is essentially the same study that was rejected by the Town Board last year for containing numerous inaccuracies, false statements, and faulty assumptions and methods of analysis.
And perhaps most importantly, the Revised TIS substantiates Save Monroe Ave.'s previously expressed fear that the Developer's exclusive reliance on signal timing adjustments by the New York State Department of Transportation are insufficient to mitigate the traffic impacts of this supersized proposal.
FEIS January 2018 115
The Revised TIS indicates that even with these highly touted adjustments, numerous movements along Monroe Avenue would still operate at very poor/failing levels of service — including the new proposed signalized intersection directly in front of the proposed plaza.
If anything, the Revised TIS underscores the need for the Developer to examine additional/alternative traffic mitigation measures for the Project beyond those suggested in the DEIS and SDEIS (which would apparently do nothing to address the existing traffic problem, and would in fact make things worse by adding a new, failing level of service intersection to the mix). Response: The TIS documents are grounded in accepted methodology, with adjustments based upon acknowledged inconsistencies between actual data and conditions “on the ground”. The Revised TIS was designed, and did, in fact, address those inconsistencies. The developer and NYSDOT have prepared an additional left turn signal at the western Driveway to the Plaza as additional mitigation.
FEIS January 2018 116
11. Hodgson Russ, LLP Attorneys (Daniel Spritzer) - Letter 5/22/17
Save Monroe Ave., Inc. comments:
I. SMA COMMENTS ON DEIS (BY SECTION).
a. Section 1 1. Under the description of the action, the DEIS states that "[t]he lands for the redevelopment project are currently owned by or under contract by the Daniele Family of Companies for redevelopment by the Daniele Family of Companies."
a. This appears to be in conflict with Figure 2.1.2, which indicates that there are parcels "to be acquired," including the referenced RG&E property and the NYSDOT property. It does not appear that the developer has complete site control. Please identify all parcels that will the part of the site, and how the developer has site control over each. Response: The NYSDOT property is subject to a Use and Occupancy agreement. If one is not granted, the AMP will be constructed without entering onto those areas. Both scenarios are provided in the appendix. A portion of the RG&E property will be acquired by the project.
b. What is the status of the process (and timeline) for acquisition of the properties? Response: The RG&E property would be acquired by the applicant upon completion of the environmental review for the project.
c. Which properties are required for mitigation? Response: None of the properties currently not owned by the applicant are “required” for mitigation.
d. If the developer cannot obtain site control, what are the contingency plans? Response: The developer has demonstrated site control for the properties included in the scope of the project.
FEIS January 2018 117
2. Does the "access management plan" in Section 1.0 of the DEIS contemplate use of the NYSDOT property identified in Figure 2.1.2? If so, please describe how this property is to be utilized. A drawing should be provided incorporating the parcel into the development plan. Response: See sections 1.4 and 1.6 of this FEIS as well as Figure #2.
3. Section 1.0 of the DEIS states that the redevelopment project is to be completed in a single phase. Response: See Section 2.5.
a. Would construction be staggered based upon the ability to obtain tenants? In other words, excepting the proposed Whole Foods building, would construction be delayed on the multitenant retail building or the outbuildings until tenants were identified? A phasing plan should be provided to address this issue. Response: See Section 2.5.
b. Have tenants been obtained for all of the space contemplated by the developer to be constructed? If so, they should be identified. Response: Tenants have not been identified for “all of the space”. The tenants that have committed to the project are Whole Foods and Starbucks as presented in the EIS.
4. The DEIS states that the project was developed to fulfill the Monroe Avenue Corridor Plan. How does this plan fulfill the concept of "[r]especting, reclaiming, and preserving existing . . . green space"? Monroe Avenue Corridor Vision Plan, p. 3. A description of open space to be preserved on the parcel to be developed should be provided. Response: The project includes the preservation of approximately 1 acre of open space, as well as additional acreage represented by the trail. See section 1.6 b. Section 2 1. Section 2.2.2. It does not appear that there is any studies or data to support the statement that there is a need for the project.
a. What data, reference materials, and/or studies were relied on by the developer in preparing this section of the DEIS?
FEIS January 2018 118
Response: The various documents are specifically referenced in the text of the DEIS and are provided in the appendices of the DEIS, specifically Appendix 2, “Planning Tools”.
b. Further, this subsection makes the claim that “[t]he proposed action will meet the needs of the Town of Brighton as identified in the Town's 2000 Comprehensive Plan." All that is referenced is the entire plan in Appendix 2. What specific provisions of the Plan outline the needs that the project will meet? Response: Refer to Section 2.3.13 of the DEIS.
2. Section 2.2.3.
a. What alterations have been made to the trail over the past 10 years? The Regional Trails Initiative references a "master plan," with recommendations. Please identify the objectives in the master plan that are to be achieved, with specific references to the section of the master plan. Response: Refer to Section 2.3.13 of the DEIS.
b. Another benefit claimed in the DEIS is the "[p]reservation of priority area of open space . . . ." How does the Project meet the standards for green space and open space, where the lot is almost completely covered with impervious surfaces? Response: Under current conditions, the majority of the project area is covered with impervious surfaces. The project introduces new landscaping and green areas within the plaza to enhance the corridor and offers to preserve green space along Clover Street.
c. The DEIS references acquiring a parcel from a church to preserve it as undeveloped open space. Has this property been acquired? Response: The applicant has a purchase contract contingent on the completion of the environmental review.
d. Has the referenced restrictive covenant been recorded, and has it been provided to the Town? Response: The preservation mechanism will be prepared in a manner acceptable to the Town and be recorded after the completion of the environmental review and site plan process.
FEIS January 2018 119
e. Moreover, if a restrictive covenant is possible to preserve open space, why has one not been provided to restrict vehicular access from the site onto Clover and Allen's Creek? Response: The 1 acre of preserved open space can be subject to an agreement acceptable to the Town to ensure the preservation of that area because that land is under the control of the applicant which is not the case for lands required to access Clover Stret or Allens Creek Road.
f. The DEIS states that the "proposed project will . . . enhance the property values of both commercial and residential properties in the vicinity." Where is the support for this statement? Please identify the data, studies, and/or reference material relied upon for that statement? A study should be required evaluating the impact on traffic on the commercial and residential values of property. Response: The statement is based on the assumption that the redevelopment of a currently vacant and dilapidated parcel into a sustainable and unique grocery store and plaza will be a benefit to the surrounding area. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in moderate increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. In most cases vehicles will pass through the intersections in a single light cycle. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and more importantly, traffic safety.
g. The developer must analyze the financial and quality of life impacts that increased traffic will have on commercial and residential properties? Response: See response to comment (f) above and Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
i. How has the developer calculated the value of not developing a parcel for residential purposes? Response: The value of the open space “amenity” is based on the estimated value of the property if it were to be sold for residential development.
FEIS January 2018 120
j. The existing zoning does not allow commercial development on the property designated for “open space.” In other words, what is the incremental benefit for not allowing a home to be built on the parcel, versus leaving it as “forever wild”? Response: The open space provides a permanent buffer to homes along Clover Street and ensures that all existing vegetation and screening in the designated area will remain.
k. “Pedestrian crosswalks” are referenced. What are the standards under which these have been designed? Please describe how pedestrian safety has been evaluated in the EIS. Response: The pedestrian crosswalks are proposed to be installed in accordance with the Monroe County Department of Transportation requirements and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises. Pedestrians safety is addressed in section 4 of the DEIS.
l. Visual character is referenced and it is claimed in the DEIS that "[t]he proposed architecture for the new Whole Foods Plaza project includes features that tie the new construction to aspects of Brighton's past …." No reference is made to architectural renderings or drawings. Please identify the features referenced in this section as well as the drawings that are relied upon to make this statement. Architectural drawings should be provided to address this issue. Response: Refer to Figure 4.
3. Table 2.2.4-1 provides a summary of incentives. How has the impervious surfaces limitation been addressed and the deviation calculated? Response: The impervious surface calculation is based on percentage of impervious pavement, sidewalks, rooftops and other impermeable hardscapes.
4. Section 2.2.5 lists the proposed amenities.
a. How has the value been calculated for each? Response: See Section 1 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 121
b. Where is there reference to supporting documentation? Response: Supporting documents are referenced in the DEIS and provided in the appendices of the DEIS.
c. How has it been determined that these cannot be required as conditions or as SEQRA mitigation? Response: See Section 1 of this FEIS.
5. Section 2.3. What data, reference materials, studies, or analyses have been relied upon to determine site design and adequate parking for the proposed uses? Response: Parking is provided based on the Town zoning ordinance and the applicants agreement with the anchor tenant, Whole Foods.
6. Section 2.3.5. There are references to stormwater management facilities designs, but no supporting information. How has the drainage been designed and please provide reference to the draft SWPPP? Appendix 19, which is referenced, does not appear to contain the SWPPP or relevant drawings showing the stormwater design features. Response: See Appendix 6 of this FEIS.
7. 2.3.6. The DEIS states that the sewer capacity for downstream sanitary sewers “should remain essentially unaffected by the proposed redevelopment.” What analysis was done to support this statement? Response: Refer to Appendix 9 of the DEIS.
8. The DEIS states that "most deliveries [will be] occurring between 7:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m." How many deliveries will be done outside of the hours of operation of the facility? Has the size of delivery trucks entering and exiting the site been evaluated? If so, how will this affect site flow and access? Has noise from delivery trucks and their unloading been evaluated? If not, a study should be provided. Is the developer proposing a restriction on late-night or early morning deliveries? Response: See Section 2.4 of this FEIS. A noise study is provided as part of the DEIS.
FEIS January 2018 122
c. Section 3 1. Section 3.3.2.
a. What studies or analyses have been completed to complete this section? Response: The woodlot and greenspace areas were physically investigated during a site walkover.
b. Please identify the supporting information that it is "unlikely that the woodlot is inhabited by mammals." Response: See response to comment (a) above. Section 3.3.2 of the DEIS does state that some mammals occupy the wood lot currently and other undoubtedly move through it
c. Have observations been conducted? Response: See response to comment (a) above.
d. Section 4 1. Section 4.1. a. Please describe the "balanced earthwork approach" as set forth in the referenced grading plan. Response: The project seeks to balance the amount of cut and fill required for site development by positioning the buildings at certain elevations to best utilize on site materials. See Appendix 8 of this FEIS for additional detail.
b. How will the debris from the demolished buildings be handled? Is there asbestos in buildings? Response: Debris will be demolished and handled in accordance with all applicable state and local requirements. No asbestos has been identified in the former Mario’s or Mamasan’s Restaurant. Asbestos has been identified in the former Clover Lanes and will be abated in accordance with all applicable regulations.
c. Will all debris be removed for the site, or will some be buried in place on site? Response: Debris will be removed from the site.
FEIS January 2018 123
d. Reference is made to hauling of fill and material removed from the site. Have truck impacts been identified and analyzed? Response: Yes, truck impacts have been analyzed as part of the DEIS and in the responses provided as part of this FEIS.
e. What is the destination of the materials that will be removed from the site? Response: Waste materials will be disposed at a local landfill, most likely High Acres Landfill in Perinton.
f. The DEIS references the SWPPP as mitigation, but does not provide a copy for review. Please identify where the SWPPP may be reviewed, so that it can be evaluated and commented upon. If not available, it should be provided for public review and comment as part of the DEIS process. You describe other mitigation efforts including “the examination of alternative building foundation designs to reduce the quantity of unsuitable soil to be removed from the site …..” Please describe the separate building foundation designs and how there would work as mitigation. Response: The SWPPP is provided at Appendix 6 of this FEIS. The foundation designs will likely be spread footings.
2. Section 4.2. The DEIS states that “[p]ollutant loading rates for stormwater runoff will be decreased for the project area drainage basin.” No studies, data, or analysis is referenced. How was this conclusion reached? Please provide references to supporting information. Response: The stormwater management has been designed in accordance with the NYSDEC General Permit for construction activities and include filtration practices to remove pollutants. See Appendix 6 for additional detail.
3. Section 4.4
a. Where you have repeatedly claimed that no mitigation is required, please identify how this conclusion was reached and the specific provisions of any study that were relied upon to form the conclusion.
FEIS January 2018 124
Response: See Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
b. There does not appear to be a detailed discussion of traffic mitigation in this section. Please describe how any mitigation will operate and how exactly mitigation of traffic impacts will occur. Response: Refer to the TIS provided as part of the SDEIS and Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
4. Table 4.4.7 does not include an “as-of-right” alternative. How have you calculated the “baseline” alternative, including application of the restriction on lot coverage for impervious surfaces? An as-of-right baseline should be provided. Response: See section 2.3 of this FEIS.
e. Section 5 1. Why have you listed the increase of impervious surfaces as an unavoidable impact? Response: While there is an increase in the total impervious area, the amount of impervious area within the commercially zoned land is actually decreased as outlined in section 2.6.
2. Why is reducing the scale of the design, leaving a lesser building footprint and requiring less parking, not appropriate mitigation? Response: See response to comment 1 above.
f. Section 6 1. Section 6.1. The DEIS states that “[r]edevelopment of the site under existing zoning regulations results in a reduction in the increase in property tax and sales tax revenues from the redevelopment project. How has that been determined? What studies, analyses, reference materials were relied upon to make that statement? Please identify the supporting information. An analysis should be provided that the alleged increase in property tax and sales tax revenues offset the impacts of the proposed development. No such material has been provided.
FEIS January 2018 125
Response: A portion of the assessment of the property is based on land value but most of the valuation is based on the value of improvement to the land. The use of incentive zoning allows the Town to limit the use of tax abatements such as those granted under COMIDA
2. The DEIS states that “[r]edevelopment of the site under existing zoning regulations results in similar impacts to … stormwater…”
a. Assuming the lot coverage requirement in the code were applied (including building footprints and paved areas together), how much less impervious surface would exist on the site? Response: Approximately 60,000 SF.
b. This would require applying the parking requirements and a corresponding reduction in the size of the buildings to meet this requirement. How would this reduction reduce stormwater impacts? This alternative has not been considered as improper lot coverage percentages have been utilized by the developer. Response: Stormwater impacts are mitigated through the implementation of the SWPPP. The proposed stormwater practices are based on the impervious area. Reducing the impervious area would reduce the amount of required treatment. There would be little difference in the impact to stormwater by reducing the impervious area due to the corresponding reduction in treatment.
3. The reference to a “strip plaza” is an artificial alternative created by the developer. An appropriate alternative that would actually be in a form that could be presented to the Town should be utilized. This is a lazy effort that took no care into designing a proposed alternative, other than to show the must ugly form that could be developed under existing zoning regulations. This defeats the entire purpose of an alternatives analysis. The developer should be required to complete proper alternatives, including a reduced density development. How have you determined that the “Strip Plaza” style is the only type of development that could be constructed under the regular zoning regulations? Response: See Section 2.3 of this FEIS and Figure 7 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 126
4. The DEIS states that “[re]development of the site under existing zoning regulations is not a financially viable alternative and would result in a negative return on investment.”
a. This is a conclusory statement not supported anywhere in the record. How was this determined? An analysis by a qualified accounting expert should be provided. Response: This statement stands on its own merits and is the conclusion of the project sponsor. The project sponsor’s financial analysis of redevelopment of the site under existing zoning regulations is proprietary.
b. What are the acquisition costs and carrying costs? What was the fair market value on the date of acquisition? Response: The applicant is not required to disclose the acquisition cost and carrying cost as part of the environmental review.
c. What are the proposed rental rates? Please identify the studies, data, and analysis that supports this statement. Dollars and cents proof is required to categorically reject alternatives based on the existing zoning. Response: Refer to 4.a. above.
d. To what extent does a developer have self-created hardship for paying too much for a property? Response: “Self-created hardship” is a legal standard for use and area variance applications and is not applicable to the subject application.
Should the Town sacrifice zoning protections to help a developer realize a return when the developer paid too much for the site? Response: The Town is not sacrificing zoning protections, rather it is considering this application under Incentive Zoning as permitted under state and local law.
FEIS January 2018 127
II. SMA COMMENTS ON SDEIS
a. Section 2 1. Section 2.1
a. How will the referenced elimination of the mezzanine impact traffic to the site? Response: The traffic impacts resulting from the 50,000 SF anchor tenant has been provided in the TIS. Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS for additional detail.
b. Will there be a reduction, if so, how was that determined? Response: Yes, refer to response to comment (a) above.
c. The SDEIS states that “the site plan has been revised based on Town and community comments to improve internal circulation….” What are those changes and how was it determined that they improved internal circulation? Please identify any data, studies, or analysis related to this conclusion. Response: Refer to section 2.1 of the SDEIS which explains the changes to the site plan. The revised TIS included as part of the SDEIS contemplates the revised site plan as it related to internal stacking and traffic flow.
d. What are the “modifications to the layout of the proposed improvements along the site south of Monroe Avenue since acceptance of the DEIS” that are referenced in the SDEIS? Response: The SDEIS states that there were “no” modifications to the AMP when compared to the DEIS. The AMP has been revised as part of this FEIS as described at Section 1.4. 2. The reciprocal access easement is provided as an exhibit to the SDEIS. The referenced easement map includes a driveway and an intersection to Monroe Avenue.
FEIS January 2018 128
a. Have the parking spaces located immediately adjacent to the entrance/exit been evaluated for safety? Response: Yes, refer to the TIS. The parking spaces will be temporally blocked by exiting traffic which will clear during a single cycle.
b. Are they proposed to be moved? It appears that backing out of parking spaces so close to a major intersection could cause safety concerns. Response: The parking spaces are not proposed to be moved.
c. Have the truck-turning radii been evaluated? Response: Yes, truck traffic was considered in developing the turning radius provided in the AMP.
d. What authority is there to close of the additional exists on the South side of Monroe Avenue? Without restricting the additional driveways from the businesses, it appears this "mitigation" measure will be of little or no value. Response: The implementation of the AMP allows the Town to require the modification or closure of curb cuts as the sites are redeveloped. Additionally, many vehicles will choose to use the signal light to exit westbound rather than the individual curb cuts, which will enhance corridor safety.
3. Section 2.1.
a. The SDEIS states that the "orientation of the coffee shop has been revised so that the drive thru is no longer along the Monroe Avenue right-of-way . . . ." How will this change affect traffic flow on the site? How has it been determined that sufficient length exists to avoid back- ups? Response: The storage lengths are based on standards provided by the tenant based on their experience. The storage is designed to be internal to the coffee shop site and not impact the primary drive aisles within the development.
FEIS January 2018 129
b. Again, the SDEIS states that there are no vehicular access points for Clover Street or Allen’s Creek Road. The model presented to the Town Board at its workshop on May 2, 2017 showed plans for an entrance onto Clove Street. Why has the developer not proposed a restrictive covenant to prevent any change to the plan to utilize exits to Clover and Allen’s Creek? Response: The model simulates the access from the existing property east of the development, not the development itself. Refer to previous responses regarding access to Clover Street and Allens Creek Road.
c. With respect to the revisions “to improve internal circulation,” how has it been determined that the changes will improve circulation? Again, with respect to the Access Management Plan, has the developer secured the rights to close the additional entrances/exits onto Monroe Avenue from the businesses that have signed the cross-access easements? If not, how has the developer determined the AMP will achieve its purposes? Response: The SDEIS provides an explanation of how the changes relocate curb cuts to eliminate potential conflict points, thus improving circulation. Refer to previous responses regarding the potential closing and modification of curb cuts along the south side of Monroe Avenue.
d. Please explain how the phasing of the AMP will work. Why is Phase II of the AMP not scheduled? It appears this is incomplete mitigation, with no plan to move this forward. Response: Refer to Section 1.4 of this FEIS, which reflects the substantial completion of Phase I and Phase II of the AMP in the developer’s amended proposal
e. Why is Phase II of the AMP being considered as mitigation and included in the SDEIS if it is “not proposed as part of the project”? It would be wholly improper for the lead agency to rely on this speculative and unplanned “mitigation” as part of its determination. Response: Refer to Section 1.4 of this FEIS.
f. What efforts have been made to secure the necessary access rights that would allow Phase II of the AMP to be part of this project? Response: Refer to Section 1.4 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 130
4. How was it determined that remediation is not required for the petroleum contamination at the site? Response: Refer to appendices 9 and 10 of the SDEIS.
5. Has an investigation been completed to identify abandoned USTs? If not, why not? What precautions will be taken during construction to avoid disturbing USTs with equipment? Response: Yes, environmental studies (investigation) have been completed and are provided as part of the DEIS and SDEIS. Any UST’s will be handled in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations.
6. Section 2.2.
a. The SDEIS states that the "redevelopment project is designed to meet the changing commercial property needs and community business offerings." What are the changing commercial property needs? Response: The project attempts to provide alternative retail options not currently available in the corridor, including healthy grocery options which are continually growing in demand.
b. What are the aspects of the Project that allow the property to be "commercially viable" and "sustainable"? Response: The size and projected lease rates for the project needed to carry the cost of the development.
7. Section 2.5. a. How has the value of the "amenities" been calculated? Response: Refer to section 1 of this FEIS.
b. Has it been determined that the Town lacks the authority to require these as zoning conditions or as SEQRA mitigation? If so, how? Response: Refer to section 1 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 131
c. If not, please clarify how these qualify as “amenities” under the Town of Brighton Code. Response: Refer to section 1 of this FEIS.
d. What is the developer's calculation of the value of the benefits of the incentives? How was that calculation determined? Response: Refer to section 1 of this FEIS.
e. How has it been determined that the "amenities" are proportional to the "benefits" received through the incentives referenced in the EIS? Response: Refer to section 1 of this FEIS.
f. The SDEIS references that "separate lots will be created." Is there a subdivision plan that has been proposed? If so, where is the proposed plat map in the application materials? Response: The proposed subdivision line is illustrated in the Site Plan. A subdivision map will be filed with the County Clerks office upon completion of the environmental review.
g. The SDEIS mentions the RG&E parcel and that RG&E has "agreed to sell the portion of land to the project sponsor." Is there a signed contract? If so, has it been provided to the Town? What is the process required to acquire this parcel from RG&E? Response: Refer to Appendix 10 of the DEIS.
b. Section 7 1. Section 7.2. The alternatives do not contain an appropriate baseline analysis. There is no "as-of-right" alternative without incentives. The alternatives proposed permit in excess of what the zoning code permits without a conditional use permit and without taking into account the impervious surfaces limitation in the applicable zoning district. Response: Refer to section 2.3 of this FEIS.
c. Revised SDEIS, at 81 1. Please explain why the use of a Volume/Capacity analysis is more appropriate than the use of a traditional Level of Service analysis for assessing how well a roadway is performing.
FEIS January 2018 132
Are there any sources or other evidence to support this statement? Response: Refer to Section VI of the Traffic Impact Study provided as part of the SDEIS.
2. Why was a V/C analysis only performed for the Monroe Avenue at Clover Street intersection, as opposed to the remaining traffic points surrounding the project? Response: Refer to Section VI of the Traffic Impact Study provided as part of the SDEIS.
3. The SDEIS states that "In the past, exceeding a V/C of 0.5 was considered a capacity deficiency. But today, a V/C of 0.9 is considered a more appropriate threshold due to a greater awareness of environmental issues, limited financial resources, and because systems operations begin to deteriorate at this level. It is noted, however, that a V/C exceeding 0.9 does not necessarily indicate the need for improvements."
i. Please explain the statement that a V/C of 0.5 was considered a capacity deficiency. Response: Over time, standards have been revised as officials in the industry have placed more emphasis on environmental issues and road users other than motor vehicles. Rather than continue to expend financial resources to move greater numbers of motor vehicles at higher speeds, standards for mitigation have been relaxed to provide more context sensitive solutions.
ii. When did the V/C standard for capacity deficiency change from 0.5 to 09? What was the reason for this change? Response: See response to i. above.
iii. If a V/C exceeds the relevant standard, indicating a capacity deficiency, why does that “not necessarily indicate the need for improvements”? Please provide supporting citations for this statement. At what V/C level would improvements be required to made? Response: Nowhere in the Highway Capacity Manual does it state that LOS F or a volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0 indicate the need to correct a capacity deficiency. If this were the case, our roadways and intersections would be large seas of asphalt and most unsignalized intersections would be signalized. Instead the need to correct capacity deficiencies is left to the discretion of the controlling agency or community.
FEIS January 2018 133
In this case the controlling agency for Monroe Avenue is the NYSDOT.
d. Revised SDEIS, at 108 For the Clover Street at Towpath Lane Intersection discussion, the developer stated that while the Synchro analysis indicated this lane operates at a LOS "F" under existing, background, and full development conditions, the delays during field observations showed actual delays at LOS "D" during the PM peak hour — i.e. observations made under existing conditions. However, field observations cannot be conducted for the proposed plaza.
1. What basis is there for rejecting the Synchro analysis of this lane as being at LOS "F" under full development conditions? Response: The PM peak hour existing conditions results reported using Synchro (LOS “F” with delay of 101.8 seconds per vehicle) do match the actual field observations (LOS “D” with delay of 26.59 seconds per vehicle). Therefore, it stands to reason that the future conditions reported using Synchro are also over-estimated. Another methodology to estimate future delays is provided below. This method using actual delay, gap, and vehicle count data from existing conditions to then extrapolate to future conditions based upon the increases in traffic volumes that are anticipated. This methodology concludes that the side street delay will increase slightly to approximately 34 seconds per vehicle which remains LOS “D”. See calculations below:
Towpath Gap/Delay Projections – PM Peak Hour Existing Conditions Delay = 26.59 Critical Gaps = 29 gaps (left turn from Towpath) 148 (right turn from Towpath) Side Street Volume (actual @ time of gap study) = 11 left 11 right Mainline Volume (actual @ time of gap study) = 1730 vehicles Side Street Volume per gap = 11/29 = 0.38 veh/gap left turn 11/148 = 0.07 veh/gap right turn
Background Conditions Side Street Volume = 12 left 12 right % increase side street approach volume = 9.1% left 9.1% right Mainline Volume = 1752 % increase mainline volume = 1.3% • Background Gaps = 29 gaps/1.013 = 28 left 148/1.013= 146 right • Side Street vehicles/gap = 12/28= 0.43 veh/gap 12/146= 0.08 veh/gap
FEIS January 2018 134
• Proportional increase in side street vehicles/gap = 0.43/0.38 = 1.13 0.08/0.07=1.14 • Background Delay = 1.13 * 26.59= 30.05 sec/veh lefts
1.14 * 26.59= 30.31 sec/veh rights Future Conditions Side Street Volume = 12 left 12 right % increase side street approach volume = 0% left 0% right Mainline Volume = 1817 % increase mainline volume = 3.7% • Future Gaps = 28/1.037 = 27 gaps left 146/1.037 = 141 gaps right • Side Street vehicles/gap = 12/27= 0.44 veh/gap 12/141= 0.09 veh/gap • Proportional increase in side street vehicles/gap = 0.44/0.43 = 1.023
0.09/0.08= 1.125 • Future Delay = 1.023*30.05= 30.74 sec/veh lefts 1.125*30.31= 34.09 sec/veh rights
2. Why was no traffic mitigation measure suggested for this lane when the Synchro analysis (i.e. the only analysis considering the effects of the developer's proposal) shows a LOS "F"? Response: The actual increase in delay and LOS is expected to be smaller than reported by Synchro as explained above. The volume of traffic exiting Towpath Lane combined with the anticipated actual project impacts do not warrant any mitigation. This conclusion has been reviewed and accepted by NYSDOT.
e. Revised SDEIS at 108-09 For the Clover Street at Warren Avenue Intersection Discussion, the developer stated that while the Synchro analysis indicated this lane operates at a LOS "F" under existing, background, and full development conditions, the delays during field observations showed actual delays at LOS "E" during the PM peak hour — i.e. observations made existing conditions. However, field observations cannot be conducted for the proposed plaza.
1. What basis is there for rejecting the Synchro analysis of this lane as being at LOS "F" under full development conditions? Response: See response above regarding Towpath Lane. The situation at Warren Avenue is similar to that of Towpath Lane. The actual field documented LOS and delay at Warren Avenue is LOS “E” with a delay of 41.36 seconds per vehicle during the weekday PM peak hour.
FEIS January 2018 135
2. Why was no traffic mitigation measure suggested for this lane when the Synchro analysis (i.e. the only analysis considering the effects of the developer's proposal) shows a LOS "F"? Response: See response above regarding Towpath Lane. The situation at Warren Avenue is similar to that of Towpath Lane. The future PM peak hour LOS is expected to remain LOS “E” based upon the actual delay measured in the field and the predicted increases in traffic volumes on Clover Street.
f. Revised SDEIS at 109. The developer notes that "during the PM peak hour, the eastbound and westbound through movements each decrease from LOS "D" to "E" and "C" to "D" respectively with V/C ratios slightly above and below 1.0. All of these decreases in levels of service can be mitigated through optimization of signal cycle length.
1. The developer has been working with NYSDOT to optimize signal timing for many months now. Is there any proof that LOS decreases have been achieved through the adjustment of signal timing? Response: Drone video from before and after signal timings were adjusted by NYSDOT clearly show improved traffic flow on Monroe Avenue and shorter queues and delays.
2. Per the discussion on page 81 of the SDEIS, a V/C greater than 0.5 is considered to be a capacity deficiency. The developer has therefore admitted that this intersection is operating at more than its double capacity. Please explain why the developer believes this to be acceptable, or, alternatively, what mitigation measures will be used to reduce this ratio to an acceptable level. Response: See response to comment 3(i) and 3(iii) above.
g. Revised SDEIS at 110. Does the computer modeling traffic simulation consider real life variations or other interruptions to traffic flow (such as pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.), that could impact the LOS measures measured? If not, what LOS effects could be expected as a result? How would this affect signal timing optimization? Response: Yes, the simulation model accounts for real life variations as noted.
FEIS January 2018 136
h. Revised SDEIS at 111-12. The developer notes that traffic at Monroe Avenue at Westfall- Allens Creek Road is expected to experience decreasing LOS operating conditions as a result of the project, and that "any adjustments to signal timings will degrade levels of service." However, the developer noted "these levels of service and operating conditions are considered acceptable at this location when compared to the remainder of the Monroe avenue corridor."
1. What traffic mitigation measures are being proposed instead of signal timing adjustments? Response: The changes in LOS at this location are small and the approaches will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. This intersection is not currently coordinated with other intersections along Monroe Avenue. Proposed mitigation will include installing equipment to provide appropriate coordination with adjacent intersections along Monroe Avenue.
2. The developer suggested that a potential mitigation condition would be widening Aliens' Creek Road to provide separate southbound left turn and through movements. Has this possibility been discussed with NYSDOT? Response: The NYSDOT has not rejected the proposal, all work within the NYSDOT right- of-way is subject to final review and permitting upon completion of the environmental review.
i. Revised SDEIS at 112-13. The developer admits that the proposal will reduce the LOS from "E" to F" at Clover Street at Aliens Creek Road. The developer nevertheless states that not traffic mitigation is required other than signal timing. Please provide proof or an analysis of how this timing adjustment would improve the failing LOS at this intersection. Response: Section A14 (page 754) of the TIS Appendices (refer to accepted SDEIS) provide the mitigated LOS results for the Clover St/Allens Creek Road intersection. The results indicate that the movement in question, the westbound left turn movement, will operate at LOS “E” with the signal timing adjustments.
FEIS January 2018 137
j. Revised SDEIS at Section 5.1.5. Please provide supporting citations for the statements in the Queuing analysis that would justify the developer's decision to disregard the Synchro/Sim Traffic queuing model, which was apparently suggested to be implemented by Stantec Consulting, the Town's traffic engineers. Response: The following explanation is excerpted from the March 13, 2017 TIS which included a detailed discussion regarding Monroe Avenue queuing: “Synchro is a macroscopic model that basically uses equations to determine the queue length. SimTraffic is a microscopic simulation model that observes the queue lengths. Per the direction of Stantec engineers, SimTraffic has been used to determine queue lengths. The 95th-percentile queue is defined to be the queue length (in vehicles) that has only a 5- percent probability of being exceeded during the analysis time period. It is a useful parameter for determining the appropriate length of turn pockets, but it is not typical of what an average driver would experience.
In addition, it is difficult to compare the LOS results in the previous tables, which are based upon average delay conditions for motorists over the entire peak hour, to queuing estimations shown in Table X which reports 95th percentile queues used for design purposes. It is also important to note that in SimTraffic, a vehicle is considered queued whenever it is traveling at less than 10 ft/s. Vehicles will only become “queued” when they are either at the stop bar or behind another queued vehicle.
Observations of actual peak hour queuing on Monroe Avenue indicate that vehicles are arriving at the back of the queue at speeds that are likely greater than 10 ft/s in addition to arriving as the signal at Clover Street turns green. This results in the perception that queuing is extending back to I-590 on occasion. However, given the methodology that SimTraffic uses to calculates queue lengths, this “rolling” queue is not considered part of the actual stopped queue. The graph below depicts the length of the queue documented during every signal cycle during the PM peak hour between 5 and 6 PM on Wednesday November 2, 2016. Given the comparison of the documented existing queues, Synchro capacity analysis results and estimated 95th percentile queues from SimTraffic; SimTraffic is overestimating the 95th percentile queues that are actually occurring in the field.
FEIS January 2018 138
Hence future queues estimated using SimTraffic are also likely overestimating the future queuing that can be expected.” See also the Traffic Impact Study.
III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
a. Throughout the project the New York State Department of Transportation ("DOT") has reviewed the developer's submissions and provided substantive comments regarding the impact of the project on traffic along the Monroe Avenue Corridor. The developer should be required to obtain DOT approval of any final design before the project is approved, along with a certification from DOT that the proposal will not adversely affect current traffic volumes or safety levels.
Response: Comments from the NYSDOT and responses are provided as part of this FEIS. The applicant will be required to obtain a highway work permit for any work performed in the state right of way.
b. Save Monroe Ave incorporates all the comments on traffic that have been submitted by MacFarland Johnson. Response: Responses have been provided to all comments received during the public review period in this FEIS.
c. Please provide a response to all items in the final scope that were not addressed in the DEIS and SDEIS. Response: Responses have been provided to all comments received during the public review period in this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 139
12. Brisbane Consulting Group, LLC - Letter 3/27/17
1. Based on the above analysis, the additional gross income to the Developer as a result of the proposed Incentive Zoning deal is at least $16.2 million ($17,150,000 - $906,780). Response: The analysis provided is fundamentally flawed and does not consider acquisition cost, carrying cost, development cost, taxes, etc.
FEIS January 2018 140
4.2 Summary Chart of SDEIS Public Written Comments received.
FEIS January 2018 141
FEIS January 2018 142
TOPIC 1 – MONROE AVENUE TRAFFIC
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 1.01(2) – No left turn lane (signal) from Allen's creek to Monroe will cause huge backups as well as gridlock on Westfall road due to higher traffic volumes Response: The maximum projected backup on Allens Creek Road is an estimated two additional car lengths in the westbound left approach, the maximum increase in delay at the intersection is approximately 10 second but in most cases less than five seconds. The eastbound queue is projected to be near identical to background conditions (151’ background vs 148’ developed).
1.02(4) – Now that the traffic light has been fixed, things have been going more smoothly so the area should be primed for this development. Response: Comment noted.
1.03(6) – Do they really think fixing a light that they claim was "off" for over two years will help once this project goes through? I remain skeptical. Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in moderate increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. In most cases vehicles will pass through the intersections in a single light cycle. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and more importantly, traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
1.04(7) – We find it hard to believe that this project will have limited impact on Monroe Ave, once completed. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
FEIS January 2018 143
1.05.(9) – What the developer has been doing and promises to do in the future will make a currently very dangerous Monroe Avenue a little bit safer. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
1.06(11) – Driving up and down Monroe twice a day has shown me that traffic on Monroe only gets worse and worse. Another light will not help that. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
1.07.(17) – Monroe Avenue is the wrong location for this. Since they removed the third lane traffic has gotten worse and adding this project will increase the negative impact. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
1.08(19) – There have been so many accidents around this area, I can't see how adding more traffic can possibly make it any safer. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6). Accident rates have been reduced because of the NYSDOT safety project. Refer to page 74 of this FEIS Response to Community Services Comment #2.
1.09(21) – The road needs to be widened again and maybe even increased to four lanes. This isn't the Daniele's fault or the Wegmans fault. It is simply a road that needs to be modified. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6) and comment 1.08(19).
1.10(23) – There are already so many issues with Monroe Ave; gridlock, increase in accidents, congestion, poor traffic flow. Do not add anymore traffic to increase these issues. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6) and comment 1.08(19).
1.11(25, 69, 72) – This area is already too congested. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
1.12(27) – Traffic and congestion will only get worse, also resulting in more frequent accidents. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6) and comment 1.08(19).
1.13(28)– I believe the traffic flow has improved since they fixed the light, and because of this I see no issue with allowing Whole Foods the larger store size it requires.
FEIS January 2018 144
Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
1.14(30) – Despite the plans submitted, we can't believe that this project wouldn't cause an increase in traffic congestion. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
1.15(32) –"If the Daniele family feels Whole Foods is good for the community and would be successful, then they should be able to open anywhere and enjoy success off site of Monroe Ave. Response: Comment noted.
1.16(35) – Has had to wait an unreasonable amount of time on several occasion due to congestion. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
1.17(40) – The traffic in that area has gotten worse over the last year, and while I don't oppose a Whole Foods coming in, I do oppose all of the traffic issues it will cause. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
1.18(41) – Traffic and the ability to navigate the road is already so difficult; adding this business will make it so much worse" Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
1.19(44) – The area is too congested as is, and adding the Whole Foods would make it that much worse. There isn't anything that could be offered to offset the negative impacts this would bring. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
1.20(48, 56) – This will have a significant impact on traffic, including increased delays and gridlock situations. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
1.21(53, 67) – I drive up and down this corridor almost every day during high volume traffic and have little issue navigating the area. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
FEIS January 2018 145
1.22(61, 71) – Monroe Ave is complicated and congested, and I put very little faith in traffic studies and more in the experience. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
1.23(63) –"Would the Whole Foods developers agree to give up a lanes worth of frontage on Monroe to add a lane to facilitate entry into their complex while relieving congestion for those going north on I590?" Response: The project does not include a land transaction as suggested above.
FEIS January 2018 146
TOPIC 2 – CLOVER STREET TRAFFIC
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 2.01(4) – Now that the traffic light has been fixed, things have been going more smoothly so the area should be primed for this development. Response: Comment noted.
2.02(23) – There are already so many issues with Clover Street; gridlock, increase in accidents, congestion, poor traffic flow. Do not add any more traffic to increase these issues. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6). Accident rates have been reduced because of the NYSDOT safety project. Refer to page 74 of this FEIS Response to Community Services Comment #2.
2.03(34) – Making a left on any of the surrounding road is very dangerous, particularly those cars trying to quickly get into the correct lane to get on the right side of 590. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6).
2.04(35) – The timing of this light should have been able to be fixed in a day or two. Coincidentally, it took place at the same time as the traffic study. Response: The timing was calibrated by the NYSDOT over a period of approximately one month.
2.05(74) – The traffic on Clover and Warren have gotten much worse over the years, so if the project is approved, a traffic light must be considered. Response: The volumes on Warren at Clover do not meet the warrants for a signal light.
FEIS January 2018 147
TOPIC 3 – ALLEN’S CREEK TRAFFIC
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 3.01(2) – Without a left turn lane from Allen's Creek to Monroe, there will be a huge wait for those trying to get to Westfall. Response: The maximum projected backup on Allens Creek Road is an estimated two additional car lengths in the westbound left appraoch, the maximum increase in delay at the intersection is approximately 10 second but in most cases less than five seconds. The eastbound queue is projected to be near identical to background conditions (151’ background vs 148’ developed). Accident rates have been reduced because of the NYSDOT safety project. Refer to page 74 of this FEIS Response to Community Services Comment #2.
3.02(19) – There have been so many accidents around this area, I can't see how adding more traffic can possibly make it any safer. Response: Response: Refer to response to comment 1.03(6). Accident rates have been reduced because of the NYSDOT safety project. Refer to page 74 of this FEIS Response to Community Services Comment #2.
TOPIC 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 4.01(30) – We want the developer and town to honor Brighton's commitment to less air pollution, more green spaces, and to any other environmental concerns. Response: The project includes several new sustainable features including the preservation of open space, new landscaping, LED lighting and pedestrian accommodations. The applicant has also committed to approximately two miles of trail improvements. Refer to section 2.6 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 148
TOPIC 5 – AESTHETICS AND LIGHTING
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 5.01(37)– "...the aesthetic improvement is indisputable!" Response: Comment noted.
5.02(57) – "...I truly think the plaza would be the best looking plaza on the avenue..." Response: Comment noted.
5.03(60) – "The proposed store fits into the Brighton image." Response: Comment noted.
5.04(69) – "Do we really need more light pollution? …that plaza will look like an airport runway with all the bright lights on." Response: Lighting pollution is controlled and mitigation using LED lighting. Exterior lighting will be dark sky compliant. Refer to lighting plan at Figure 8 of this FEIS.
TOPIC 6 – CONSIDERATION OF RESIDENTS
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 6.01(23) – "...the Whole Foods project is not in the best interest of the communities and individuals which are directly affected." Response: Refer to Section 1 of this FEIS.
6.02(58) – "...several houses have been put on the market on Allens Creek Road. When traffic density gets offensive, that is the sort of thing that happens. Property values erode and people wish to live elsewhere." Response: The maximum projected backup on Allens Creek Road is an estimated two additional car lengths in the westbound left appraoch, the maximum increase in delay at the intersection is approximately 10 second but in most cases less than five seconds. Accident rates have been reduced because of the NYSDOT safety project. Refer to page 74 of this FEIS Response to Community Services Comment #2.
FEIS January 2018 149
TOPIC 7 – ACCESS ROADS
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 7.01(7) – There should be legal documentation stating that access will never be allowed to the proposed site through anywhere but Monroe Avenue. Response: The project only has legal rights to Clover Street through the 1 acre of land that is proposed for preservation. The applicant does not have rights to access Clover Street or Allens Creek road in the portion of lands zoned commercially. The applicant is proposing the installation of bollards to prohibit vehicular access and has committed to limiting access to Monroe Avenue.
7.02(8) – "...we would request that the asphalt road be removed and a gravel pathway for only bikers, joggers, and pedestrians be installed." Response: The project includes improving the area to provide an asphalt trail designed for pedestrians and bicyclists, not vehicles.
7.03(22) – Urges the board to ensure that access is never granted at Clover or Allens Creek. Response: See response to 7.01.
7.04(31, 55, 70) – There needs to be a signed contract stating that the developers will never use Allens Creek or Clover as an access road. Response: See response to 7.01.
7.05(36, 49) – Developers and the town refuse to put anything in writing saying that they will never allow secondary access to Clover or Allens Creek. Response: See response to 7.01.
7.06(52, 65, 72) – If there is an increase in backups on Monroe to get to 590, the State might force alternatives, such as the opening of one of the access area on Clover or Allens Creek. Response: See response to 7.01.
FEIS January 2018 150
TOPIC 8 – NEED FOR / TYPE OF RETAIL
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 8.01(1) – Looking forward to the store, the convenient location, and the benefits. Response: Comment noted.
8.02(5) – "...another great resource for food shopping..." Response: Comment noted.
8.03(6) – Having a Whole Foods so close to Wegmans and Trader Joes is unnecessary. I will not shop there. Response: Comment noted.
8.04(10) – "...do we need another grocery store when Wegmans is less than a mile down the road?" Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of the DEIS.
8.05(14) – I want to be able to spend my money in my own town. The Wegmans Family has a monopoly and it is not healthy for our region. Response: Comment noted.
8.06(39, 58) – "We do not need a new supermarket in this area, especially." Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of the DEIS.
8.07(60) – "The store carries products not available at other nearby grocery stores." Response: Comment noted.
8.08(61) – "I see no benefit in a Whole Foods... it brings nothing to Brighton..." Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 151
TOPIC 9 – PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: No topic related written comments were received during the SDEIS public review period
TOPIC 10 – QUALITY OF LIFE AND/OR CHARACTER
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 10.01(22) – The proposed plaza will make the area too commercial and affect the quality of life or the residents in the area as well as negatively affect the character of the town. Response: The project is a redevelopment effort to revitalize a currently vacant site with a new retail plaza. The majority of the land within the development parcels, including all of the land along Monroe Avenue, are zoned for commercial development. The purpose of the EIS process is to weigh the potential impact of the project on the neighboring properties and the Town and to ensure that the impact is mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.
10.02(56) – "The plans for this site seem very inconsistent with the character of our town..." Response: See Section 2.3.13 of the DEIS which provides a summary of the Town’s planning goals and how the project attempts to comply with as many of those goals as possible.
FEIS January 2018 152
TOPIC 11 – TAXES
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 11.01(9) – "I would opt for the largest store possible because it will generate the most property, school, and sales tax revenue." Response: Comment noted.
11.02(20) – Wants Whole Foods to be in Brighton where the tax revenue can be best used. Response: Comment noted.
11.03(37) – "The amount of tax revenue Brighton will get is considerable..." Response: Comment noted.
11.04(38) – "...this grocery store will be in Brighton, benefitting our tax base-- something this town desperately needs." Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 153
TOPIC 12 – USAGE / WHOLE FOODS AS ANCHOR TENANT
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 12.01(3) – Submitted article regarding the declining business of Whole Foods country wide. Why not focus on a smaller building and not more embellishments? Response: Whole Foods and the developer have signed a lease agreement which is based on a 50,000 SF store.
12.02(12) – Based on recent articles, please make sure that Whole Foods does not plan on delaying the opening due to financial issues. Response: Neither town nor applicant can mandate Whole Foods opening date, except as set forth in the lease.
12.03(24, 75) – "consider the wisdom" of committing to giving Whole Foods a zoning variance when they seem to be going through some financial strains, and seeing as their two biggest competitors are right down the street. Response: Whole Foods remains confident that this location will be very successful for their business.
12.04(27) – "Whole Foods will probably not make it and Wegmans will suffer as well." Response: Comment represents the opinion of the commenter.
12.05(29)– Whole Foods is not in a profitable situation right now. They are demanding a bigger store, and if they don't get it they will rent the building. Whole Foods has a less reputable presence across the nation than most would think. Response: See response to 12.03.
12.06(34)– Whole Food has not been doing very well and should have to sign a contract to remain for ten years. Response: Whole Foods has a tentative lease agreement with the applicant for 20 years which includes options for up to an additional 20 years of extensions.
FEIS January 2018 154
12.07(43)– Whole Foods should not be allowed in this town. They are dishonest, and do not show any signs of being able to increase their sales revenue let alone stay in business. Wegmans is all that Rochester needs right now. Response: Comment represents the opinion of the commenter.
12.08(54)– My family and I would never shop there, we are loyal to Wegmans. Response: Comment represents the opinion of the commenter.
12.09(64)– I can hardly think of a better tenant than the prestigious Whole Foods. If they don't get this spot, who is to say that a less attractive tenant won't take its place. Response: Comment noted.
12.010(67)– "Whole Foods is the kind of business that matches the values that brought us to Brighton to begin with and will attract other similar businesses." Response: Comment represents the opinion of the commenter.
FEIS January 2018 155
TOPIC 13 – SCALE AND DENSITY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 13.01(7) – "Many neighbors have urged a lower density and development and a reduction in the overall square footage of the Whole Foods store because that would be likely to reduce traffic congestion." Response: See Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.02(9) – "That means that whether the store is 30,000 or 50,000 sq. ft. the traffic will be the same." Response: Refer to Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.03(11,51) – "The size of the project is too large for the site." Response: Refer to Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.04(25) – "I would prefer a smaller development than the one that is being proposed by the developer" Response: Refer to Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.05(33) – I vote for a project that is less than 70,000 feet, otherwise it will have an adverse affect on our town. Response: Refer to Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.06(36) – This project is simply too big for this location. The baseline has not been redone to reflect the property size which should be allowed at this location. Response: Refer to Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.07(42) – Make the building smaller; it's even too big the way it is now. Response: Refer to Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.08(52) – Make the development smaller, or do what is most common and start with one building at a time to see how the traffic works out in the area. Once that proves itself to be true to what the developer was promising, then add other buildings and tenants. Response: Refer to Section 2.1 and 2.5 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 156
TOPIC 14 – SURFACE WATER AND DRAINAGE
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 14.01(70) – The lot should have pervious surfaces and areas, so that no flooding will occur. Response: The project includes pervious pavement and will result in a net reduction in the peak rate of runoff. See the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan at Appendix 6.
TOPIC 15 – BUFFER
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 15.01(7) – The area surrounding the development needs to be permanently and legally inaccessible to the developer. Response: The project includes a deed restriction ensuring the permanent preservation of open space along Clover Street.
15.02(70) – The buffer is inadequate; trees should be mature enough to block out light, noise, and truck traffic. Response: The preserved open space will serve as a buffer in concert with proposed berming and landscaping. The lighting has been designed to remove light trespass on adjacent properties. A noise study is provided as part of the DEIS.
FEIS January 2018 157
TOPIC 16 – AMENITIES
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 16.01(3) – Doesn't see any proposed amenities that would be worth it, but wonders about adding sidewalks to Elmwood. Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS. Sidewalks are not proposed along Elmwood.
16.02(7) – There are no amenities mentioned that are beneficial to the town, and one of them is the Developer fixing something that he damaged to begin with. Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.03(7) – Because the Auburn Trail will be owned by the Developer, what will ensure its upkeep for the sake and safety of the pedestrians? Response: The Auburn Trail will be covered by access easements granting the public the right to access the land. The applicant has agreed to enter a maintenance agreement for those portions of the trail that are on their property.
16.04(15, 76) – "Community amenities they have offered do not adequately compensate for the problems of safety and convenience caused by increased traffic." Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.05(31, 59) – The proposed so called amenities are things the developer should have to do anyways in order to complete this project. Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.06(33, 49) – "I don't think what they are giving the town in return is worth much either." Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.07(45) – These are not actually amenities; these are necessities for this project to fit into the town in general. Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 158
16.08(63) – Who would be funding the joining of the stores on the south side of Monroe Avenue and did they all agree to it? Response: The applicant has agreed to fund the improvements associated with the implementation of the AMP as part of the project. The owners of the properties have agreed to enter into cross access easements as necessary to carry out the AMP.
16.09(65) – The proposed amenities are "laughable bordering on insulting". Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.10(70) – "The path of the "NYC-Auburn" Trail should be restored and relocated to its original location- and not conveniently left to wend its way around a parking lot." Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 159
TOPIC 17 – NOISE
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 17.01(16) – What would be the impact of all the trucks idling, for example light and noise pollution, to the surrounding neighborhoods? Response: Refer to the Noise Study provided as part of the DEIS and Section 2.4 of this FEIS.
TOPIC 18 – RESIDENTIAL STREET TRAFFIC & SAFETY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: No topic related comments received during written comments received during SDEIS public review period.
TOPIC 19 – SHOREHAM DRIVE TRAFFIC & SAFETY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: No topic related comments received during written comments received during SDEIS public review period.
TOPIC 20 – SCHOOLHOUSE LANE TRAFFIC & SAFETY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 20.01(8) – The main concern for Schoolhouse Lane residents is the possibility of an access road to Allens Creek. Response: An access road to Allens Creek is not included as part of the project.
TOPIC 21 – PICKWICK DRIVE TRAFFIC & SAFETY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 21.01(49) – "There are many quiet neighborhoods bordering Clover and Allens Creek...do not turn these streets into commercial traffic areas." Response: The TIS indicates that there will not be a significant negative impact to traffic along Allen’s Creek Road or Clover Street. Access to Allens Creek and Clover St. is not part of the proposal
FEIS January 2018 160
TOPIC 22 – PROPERTY VALUES
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: No topic related comments received during written comments received during SDEIS public review period.
FEIS January 2018 161
TOPIC 23 – ZONING AND CODE
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 23.01(3) – Totally opposed to incentive zoning; wrong place, wrong time, wrong zoning. Response: In accordance with the Town’s incentive zoning ordinance and NYS SEQRA Title 6 NYCRR Part 617, the applicant must demonstrate that the project will not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties and that any potential impact has been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, the applicant must provide amenities for the benefit of the public in turn for the requested incentives. The Town Board as Lead Agent for the SEQRA review is charged with weighing the potential environmental impact, requested incentives and amenities and the issuing a findings statement to conclude the SEQRA process. As part of that process, the Town Board will consider the potential impact of the additional 19,600 sf, as well as the project as a whole. SEQRA findings will be completed prior to a decision on the incentive zoning application. The decision on amenities and incentives is separate from the SEQRA process.
23.02(11) – I do not believe that the proposal should qualify for incentive zoning because the proposed amenities are not beneficial to the town. Response: See Section 1 of this FEIS and response to comment 23.01.
23.03(15) – "Granting zoning variances to the Daniele's is not justified" Response: See Section 1 of this FEIS and response to comment 23.01.
23.04(17)– Just because the Daniele's have money and connections doesn't mean they should be allowed special privileges with zoning laws. They should have gone through the normal process before they closed down their restaurant. Response: See Section 1 of this FEIS and response to comment 23.01.
23.05(26) – Please allow any variances required to go through with the project, it is definitely worth it for the tax revenue and for my ability to shop there! Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 162
23.06(31,51, 69) – The developer has offered nothing to warrant the use of any special zoning or variances. Response: See Section 1 of this FEIS and response to comment 23.01.
23.07(39, 55) – "The developer certainly should not get special privileges to avoid regulations." Response: See Section 1 of this FEIS and response to comment 23.01.
23.08(41) – "...NO SPECIAL DEAL for the Danieles and Whole Foods." Response: See Section 1 of this FEIS and response to comment 23.01.
23.09(42, 71, 72) – The land should be developed within the zoning restrictions of our town to ensure the project is correctly sized. Response: See Section 1 of this FEIS and response to comment 23.01.
23.10(45) – "...incentive zoning proposals should not adversely impact the health, safety or welfare of the community. This proposal cannot live up to that statement." Response: See Section 1 of this FEIS and response to comment 23.01.
23.11(46, 47, 62, 66) – Do not cut the Danieles a deal, they need to follow the same laws as everyone else, especially since it will only create a bunch of problems. Response: See Section 1 of this FEIS and response to comment 23.01.
23.12(50) – "I believe extending zoning waivers as appropriate is acceptable." Response: Comment noted.
23.13(59) – "Enforcing existing zoning limitations for the Whole Foods plaza would especially protect those of us who live closest to the site. Our quality of life is on the line." Response: See Section 1 of this FEIS and response to comment 23.01.
23.14(65) – "Granting a variance will set an unacceptable precedent for the Town favoring a developers financial gain over the impact on nearby small businesses and area residents." Response: See Section 1 of this FEIS and response to comment 23.01.
FEIS January 2018 163
TOPIC 24 – TRUCK TRAFFIC
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 24.01(16) – "...would likely require a significant number of truck deliveries each day." Response: See Section 2.4 of this FEIS.
24.02(45) – "The truck traffic has barely been addressed, if at all. How many trips per hour, per day?" Response: See Section 2.4 of this FEIS.
TOPIC 25 – COMPREHENSIVE TOWN PLANS
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: No topic related comments received during written comments received during SDEIS public review period.
FEIS January 2018 164
TOPIC 26 – FIGURES AND DEIS TRAFFIC STUDY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 26.01(7) – The traffic study has pieces which we believe are false, and some which we believe are being overlooked. Its timing and scope are also inconsistent with what should have been analyzed. Response: The Traffic Study has been prepared in accordance with the approved EIS Scope and at the direction of the NYSDOT and Town’s Engineering consultant.
26.02(13) – "...there has been a technical traffic study done, by qualified engineers, using worst case scenario numbers, and the result was actually an increase in the ease, expedience, and safety for travelers." Response: See Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
26.03(29) – There are several inconsistencies with the traffic study, such as only one truck in the presentation, no busses stopping for pedestrians, less of the corridor covered than what should have been, and a lack of actual daily activities at businesses. Response: See response to comment 26.01.
26.04(34) – "... the traffic simulation just covered the area in front of the project, not the whole area which will be affected by it." Response: See response to comment 26.01.
26.05(51) –"I think the traffic study understates the increased amount of traffic generated by the proposed project." Response: See section 2.2 of this FEIS.
26.06(64) – It is frustrating that this is taking so long due to faulty data from the DOT, as well as to learn that the problem with the light may never have been fixed if it were not for this projects research. Response: The traffic signal is currently operating as intended.
FEIS January 2018 165
26.07(73) – What if the residents have been right the whole time and this whole speculated traffic study was very wrong, and then we all have to suffer for it? Response: See section 2.2 of this FEIS.
TOPIC 27 – IMPACT ON LOCAL BUSINESSES
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 27.01(30) – We do not need any more grocery stores, coffee shops, or banks. Adding more will cause the businesses already in place to suffer unnecessarily. Response: Comment noted.
27.02(37) – "...will introduce a healthy competition between the two stores and will improve...the service, quality, and pricing of each store." Response: Comment noted.
27.03(38) – "Competition in any market only benefits consumers." Response: Comment noted.
TOPIC 28 – PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: No topic related comments received during written comments received during SDEIS public review period.
FEIS January 2018 166
TOPIC 29 – THE DEVELOPER
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 29.01(5) – "The Daniele family are one of the most respected families in our country and are excellent business and development leaders." Response: Comment noted.
29.02(10) – The Daniele's are insulting one of our greatest families, the Wegman family, and are being 'childish'. Response: Comment noted.
29.03(11)– "...I do not believe any development group that has the President of Monroe County Legislature as partner should be given any special consideration. It seems to be bordering on unethical." Response: Comment noted.
29.04(13) – "I think the developer has shown their success in being good neighbors and adding value to the area. Towns all over the country work hard to solicit developers like the Daniele's, offering tax/variance incentives and approvals to developers in order to get projects like this one." Response: Comment noted.
29.05(18) – General lack of responsiveness by the Daniele's. Response: Comment noted.
29.06(25) – "There is no reason that the developer should get any special treatment. I prefer that they be treated like any other company and that they be subject to the same zoning restrictions. Response: The applicant has not received any special treatment. Any developer can apply for project approval under the Town’s Incentive Zoning Law.
29.07(53) – "...I recognize fellow citizens concerns that one of the reasons that this project is making it through...is because of the Daniele Family's influence. However, I would like to request that...we here in Brighton treat ALL prospective entrepreneurs as potentially worthy of a variance..." Response: See comment 29.06(25).
FEIS January 2018 167
TOPIC 30 – BRIGHTON TOWN GOVERNMENT
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: No topic related comments received during written comments received during SDEIS public review period.
TOPIC 31 – MOTORISTS
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: No topic related comments received during written comments received during SDEIS public review period.
TOPIC 32 – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 32.01(68) – This reminds me of how a group opposed a Wegmans being built on the site of the old psych center. A small group of noisy families stopped that progress, and over a decade later the decrepit 200 ' tall building still remains. I hope we do not see a repeat of that here and miss this great opportunity. Response: Comment noted.
TOPIC 33 – ALTERNATIVES
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 33.01(7) – The alternatives provided are written in such a way that says the Developer will make some retail smaller but still add other retail to make it just as congested traffic wise. This shows bad faith on the part of the developer. Response: See Section 2.3 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 168
4.3 Responses to Comments Received at May 10, 2017 SDEIS Public Hearing
FEIS January 2018 169
TOPIC 1 – MONROE AVENUE TRAFFIC
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 1.01(1) –"... modified our internal shopping center circulation so that traffic flow to and from the plaza and along the Monroe Avenue corridor, without access again to Clover Street and Allens Creek Road, will proceed in a safe and orderly fashion." Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.02(2) – "...what we discovered was the signal light at Clover and Monroe Avenue was not functioning correctly... that means that 800 vehicles, 800 to 1,000 vehicles were not able to move through that intersection." Response: Comment noted.
1.03(5) – "And any kind of glitch in the system... a pedestrian pushing the crosswalk button ... a bus pulled over on the side of the road ...any little glitch like that that happens, you're looking at significantly lower levels of operation on Monroe Avenue." Response: The traffic study is intentionally conservative and accounts for pedestrian crossings to ensure the results accurately reflect all aspects of the corridor under the developed condition.
1.04(6) –"... the conclusions of the traffic study and the dismissal of the issues in the SDEIS are simply not believable." Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.01(1). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also
FEIS January 2018 170
proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.05.(7) – " From Clover Street heading south, turning left to right on Monroe or going straight is never a problem, I never have any issues there." Response: Comment noted, the commenters experience is verified by the TIS.
1.06(8) – Hit all green lights going from Hampshire to Wegmans the other day, took about 3 minutes, doesn't understand why it's such a big deal to put in an eighth light. If the lights are synchronized he would have hit that light on green as well. Response: The coordination of the lights will assist in keeping traffic moving along Monroe Avenue.
1.07.(12) – "...the traffic is horrendous in that whole area....we don't want it to enlarge." Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.01(1). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.08(13) – "I would not want to have to navigate through what is being proposed." Response: Comment noted.
1.09(14) – "To add another light, you know, four lights already exist, add another one, you know, it's going to be a pain ... just on that stance alone, I disagree." Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS and the Traffic Impact Study.
1.10(15) – "My two most memorable accidents were both in front of Mario's. I don't think they had anything to do with Mario's, I think they had to do with the traffic on Monroe Avenue."
FEIS January 2018 171
Response: Accident rates have decreased along Monroe Avenue since the completion of the NYSDOT improvements, refer to Community Service response #2 on page 74 of this FEIS. The project includes the implementation of an Access Management Plan to further improve safety for the corridor.
1.11(18) – "...every afternoon during the week I travel from the Village of Pittsford westerly on Monroe to the light at Clover Street and turn right back to my home. And I can tell you, that there's a lot of traffic there day after day." Response: Refer to response to comment 1.07(12).
1.12(20) – "I had to wait three light cycles and unfortunately... I hate to tell you this but we do have gridlock." Response: Refer to response to comment 1.07(12).
1.13(21)– "In busy times there's complete gridlock from the corner of Monroe and Westfall, all the way up to Clover and Monroe." Response: Refer to response to comment 1.07(12).
1.14(23) –"... we have traffic delays now. And what we have to realize, and I'm sure you do, is that this is a very difficult location. Because specifically because of the I90 ramps in the close proximity of the cross roads and the other lights." Response: Refer to response to comment 1.07(12).
1.15(25) – From Clover to Monroe to Elmwood, there are already so many lights, one every tenth of a mile, that adding another can only make it more dysfunctional. It will not work. Response: Refer to response to comment 1.07(12).
1.16(28) – "...the Monroe Avenue area between Allens Creek Road and French Road is the most accident prone area in Monroe County." Response: There are no studies to support the claim that this area is the most accident prone in the County. Refer to comment 1.10(15).
FEIS January 2018 172
1.17(35) –"...we need to get the traffic right on Monroe. When we really commit to removing those secondary access points it's going to force us to get those numbers right on Monroe. And I think that's in the best interest of absolutely everybody." Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS and the Traffic Impact Study. The applicant has committed to not installing access points off of Clover Street and Allens Creek Road. The AMP is designed to encourage traffic for businesses located on the south side of Monroe Ave to ingress and egress at the new signalized intersection.
1.18(37) – "...what I have noticed since they have changed the synchronization and now increased time, it has been a better flow. Response: Comment noted.
1.19(38) – "...for years that corridor between the expressway and Clover Street has been a hazard of left-hand turns..." Response: Refer to response to comment 1.07(12). The AMP is designed to encourage traffic for businesses located on the south side of Monroe Ave to ingress and egress at the new signalized intersection
FEIS January 2018 173
TOPIC 2 – CLOVER STREET TRAFFIC
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 2.01(1) – "This site doesn't touch either Allen's Creek or Clover." Response: The 1 acre of preserved open space fronts on Clover Street. However, the developer agrees not to use that parcel for vehicular access to or from Clover St. which will be subject to an agreement acceptable to the Town.
2.02(2) – "...what we discovered was the signal light at Clover and Monroe Avenue was not functioning correctly... that means that 800 vehicles, 800 to 1,000 vehicles were not able to move through that intersection." Response: Comment noted.
2.03(2) – "There's no proposed access to Allen's Creek Road or to Clover" Response: Comment noted.
2.04(6) –"... the conclusions of the traffic study and the dismissal of the issues in the SDEIS are simply not believable." Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.01(1). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
2.05(7) – " From Clover Street heading south, turning left to right on Monroe or going straight is never a problem, I never have any issues there." Response: Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
FEIS January 2018 174
2.06(18) – "...every afternoon during the week I travel from the Village of Pittsford westerly on Monroe to the light at Clover Street and turn right back to my home. And I can tell you, that there's a lot of traffic there day after day." Response: Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
2.07(21)– "In busy times there's complete gridlock from the corner of Monroe and Westfall, all the way up to Clover and Monroe." Response: Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
2.08(25) – From Clover to Monroe to Elmwood, there are already so many lights, one every tenth of a mile, that adding another can only make it more dysfunctional. It will not work. Response: Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
2.09(28) – "...the Monroe Avenue area between Allens Creek Road and French Road is the most accident prone area in Monroe County." Response: There are no studies to support the claim that this area is the most accident prone in the County. Refer to comment 1.10(15).
2.10(34) – "...Clover is a designated bike area from Midtown out to Mendon Ponds Park...I think that with this new extra light more traffic will go down Clover...that will be more of a danger to cyclists..." Response: Refer to response to comment 2.04(6). The construction of the Auburn Trail is an amenity proposed by the developer that will provide a safe alternative for bike traffic.
2.11(36) – "We have had a buffer and it's getting harder and harder to get out of our street now because the traffic is extending onto Clover..." Response: See response to comment 2.10.
FEIS January 2018 175
TOPIC 3 – ALLEN’S CREEK TRAFFIC
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 3.01(1) – "This site doesn't touch either Allen's Creek or Clover." Response: Comment noted.
3.02(2) –"There's no proposed access to Allen's Creek Road or to Clover" Response: Comment noted.
3.03(6) – "... the conclusions of the traffic study and the dismissal of the issues in the SDEIS are simply not believable." Response: Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
3.04(19) – "...with the increased traffic there's increased probability of accidents." Response: Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
3.05(25) – From Clover to Monroe to Elmwood, there are already so many lights, one every tenth of a mile, that adding another can only make it more dysfunctional. It will not work. Response: Refer to response to comment 2.04(6)..
3.06(27) – "This will add additional traffic that we've talked about tonight to an already busy Allens Creek Road...." Response: Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
3.07(28) – "...the Monroe Avenue area between Allens Creek Road and French Road is the most accident prone area in Monroe County." Response: There are no studies to support the claim that this area is the most accident prone in the County.
3.08(30) – "Allens Creek is at a tipping point." Response: Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
FEIS January 2018 176
TOPIC 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 4.01(4) –"...your law says you cannot give incentive zoning when there is environmental damage. And they have admitted in this report some significant environmental damage." Response: In accordance with the Town’s incentive zoning ordinance and NYS SEQRA Title 6 NYCRR Part 617, the applicant must demonstrate that the project will not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties and that any potential impact has been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, the applicant must provide amenities for the benefit of the public in turn for the requested incentives. The Town Board as Lead Agent for the SEQRA review is charged with weighing the potential environmental impact, requested incentives and amenities and the issuing a findings statement to conclude the SEQRA process. SEQRA findings will be completed prior to a decision on the incentive zoning application. The decision on amenities and incentives is separate from the SEQRA process.
FEIS January 2018 177
TOPIC 5 – AESTHETICS AND LIGHTING
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 5.01(9)– "So I would encourage them to take that plaza portion of the development and move it closer to the road... we'd have something that's much more consistent with what's in Brighton now. A lot more, I think, of a neighborhood plaza and a lot less of a big parking lot." Response: The project is within the Town’s front setback requirements.
5.02(19) – "So three houses in off of Clover, walk in... 50 steps and I'd be over there. So there will be a lot more light, a lot more noise." Response: Lighting and noise have been addressed in the DEIS and this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 178
TOPIC 6 – CONSIDERATION OF RESIDENTS
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 6.01(3) – "... significant traffic impact on roads that's the worst in the county, adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods and other detriments the community might face." Response: Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
6.02(6) – " I can't find a neighbor who says, oh boy, that would be great." Response: Comment noted.
6.03(6) – "Whole Foods' desire to be competitive is not necessarily in the town's interest." Response: Comment noted.
6.04(10) – "But I think the fact is, most of the people at both meetings, by a long shot, the citizenry is saying, we don't want this. This is too big. This is not what we're looking for." Response: The Town as Lead Agent has considered all comments received during the EIS process.
6.05(11) – "...our voices are not being heard." "I just encourage you to hear our concerns." Response: The process has included multiple public hearings and two separate public comment periods during which the Town received and filed all comments. This FEIS provides responses to those comments.
6.06(12) – "Brighton has been trying to keep the traffic closed. We don't want it to enlarge." Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 179
6.07(14) – "If you are not willing to listen to these citizens, I have to say to the Board, I think it's time for a change. So I hope you respect my opinion, I hope you listen to these citizens because they really do care." Response: Comment noted.
6.08(16) – "And I don't believe that you're going to be able to convince the residents of this area that there's going to be less traffic or better traffic with the addition of a great grocery store." Response: Comment noted.
6.09(18) – "We have a good culture, a great town, we do have good stores, we have economic benefit. We have some traffic, we don't have gridlock. And I would suggest to you that that's something that we want to protect." Response: See response to comment 4.01.
6.10(30) – "And when... trees fall down or when there's an emergency and the firemen are going up and down the road with the traffic, it's really tough." Response: The Fire Department has indicated in comments included with this FEIS that the proposal will not restrict their ability to access the site.
6.11(34) – Several neighbors from the Whitewood Lane area are present and want to make sure that the Board knows they are all saying that they don't want this. Response: Comment noted.
6.12(35) – Very frustrated that all of his and his neighbors’ concerns seem to be going unanswered in regards to size and access roads. Response: See comment 6.05(11). The proposal does not include access to either Allens Creek Rd or Clover Street.
6.13(35) – "The way this process has gone so far is not in any way constructive, it doesn't reflect the needs of our residents. It basically reflects the needs of the developer..." Response: See comment 6.05(11).
FEIS January 2018 180
TOPIC 7 – ACCESS ROADS
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 7.01(3) – "But we're concerned, based on our review of the plans, about the site layout and traffic flow on site that when the project fails or traffic on Monroe Ave fails, the DOT is going to force the developer to open up those rear access points and dump into the neighborhoods." Response: The DOT does not have the authority to require additional access roads. The proposed project does not propose access to either Clover Street or Allens Creek Rd.
7.02(6) – "Access to the Whole Foods Plaza should be limited to Monroe Avenue driveways, now and forever. And there needs to be a binding agreement that would also prohibit any additional possibilities of new access points on Clover Street." Response: The developer does not own the property or have the legal right to restrict access on property which they do not control.
7.03(11) – "...we would like to see a legally binding agreement opposed to opening any secondary access sites on Allen's Creek and Clover." Response: See response to comment 7.02(6).
7.04(27) –"The main concern the residents of Schoolhouse Lane have concerning this access road is the plans the developer may have in using this access road as an additional entrance and exit to the proposed Whole Foods Plaza." Response: See response to 7.01.
7.05(27) – "I believe the current plans do not call for this access road to be used. And if that is true, we would request that the asphalt road be removed and a gravel pathway...be installed." Response: The access road area will be improved to provide a fully accessible trail. See Section 1.4 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 181
7.06(28) – "...all of a sudden there's a paved parking lot behind the church with a paved road that goes out to Allen's Creek Road. Was there any official granting of allowance for that paved road?" Response: The parking lot in question is on the Church’s property. The applicant has had no historical involvement with its development.
7.07(35) – "...we need to legally guarantee from our standpoint that those secondary access points are closed." Response: See response to comment 7.02.
FEIS January 2018 182
TOPIC 8 – NEED FOR / TYPE OF RETAIL
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 8.01(13) – "I don't know why we need more food. What is Whole Foods going to provide that we obviously don't already have? ... one square mile radius, there's enough food and we have adequate health food stores that are... easily... accessed." Response: Whole Foods provides a variety of products not currently available in the market.
8.02(26) – "And they know that it's going to help everybody out being more competitive. So I think it's a positive thing." Response: Comment noted.
TOPIC 9 – PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 9.01(11) – "... I'm concerned that people would cut through." Response: The access points to Clover Street and Allen’s Creek Road have been removed from the proposal to eliminate the cut thru potential.
9.02(19) – "So there's the safety, there's the traffic, and there's the pollution too, so, noise pollution. I mean, I'm a stone's throw away from where this thing's going to be, right? So three houses in off of Clover, walk in...50 steps and I'd be over there. So there will be a lot more light, a lot more noise. Response: The lighting and noise has been mitigated through the design including but not limited to the preservation of open space, berming and landscaping.
9.03(20) – "But my point is that this (gridlock) is happening now. And this is happening before there's any further large scale development." Response: Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
FEIS January 2018 183
TOPIC 10 – QUALITY OF LIFE AND/OR CHARACTER
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 10.01(4) –"We are here about the quality of life." -No to incentive zoning, don't see any viable amenities, and concerned with traffic. Response: See Sections 1.6 and 2.2 of this FEIS. Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
10.02(9) – "So I think it goes back to a quality of life thing, that we're going to have plazas that are not going to be at their peak and building more is not necessarily the best for Brighton." Response: See response to comment 4.01.
10.03(10) – "We have to make it right for our community for our quality of life." Response: See response to comment 4.01.
10.04(19) – "So this is going to have a big impact on the neighborhood in a lot of ways, as far as quality of life is concerned." Response: See response to comment 4.01.
10.05(21) – "You're going to ruin life in that area of town for us." Response: See response to comment 4.01.
10.06(29) – "We'll end up with a building that like stood next to the Charbroil Restaurant for almost 25 years and grass growing in the parking lot and windows being broken... look at the Mario's Restaurant right now. The vandals have done a great job." (In reference to Whole Foods going out of business) Response: Comment noted.
10.07(38) – "The traffic light on the southern part of Monroe Avenue will mitigate along with the curb cut eliminations for all those businesses. To me, that's quality of life improvement." Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 184
TOPIC 11 – TAXES
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 11.01(7) – "So as a tax payer in Brighton, I would opt for the largest store possible, because it will generate the most property, school and tax revenue, and sales tax revenue." Response: Comment noted.
11.02(29) – " Safeway...They do not want Whole Foods. They would close that. There would be no tax coming in, there would be no tax of any kind coming in." Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 185
TOPIC 12 – USAGE / WHOLE FOODS AS ANCHOR TENANT
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 12.01(14) – "...you're going to get a company from Texas to come in here, you know, and let's say bully their way through. I don't think that's right." Response: Comment noted.
12.02(29) –"I happen to know that the Whole Foods company is in dire straits. They started off this year with 164 stores, they have closed nine." Response: Whole Foods signed a 20-year lease as part of this project with up to an additional 20 years of extensions. According to its web page, Whole Foods has 473 stores in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. In 2017, Whole Foods was purchased by Amazon Corporation.
12.03(33) – Does Whole Foods plan on putting in extra things such as a bocce court and a pub? If they have these intentions the town needs to know. Response: The applicant has not requested any additional uses within the store as part of the application.
12.04(34) – "...Wall Street Journal there's a couple of articles about Whole Foods... one of them said that Whole Foods had stopped any new development and had postponed new development indefinitely." Response: See response to comment 12.02.
12.05(35)– "We do know Whole Foods is financially in a little bit of trouble." Response: See response to comment 12.02.
FEIS January 2018 186
TOPIC 13 – SCALE AND DENSITY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 13.01(1) – "In fact, the 50,000 square foot grocery store is allowed with the Planning Board approval for a conditions permit....the EIS requires us to analyze alternatives and the alternative of dealing with size, deals with the maximum density allowed under code, which for this particular site it's 70,400 square feet." Response: See Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.02(4) – "My clients are not opposed to Whole Foods, my clients are not opposed to the redevelopment of this plaza. My clients want it developed at the size that your comprehensive plan called for." Response: See Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.03(5) – "...so a variance would be required for the alternative six for that, as well as the special use permit, which Dan alluded to for the oversized building." Response: See Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.04(6) – "We believe that some level of right sized commercial development of this parcel should go forward, but that the total retail density should be significantly reduced to 70,000 square feet or less..." Response: See Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.05(7) – "That means whether the store is 30,000 square feet or 50,000 square feet, the traffic will be the same." Response: See Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.06(12) – "...don't give a variance to have a larger building, a larger store, keep it small..." Response: See Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.07(23) – "...I think the site, the plan proposal, is just too big." Response: See Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 187
13.08(25) – "This is just the wrong project for this site. Something scaled back, something that does not require a traffic light might work here." Response: See Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
13.09(35) – "That area only allows a 25,000-square foot grocery store, not the 50,000. So they're just trying to pull the wool over your eyes about that." Response: See Section 2.1 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 188
TOPIC 14 – SURFACE WATER AND DRAINAGE
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 14.01(30) – "...the sewer system was supposed to be replaced I think 15 years ago, (Allens Creek) ... and that road is just not big enough." Response: The project includes new sewers in the development area north of Monroe Avenue. Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
TOPIC 15 – BUFFER
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 15.01(6) – "...we want the town to take action to guarantee that the parts of this area within this triangle of Clover, Monroe and Westfall, which is currently zoned residential, stay that way forever.” Response: Comment noted.
15.02(18) – "That little bit of acreage there is all marshy by the Baptist Church there is hardly any benefit coming back to the town or its residents." Response: The area in question is not proposed to be conveyed to the Town but rather deed restricted so that it serves as a buffer to Clover Street.
15.03(36) – "We have had a buffer and it's getting harder and harder to get out of our street now because the traffic is extending onto Clover..." Response: See Section 2.2 of this FEIS and the Traffic Impact Study, no significant impact is anticipated on Clover Street. Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
FEIS January 2018 189
TOPIC 16 – AMENITIES
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 16.01(2) – "The town gets a project that brings the corridor into compliance with the corridor studies that have been in place" Response: Comment noted.
16.02(3) – "We fail to see how any of the amenities proposed legitimately further these interests and that's even more the case when you consider the magnitude of the benefits that will benefit the developer..." Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.03(4) – "The amenities are required mitigation, SEQR required mitigation. You have zero amenities." Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.04(6) – " Instead of several of the things that are being offered, which frankly, as a neighborhood I don't see much value in, how about the developer puts sidewalks in on both sides of Elmwood?" Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.05(7) –"The developers offered to provide a million dollars in traffic mitigation work with the alternative entrance." Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.06(14) – "And the argument strikes me as awfully circular, that putting in a larger development than traditional zoning rules would require will exacerbate traffic problems on Monroe Avenue and the amenity is to improve Monroe to reduce the traffic problems." Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.07(18) – Nothing that is labeled as a 'proposed amenity' such as new traffic light, or adjusting the trail, is an actual amenity, as in it brings no benefit back to the Town.
FEIS January 2018 190
Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS, the traffic signal is not presented by the applicant as an amenity and is not included in the cost calculation for the Access Management Plan.
16.08(22) – "And I agree that allowing... the developer to build, push into that (trail) and then calling it an amenity to redo it is not an amenity at all." Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.09(26) – I think that if there was a red light in front of Clover Lanes that woman wouldn't have been hit twice. There needed to be a light there long ago. I think that, you know, if we look at the traffic, it's going to be busy regardless." Response: Refer to section 2.2 of this FEIS.
16.10(33) – Hoping that the town makes sure that what is being given back to the town is really worth it. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.11(34) – "I think that with this new extra light more traffic will go down Clover." Response: Based on the results of the Traffic Impact Study, Clover Street is not anticipated to experience a significant increase in traffic as a result of the project. Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
16.12(37) – "And I think that putting the traffic light also helps the businesses in that area to have a better access to the back road." Response: The Traffic Signal and implementation of the Access Management Plan will improve safe access to the properties on the south side of Monroe Avenue. Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
16.13(38) – At first I thought it was silly, but the addition of a light should really positively impact all of Monroe Avenue. Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 191
TOPIC 17 – NOISE
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 17.01(13) – "And I just- I think (about) the traffic and the pollution and the noise." Response: Refer to the Noise Study provided as part of the DEIS and Section 2.4 of this FEIS. Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
17.02(19) – "So three houses in off of Clover, walk in... 50 steps and I'd be over there. So there will be a lot more light, a lot more noise." Response: Refer to response to comment 17.01.
17.03(30) – "...the noise pollution is such that... we're going to be putting air conditioning in the house because we can't leave our windows open anymore, the noise is so loud." Response: Refer to response to comment 17.01.
17.04(36) – "There are all of these other things about trucks and noise and more light." Response: Refer to response to comment 17.01.
FEIS January 2018 192
TOPIC 18 – RESIDENTIAL STREET TRAFFIC & SAFETY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 18.01(6) – "Simply put on the traffic issue, for those of us who live in this neighborhood, who drive this stretch every single day, who have been here for 20 years or more, the conclusions of the traffic study and the dismissal of the issues in the SDEIS are simply not believable." Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS and the Traffic Impact Study.
18.02(11) – "We are raising our three young children in the neighborhood right behind the proposed Whole Foods site...we would like to see a legally binding agreement opposed to opening any secondary access sites on Allen's Creek and Clover." Response: Refer to responses provided for Topic 7.
18.03(27) – "This will add additional traffic that we've talked about tonight to an already busy Allens Creek Road, and since Schoolhouse Lane is a cul-de-sac there's only one way in and one way out." Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS and the Traffic Impact Study.
18.04(30) – "You can barely jog on that road now (Allens Creek) or ride a bike on it without fearing for your life." Response: Access to Allen’s Creek Road has been removed from the proposal to limit the potential impact to pedestrians and cyclists.
FEIS January 2018 193
TOPIC 19 – SHOREHAM DRIVE TRAFFIC & SAFETY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 19.01 – So we've had a very quiet, gentle entrance to our neighborhood. But this, if this isn't done correctly...if the State is mandated to come in and fix the situation that hasn't been guessed properly in the first place, we have nowhere to go. Response: The DOT does not have the authority to require additional access roads. It is possible that they could request them; however, access to Clover Street and Allen’s Creek Road have been eliminated.
TOPIC 20 – SCHOOLHOUSE LANE TRAFFIC & SAFETY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 20.01(27) –"The main concern the residents of Schoolhouse Lane have concerning this access road is the plans the developer may have in using this access road as an additional entrance and exit to the proposed Whole Foods Plaza." Response: See response to comment 19.01.
TOPIC 21 – PICKWICK DRIVE TRAFFIC & SAFETY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: No topic related comments received during SDEIS Public Hearing on May 10, 2017.
TOPIC 22 – PROPERTY VALUES
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 22.01(7) – "So as a tax payer in Brighton, I would opt for the largest store possible, because it will generate the most property, school and tax revenue, and sales tax revenue." Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 194
TOPIC 23 – ZONING AND CODE
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 23.01(3) – "We want the developer to build a successful project, but the project should be reviewed and considered under traditional zoning limits that apply to everyone else." Response: In accordance with the Town’s incentive zoning ordinance and NYS SEQRA Title 6 NYCRR Part 617, the applicant must demonstrate that the project will not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties and that any potential impact has been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, the applicant must provide amenities for the benefit of the public in turn for the requested incentives. The Town Board as Lead Agent for the SEQRA review is charged with weighing the potential environmental impact, requested incentives and amenities and the issuing a findings statement to conclude the SEQRA process. SEQRA findings will be completed prior to a decision on the incentive zoning application. The decision on amenities and incentives is separate from the SEQRA process. Any developer can seek its project considered under the incentive zoning procedures.
23.02(4) – "This is not an incentive zoning project. Incentive zoning is discretionary. It requires benefits that are... uneconomic projects, things you can't get." Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
23.03(6) –"...we want the town to take action to guarantee that the parts of this area within this triangle of Clover, Monroe and Westfall, which is currently zoned residential, stay that way forever." Response: Comment noted.
23.04(7)– "An interesting observation about the town zoning regulations is that there is no consideration for the type of business, only the square footage of the property being built." Response: Refer to response to comment 23.01.
23.05(14) – " ...to offer a company or developers an incentive zoning, which are going to sweep underneath the rug 22 different variances, 22, in a residential area..." Response: Refer to response to comment 23.01.
FEIS January 2018 195
23.06(14) – "And the argument strikes me as awfully circular, that putting in a larger development than traditional zoning rules would require will exacerbate traffic problems on Monroe Avenue and the amenity is to improve Monroe to reduce the traffic problems." Response: Refer to Sections 1.6 and 2.2 of this FEIS and response to comment 23.01.
23.07(18) – "...turn this down and accept a project from this developer or another developer that meets the current zoning." Response: Comment noted.
23.08(22) – "...I also think it's a bit unfair of the developers to entertain incentive zoning." Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS. Refer to the response to comment 23.01.
23.09(31) – There is a transparency issue with the incentive based zoning that should be fixed. Let the people know exactly what is happening with the zoning and its possible incentives Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS. Refer to the response to comment 23.01.
FEIS January 2018 196
TOPIC 24 – TRUCK TRAFFIC
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 24.01(36) – There have never been big delivery trucks coming through our area, and now we will have to deal with them coming through probably at night. Response: Refer to Section 2.4 of this FEIS.
TOPIC 25 – COMPREHENSIVE TOWN PLANS
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 25.01(4) –"My clients are not opposed to Whole Foods, my clients are not opposed to the redevelopment of this plaza. My clients want it developed at the size that your comprehensive plan called for." Response: Refer to Section 2.0 of this FEIS. Refer to the response to comment 23.01
TOPIC 26 – FIGURES AND DEIS TRAFFIC STUDY
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 26.01(24) – "...I realized is that the projected gain in traffic volume with the full development was only 2.7 percent in the peak time and I found that very hard to believe." Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS and the Traffic Impact Study. Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
26.02(32) – The study has several flaws in it, including what are called "peak times" as well as the times the study said the bulk of people would be shopping. Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS and the Traffic Impact Study. Refer to response to comment 2.04(6).
FEIS January 2018 197
TOPIC 27 – IMPACT ON LOCAL BUSINESSES
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 27.01(1) – "...we also overlaid proposed improvements proposed for the area, including a traffic light at the plaza entrance and an access management plan for the south side of the road that will allow five properties access to a traffic light..." Response: Comment noted.
27.02(6) – "In fact, because of the different components of Whole Foods stores, permitting a store this size may have adverse impacts on existing Brighton businesses." Response: In accordance with the Town’s incentive zoning ordinance and NYS SEQRA Title 6 NYCRR Part 617, the applicant must demonstrate that the project will not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties and that any potential impact has been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, the applicant must provide amenities for the benefit of the public in turn for the requested invectives. The Town Board as Lead Agent for the SEQRA review is charged with weighing the potential environmental impact, requested incentives and amenities and the issuing a findings statement to conclude the SEQRA process.
27.03(25) – Uses the Animal Hospital on Monroe but will consider getting a different vet because he wants to completely avoid that part of town. Response: Comment noted.
27.04(26) – Having all the businesses across the street from the project connected will help with safety and traffic flow. Response: Comment noted.
27.05(37) – "And I think that putting the traffic light also helps the businesses in that area to have a better access to the back road." Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 198
27.06(38) –"The traffic light on the southern part of Monroe Avenue will mitigate along with the curb cut eliminations for all those businesses." Response: Comment noted.
TOPIC 28 – PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 28.01(3) – "... here tonight obviously for a SEQR public hearing. SaveMonroeAve.org submitted a comprehensive letter dated January 6th, we on behalf of the association submitted a similar letter on January 25th, and I'm aware of an additional letter from Save Monroe Ave that was submitted on March 24th further reiterating legal and substantive deficiencies with the SDEIS and the DEIS. We concur and join with all comments that were raised by SaveMonroeAve.org and stand again on the comments we've previously made in hearings and submissions that we've made." Response: Responses to comments received by Save Monroe Avenue have been included as part of this FEIS.
28.02(6) – "...my recommendation is when we do the next public hearing on this topic, the lawyers and experts went first this time, next time let's have the public go first." Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 199
TOPIC 29 – THE DEVELOPER
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 29.01(3) – "...we continue to believe that the developer has failed to provide the required information under the scope, information this Town Board appropriately required in the scoping sessions." Response: In accordance with the Town’s incentive zoning ordinance and NYS SEQRA Title 6 NYCRR Part 617, the applicant must demonstrate that the project will not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties and that any potential impact has been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, the applicant must provide amenities for the benefit of the public in turn for the requested incentives. The Town Board as Lead Agent for the SEQRA review is charged with weighing the potential environmental impact, requested incentives and amenities and the issuing a findings statement to conclude the SEQRA process. SEQRA findings will be completed prior to a decision on the incentive zoning application. The decision on amenities and incentives is separate from the SEQRA process.
29.02(4) – "We are not here as the developer apparently thinks about how much tomato sauce you can get in a particular jar." Response: Comment noted.
29.03(7)– Because the Daniele's have spent so much time and money on engineers for studies, I would like to see the opposition do the same thing. Response: Comment noted.
29.04(10) – "...to be perfectly honest I had some bias against the Daniele's, the thing with trying to encroach on the eagles nest did not win any respect from me." Response: Comment noted.
29.05(14) – ..."maybe because I don't have enough money to pay for this variance, this might be a pay-to-play type of thing. I don't think that's fair." Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
FEIS January 2018 200
29.06(17) – "I've known them, I've been in their home, I've met his wife, they are gracious...and they are business people. And they have been developers, that's what they do. They've contributed back to the community that they've, if you want to call it, taken from, for some of you. I've heard valid arguments on both sides, so again, I didn't come here to give an opinion one way or the other... but I do know the family and they are the real thing." Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
29.07(18) – "...the town is getting no amenities for the incentive it is giving to the developer." Response: See Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
29.08(22) – "I actually also admire the Daniele's. They are extremely competent business people and very tough negotiators." Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
29.09(25) – "...I want to say that I know the Daniele family. They're a net asset to this community. They've created jobs...they are good people." Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
29.10(26) – Daniele's have always done what they said they were going to do, they have put a lot of time and money into studies to prove that they will do that again. Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
29.11(28) –"I do think it has something to do with character. Not asking permission, not being granted permission." Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
29.12(30) – "And I've known the Daniele Family for a long time. And I think no one should cast stones at that family. I'm not very close with them, but they're outstanding people and I've known them for a long time." Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
FEIS January 2018 201
29.13(35) – Anthony said they can't legally build access roads at Clover or Allen's creek, so why have they not legally signed something to that affect? Response: The applicant does not own the property or control the land and therefore cannot provide a legal agreement restricting access. The proposal specifically excludes access points on Allens Creek Rd and Clover St.
TOPIC 30 – BRIGHTON TOWN GOVERNMENT
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 30.01(3) – "...Town Code Section 209-5(b) in the Town of Brighton, says that the Board is to determine whether or not an incentive zoning project is, quote, worthy of further consideration. There's no right incentive zoning and this Board so far has made the determination that this project can continue down this path." Response: Comment noted.
30.02(22) – "I'd like to see the town be more firm and say, look, this is too big. Here's what we're willing to talk about and you will do the rail trail, and also the other priority intersections along Monroe from that corridor, let's say 12 Corners to Monroe, and you're going to kick in some money to make that work." Response: See response to comment 29.01.
FEIS January 2018 202
TOPIC 31 – MOTORISTS
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 31.01(7) – "...Monroe Avenue between Clover and 590, there are ten driveways... And as a left turn, unprotected left turn accident survivor in the Town of Brighton I can tell you it's very dangerous to try and get out of those properties especially." Response: The project includes the implementation of an Access Management Plan in an effort to reduce left hand turns at uncontrolled curb cuts.
31.02(12) – "I was a passenger twice on Monroe Avenue in a car that was rear ended just in that area. So there's a lot of traffic." Response: See Section 2.2 of this FEIS and the response to comment 31.01.
31.03(16) – "I didn't have any accidents (in NYC), but I got hit twice in front of Mario's. So that's my scientific study." Response: See Section 2.2 of this FEIS and the response to comment 31.01. According to the 5- Year trend report provided by the Brighton Police Department on July 6, 2016, there were 58 accidents in the “Monroe / Clover area” in 2016, down from 111 in 2013, before the completion of the NYSDOT Safety project in 2104. Of those 58, 11 included injuries with emergency response.
TOPIC 32 – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: No topic related comments received during SDEIS Public Hearing on May 10, 2017.
FEIS January 2018 203
TOPIC 33 – ALTERNATIVES
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS SUMMARY: 33.01(9) – Wants a better alternative option that better fits the site and towns design. Response: See Section 2.3 of this FEIS.
33.02(16) – "And I wish that something better could be found, some solution could be found that is not going to increase that traffic." Response: Any redevelopment effort would lead to additional traffic.
33.02(23) – "...alternative six is not realistic as a base." Response: See Section 2.3 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 204
4.4 Responses to Public Hearing & Written Comments received during June 22, 2016 & July 13, 2016 DEIS Public Hearings
(1) Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Review Comments: (August 1, 2016)
Executive Summary
1. Page ES-2 indicates that the specialty coffee shop will be 1,980 sf in size. Figure 2.3.1D indicates that the coffee shop will be 1,920 sf in size. There are additional inconsistencies regarding the buildings within the DEIS. The plans and the DEIS must be consistent. Response: The coffee shop (Starbucks) is currently proposed to be 1,920 sf.
2. Page ES-5 indicates that the Pittsford and East Avenue Wegman's stores are operating above their capacity. Supporting documentation confirming this statement must be provided. Response: The statement regarding the capacity of the Wegmans stores is based on observations made when their parking lot has at times exceeded its capacity. Wegmans has not provided any specific supporting documentation.
3. Page ES-16 references figures 2.3.1A through 2.3.1E depicting the access management plans. These figures do not reference the access management plan. This reference must be modified. Response: The current access management plan is provided at Figure 2 of this FEIS.
4. Page ES-24 indicated that the proposed buildings are all single-story buildings, however Figures 2.3.3 D through G suggest that the Whole Foods store will include a second story. These figures are not consistent with the information presented on Figures 2.3.3 A through C. The information presented in the DEIS must consistently represent the project as proposed. Response: As noted in the SDEIS, the Whole Foods building has been revised and the 3,900-sf mezzanine removed. All buildings within the development are now single story.
FEIS January 2018 205
Project Purpose, Needs and Benefits: 1. A portion of the proposed trail is located on the adjacent property to the northeast of the project site. Are the appropriate easements filed to accommodate the trail in this area? Additionally, the proposed trail improvements including crosswalks are listed as amenities by the applicant. Section 217-7.2 of the Code of the Town of Brighton indicates that commercial uses shall provide sidewalks, marked crosswalks and other pedestrian pathways to and within parking lots, when required to do so by the Planning Board. Therefore, please explain why the proposed trail improvements should be considered an amenity. Response: There is an existing easement on the property to the northeast to allow the construction of the trail as filed at Liber 8847 page 175. Refer to Figure 3 of this FEIS. The project includes internal sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian features on the development parcel. They are not part of the proposed trail improvements. Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
2. The DEIS indicates that the project sponsor proposes to preserve 1.0 acres of property fronting on Clover Street through the placement of a deed restriction of the area. A copy of the proposed deed restriction must be provided for review and approval. Response: All Agreements and deed restrictions between the Town and project sponsor, as is customary, will be provided/ reviewed in the course of the approval process.
3. The DEIS indicates that this project is expected to almost double the property values of the surrounding commercial properties, increasing those taxable values and in turn the revenue to the Town and local governments by nearly 100% or $300,000+. Appendix 7 references a Zillow study supporting this statement. The Zillow study should be included in Appendix 7 of the DEIS. Response: The Zillow study is included at appendix 10 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 206
4. The DEIS indicates that access to a traffic signal would provide a significant economic benefit for the properties along the south side of Monroe Avenue. Supporting documentation must be provided. Response: There is no supporting documentation that can project the impact to the properties on the south side of Monroe Avenue. The statement was included in the DEIS based on the assumption that the installation of a traffic signal and the access management plan will improve the ability to access those parcels, especially for existing westbound vehicles.
5. Busses will likely stop at the proposed bus shelter during the green through-phase of the proposed traffic signal. This will result in additional congestion and traffic delays. A bus shelter internal to the site could alleviate these additional delays. Response: The location of the bus shelter is dictated by RGRTA. RGRTA typically does not enter private properties and prefers stops to be constructed on public routes. The traffic analysis has conservatively included projected bus, stops and other heavy vehicles to ensure that it represents a worst case scenario and that future bus stops on Monroe Avenue will not have a detrimental impact on the transportation network.
6. The proposed shared use trail section shown in figure 2.2.3A does not provide an adequate clear shoulder. The proposed timber trail should be relocated and additional clear space must be provided_ Additionally, the proposed 10-foot width may not be sufficient to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians. A wider trail should be considered and documentation should be provided which verifies that the trail width is sufficient for the anticipated traffic. Response: The trail will be 10 feet in width with two feet of clear space on either side. A revised trail section is provided at Figure 3 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 207
7. The DEIS indicates that the current properties in the area include an assessment of $85.25 per square foot, $70.20 per square foot and $72.25 per square foot. The anticipated assessed value of the project is proposed to be approximately 150% of the existing assessed values. How was this increase in property assessment derived? Response: See Appendix 10. While assessments vary significantly, the average property assessment in the area is $110.59, the value used for Whole Foods is $111.11. The applicant has little motivation to inflate the assessed value as it could translate to significantly more taxes in the future.
8. Section 217-15.1 of the Code of the Town of Brighton indicates that bicycle racks shall be provided by office, industrial, commercial and multifamily uses when required by the Planning Board. Please explain why the proposed bicycle racks should be considered as an amenity. Response: Bicycle racks are not considered an amenity. Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
9. An itemized estimated cost for the trail improvements was not included in Appendix 7 and must be provided for review. The estimate must also include an itemization of the anticipated maintenance costs. Response: An itemized cost of the trail improvements is provided at appendix 5 See also Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 208
10. Appendix 7 includes a vacant property assessment of $115,000 which is used to value the open space amenity. The DEIS open space amenity value is stated to be $119,791. The DEIS should include an explanation regarding the derivation of this cost. Response: Refer to appendix 10 of this FEIS. The value of the amenity is based on the approximate value of the land which is considered a minimum of $115,000 based on a similar land sale on Clover Street.
11. The proposed project includes the acquisition of 0.03 acres of the RG&E property. Will this acquisition affect the zoning requirements of the RG&E property? The sponsor must demonstrate that the proposed acquisition does not impact the RG&E property. Response: The RG&E property is within the Residential - Low Density (RLA) zoning district which includes a minimum lot area of 23,125 S.F. The resulting area of the RG&E lot after the acquisition would be 26,108 S.F. or 0.60 acres which complies with the zoning requirement.
Design and Layout: 1. As proposed, the internal circulation from the signalized entrance has potential for multiple vehicular conflict points, particularly regarding parking areas for Bldg. #2 and the Coffee Shop. Consideration should be given to modify these driveways in order to eliminate the conflict points. Response: The site plan has been modified to eliminate conflict points along the project entrance. The exit from Building II has been removed and the curb cut to building III has been relocated to the west side of the lot.
2. Consideration should also be given to relocating the access points from the main access driveway due to potential blockage of the Coffee Shop by queued vehicles. Access to the Coffee Shop can be accomplished via the Whole Foods ring road. Response: The access points have been relocated on the revised site plan as suggested.
3. The presence of two (2) inbound lanes with the right lane dedicated to Bldg.#2 will cause conflicts. There is inadequate distance to merge left to the single lane that provides access to Whole Foods.
FEIS January 2018 209
This secondary driveway location on the radius of the main entrance is less than desirable. Response: The site plan has been revised so that there are two entrance lanes from the signal to the primary parking field. The driveway location has also been relocated as suggested.
4. Define and elaborate on the loading zones for Bldg. #2 in order to verify the parking spaces provided. Describe the loading activities, access and circulation patterns given that both cars and trucks will use this area. Response: The site plan has been revised to provide 360-degree access around building II. This new configuration will allow the projected box truck to stop behind the building and then exit the site without having to turn around. The parking areas behind the building are designated for employees. It is also anticipated that many of the small retail shops will take the majority of their deliveries through the front door on the south side of the building.
5. Accord·1ng to Figure 2.3.5A, there are no loading berths proposed for Bldg. #2. Please justify the operations to substantiate the request for no loading berths. Response: See response to comment #4 above.
6. Consider providing circulation for loading around the south end of Bldg. #2. Response: 360-degree access has been provided around building #2 as shown on the revised site plan.
7. On page 73, please elaborate on the parking requirements on a per lot basis to verify compliance with the Town Comprehensive Plan. Response: Table 3.1 of the SDEIS provides a summary of parking on a per lot basis.
8. Please confirm in "plan view" how the tiered wall fits within the limited space provided along the back of Bldg. #2. Response: The site plan has been updated to provide more space for the trail.
FEIS January 2018 210
9. There are no plantings or buffers depicted behind Bldg. #2 along the northeast corner. Only a retaining wall is depicted. along with a fence and the trail. Are plantings required and proposed in this area? Response: There are no plantings proposed in this area due to space constraints, none are needed. There is a large stand of existing evergreens which will not be removed that currently provide a substantial buffer. It is recognized that this current large stand of trees is located on the adjacent property and not under the control of the project sponsor. Should planting be required onsite in this area it would negatively impact the parking count.
10. It should be noted in the Approvals section that the proposed Access Management Plan must obtain site plan approval from the Planning Board. Response: Site Plan approval for the access management plan will be pursued in conjunction with site plan approval for the balance of the project.
11. Will roof top HVAC units be utilized? If so these units should be depicted on the renderings. Roof top unit may be required to be effectively screened. Response: Yes, rooftop units will be used and screened so they are not visible from the site or Monroe Avenue. Should the project move forward, the Architectural Review Board will be responsible to ensure that the equipment is screened and not visible from Monroe Avenue.
12. The proposed 450 contour on the RG&E property is shown incorrectly. The modified grading may require access onto the RG&E property. The appropriate easement or release may be necessary. Response: The grading plan has been modified to correct the contour. See figure 6. An easement from RGE will not be required.
13. The proposed 458 contour crossing the bicycle path along the rear of the proposed building does not have a terminus and should be revised. The revised grading plan may result in additional disturbance on T.A. #137.49-02-68.1.
FEIS January 2018 211
Response: The grading plan has been modified to correct the contour. See figure 6. There will not be any disturbance on the adjacent property.
14. The proposed berm at the rear of the property will confine the stormwater to the trail area. The grading in this area must be revised. Response: The grading has been revised so that the stormwater is not confined by the berm.
15. It does not appear that the width of the section of the proposed shared use trail behind Building II will be sufficient to accommodate the recommended clear space on either side of the trail along with the tiered retaining wall. The Trail area may need to be widened which could result in an encroachment onto the adjacent property. Response: The trail will be 10’ in width. No encroachment onto the adjacent property is proposed as part of the project. As currently designed, the trail provides adequate clear space and is a significant improvement when compared to current conditions.
16. The first-floor elevation of the building at 2816 Monroe Ave. must be provided. There should not be a significant difference between the proposed project's first floor elevation and the first-floor elevation of 2816 Monroe Ave. Response: The first-floor elevation (457.6’) has been provided on the Grading Plan, refer Figure 6.
17. It appears that the proposed parking area will be approximately 3 feet higher than the existing parking area serving 2816 Monroe Ave. This elevation difference could impede future cross access. The grading along the proposed project's eastern property line should be reviewed. The 457 contour appears to be missing. Response: The grading has been revised, refer to Figure 6.
FEIS January 2018 212
18. The proposed lighting plan suggests that the project will result in a light spill of 1fc onto 2816 Monroe Ave. The light spills directly onto the existing building on 2816 Monroe Avenue. The lighting along the eastern property line of the proposed project must be revised to minimize the light spill onto the adjacent parcel. Response: The lighting plan has been revised to reduce the trespass onto 2816 Monroe Avenue by providing shields on the light fixture adjacent to the property line, refer to Figure 8.
19. The maintenance agreement between the Town and the Project Sponsor should be provided for review and approval. Response: All Agreements between the Town and project sponsor, as is customary, will be provided/ reviewed in the course of the approval process.
20. Section 2.5 Construction and Operation must discuss the construction of the Access Management improvements along the south side of Monroe Avenue. Response: The construction of the access management plan will begin at the same time as the construction of the plaza on the north side of Monroe Avenue. The existing curb cuts will remain during construction with most activity occurring towards the rear of each parcel. Once the cross access is completed, the curb cuts may be modified as described in section 1.4 of this FEIS.
Transportation 1. We are in agreement with the NYSDOT April 2016 comments stating that the technical analysis provided and the software results severely underestimate the existing and future travel conditions and operations in the corridor and at the access points. Delays and queues can be much greater than shown during the existing commuter peaks. The additional traffic could cause gridlock conditions during various peaks not allowing for through traffic or safe ingress/egress from the Whole Foods Plaza or the parcels on the south side of Monroe Avenue. Response: The traffic impact study process was both begun and completed while Monroe Avenue was under reconstruction by the NYSDOT.
FEIS January 2018 213
Therefore, SRF worked closely with NYSDOT obtaining the Synchro analysis model from NYSDOT to accurately represent the base conditions that would exist once the NYSDOT construction project was completed. Given the on-going construction activities in the corridor, accurate field observations and documentation of “existing” queueing could not be completed.
The base Synchro model utilized signal timings at the intersections along Monroe Avenue from Westfall Road to Clover Street (including a new ramp signal that had not previously existed) that were considered to be future design timings that would be implemented upon completion of the NYSDOT construction project. It has since been disclosed to the applicant that some, and possibly all, of the design signal phasing and timing has not in fact been implemented in the field. This is the reason that current queuing does not match the modeled conditions. This was an error of omission by NYSDOT that was not communicated between the design group and the traffic engineering group.
NYSDOT has since implemented a completely revised timing plan for the signals within the corridor. Hence, the existing base conditions have been completely revised and are provided in a new Traffic Impact Study (TIS). (See revised TIS Section VI Pages 6-9).
2. The Synchro models need a substantial amount of additional work to correct deficiencies and inconsistencies between models, as well as calibration to more accurately reflect existing conditions. Correcting the issues listed in the technical comments (see comment #22) should be considered good engineering practice; however, the changes would likely yield a capacity analysis showing worse operations and impacts than what is shown in the current models and Traffic Impact Study (TIS). Response: See response to above question Comment 1. (See revised TIS Section VI Pages 6-9).
3. The proposed site would add additional peak hour trips to Monroe Avenue, exacerbating existing peak period congestion and queuing experienced within the study area.
FEIS January 2018 214
Large-scale roadway improvements to mitigate the impact of the additional site traffic, such as additional travel lanes are not possible, nor recommended in this area; such theoretical mitigation should be identified for evaluation Therefore, other mitigation measures should include strategies to maximize existing capacity by promoting other modes of travel, enhancing local connections and utilizing technology. These strategies include:
a. Well-defined pedestrian and bicycle connections to/from the site, as well as within the site. Connections between external sidewalks, pathways, and bicycle lanes and the "front door" of the buildings should be clearly defined and separated from vehicle traffic wherever possible. Bike racks and/or lockers should also be provided. While the applicant is proposing most of these items, they are not to be considered amenities, but rather mitigation for external impacts that are not mitigable. Response: The site plan has been revised to improve internal circulation including pedestrian and bicycle connections.
Refer to Section 1.6 for details regarding which project elements are considered amenities.
b. Provide bus shelters (not just stops) at the new relocated bus stops. Link nearby bus stops to the site via well-defined pedestrian pathways (sidewalks and crosswalks) that clearly and safely connect the "front door" of each building with nearby transit. Again, these treatments should be considered mitigation measures and not project amenities. Response: Not all impacts are required to be fully mitigated in all cases. Every development project is unique and the extent to which capacity impacts are mitigated depends upon each individual project and the specific circumstances. In the case of the proposed Whole Foods project, the appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed by working closely with both the NYSDOT and Town of Brighton. The updated TIS and SDEIS recommends appropriate mitigation measures to adequately offset the impacts of the proposed project.
FEIS January 2018 215
Un-sheltered bus stops currently exist and the proposed development will improve access to public transportation with a more defined, safer and more comfortable stop. This re-development of an existing commercial site does not create additional negative impact on public transportation connections and therefore mitigation is not required. See response to comment 3(a) above.
c. Consider installing a traffic adaptive or demand responsive signal system along Monroe Avenue to better reflect the varying demands during peak and non-peak hours.
The new signal must also include pedestrian crossings, signal and timing phases that are adequate to safely cross pedestrians. Response: The applicant and Town would support the NYSDOT’s implementation of an adaptive signal system. However, that decision will be made by the NYSDOT.
d. Consider a secondary connection(s) for the local community. While it is not likely to have a significant impact on the capacity analysis results, secondary access would take local community trips off of Monroe Avenue, and would provide access for emergency vehicles during peak periods. Traffic calming measures could be employed to deter regional shoppers from utilizing the secondary access point(s). Response: This has been considered and addressed in the updated TIS and SDEIS. The secondary access points were removed in order to reduce potential impact on the Single-Family Homes to the north and east. See Section 2.2.
4. Protected-permitted left-turn movements should be provided along Monroe Avenue at the new signalized intersection. We understand NYSDOT has requested permitted left turn movements to maximize the through movement green time. However, the modeling results indicate that vehicles would have difficulty making the left turn, particularly during the PM peak hour, and those left-turn queues would spill back into the through lanes, thus negating the intended benefit.
FEIS January 2018 216
Response: Refer to Section 2.2 for the discussion regarding the protected left turn movements. The applicant supports the inclusion of left turn signals at the project entrance.
5. The Access Management Plan description has been enhanced, however, various factors are identified against connecting the remaining parcels beyond the initial five (Phase I) that have not been substantiated. In fact, the traffic analysis performed still shows the same volumes entering at the main signal entrance as with the January 21, 2016 DEIS submission. This would indicate that while the text was updated to state that traffic entering and exiting the parcels in Phase II were added, the synchro and volume diagrams do not agree.
However, if the signal fails to operate at acceptable levels, alternative access to such parcels will be deemed necessary.
Response: This has been considered and addressed in the updated TIS. (See revised TIS Section XIII Pages 33-36). As described at Section 1.4 of this FEIS, the AMP now includes all of the properties on the south side of Monroe Avenue from 590 to Clover Street. Refer to Appendix 7 for an analysis of the impact of the AMP at the proposed traffic signal.
6. The Access Management Plan description must identify which curb cuts should be modified to a right-in, right-out configuration or be eliminated entirely for all proposed phases of the Plan. The Access Management description must also identify who will be responsible for maintaining the access improvements. Will a business improvement association be created to insure proper ongoing maintenance of the shared access improvements? Response: The implementation of the access management plan will include the conversion of the full access at City Mattress to a right in – right out. As described in section 1.4 of this FEIS. The modification of other curb cuts within the AMP will be determined as each of those lots undergoes a redevelopment process. Eight of the property owners participating in the AMP will enter an agreement that provides shared cost for the maintenance of the access.
FEIS January 2018 217
7. The project sponsor has proposed providing an assurance bond to guarantee the construction of the access management improvements. The improvements should be guaranteed by either a bond or letter of credit as required by the Town. Response: Comment acknowledged, the applicant will work with the Town to provide surety in a form acceptable to all parties involved.
8. The proposed eastbound left-tum bay is shown to serve the signalized and unsignalized driveways to the Whole Foods Plaza, presenting potential safety and capacity issues.
Vehicles in the left-turn lane destined for the signal may not anticipate a vehicle in front of them stopping in the left-turn bay to enter the unsignalized driveway. Furthermore, this configuration would likely have a negative impact on the capacity of the left turn bay as vehicles that are intending to turn left at the signal may get stuck behind vehicles waiting to turn left at the unsignalized location, or queuing from the signal may block the ability for vehicles to utilize the unsignalized access. Due to safety concerns, removal of the unsignalized intersection should be considered. Response: The project has been revised to include left turn signals for vehicles entering both the north and south side of Monroe Avenue, including additional left turn arrow for eastbound Monroe Ave. traffic turning into the plaza at the western driveway.
9. We are in concurrence with the ITE Trip Generation rates used to estimate traffic to the site based on Stantec's experience in other regions. It is noted, this Whole Foods will be the first in the region and higher generation rates will be experienced upon opening. Trips associated with the 3,900-square foot mezzanine in the Whole Foods store was provided, but analysis was not updated. The trips are nominal; however, it should be noted that the projected volumes are under representative of future conditions. Response: Comment acknowledged, higher rates are anticipated when the store opens. Special provisions such as manned traffic control will be used on an interim basis (See section 2.2 of this FEIS). The proposed mezzanine has been eliminated.
FEIS January 2018 218
10. Holiday Season Traffic Volumes – additional information was provided; however, we did not find the relevancy of Monroe Avenue traffic in the Village of Pittsford to demonstrate seasonality changes near the 1-590 area. Even though peak holiday season traffic volumes are not used for capacity analysis purposes, there needs to be an acknowledgement that congest (on conditions along this stretch of Monroe Ave will be worse during the Holidays.
A simple analogy to state that trip generation rates during peak holiday season can be as much as “X%” higher (1TE Trip Generation, 9th edition) and concluding that traffic conditions and operations will be higher and worse than those analyzed in the TIS should be noted. Response: This has been addressed in the updated TIS (Section VII, c.) and SDEIS. (See revised TIS Section IV.D Pages 4-5).
11. The impact of the first Whole Foods Market is made in reference to the existing Albany store. The Albany Whole Foods Market is not relevant to this location as that facility has significant parking and multiple access points. Local police department attest to temporary traffic control needs. It is therefore anticipated that the novelty of the new store will attract greater than normal traffic for weeks/months after opening and temporary measures for security, police or remote parking will be required of the applicant. Response: The applicant acknowledges that there may need to be additional traffic control support during the opening period which is anticipated to be 1-2 weeks during peak hours and intends to offer such additional support at the developer and tenant cost. This has been addressed at section 2.2 of this FEIS.
12. Access Management Plan - a. The TIS states "it was assumed that all nine south side properties may connect to the signal at the time of full development of the Whole Foods site, and that right-in, right out are permitted at most existing driveways with left-tums entering and exiting allowed only at the new signal."
FEIS January 2018 219
However, the traffic volume diagrams and the synchro analysis are not reflective of all 9 properties and the subsequent traffic volumes; hence, modifications to the capacity analysis are needed to represent conditions with all the nine parcels having access to the traffic signal. Without performing this modification analysis, statements in the DEIS related to unacceptable operations are unsupported. Response: The updated analysis includes all eight parcels, see Appendix 7. The AMP includes all parcels on the south side of Monroe Avenue from 590 to Clover Street.
b. The Plan does not indicate the necessary driveway consolidation/restriction as requested by NYSDOT. These modifications must be shown on the plan and must be part of Phase I in order for the Access Plan to be effective. Response: The implementation of the Access Management Plan allows vehicles the ability to access the traffic signal regardless of whether curb cuts are closed which is a significant safety improvement. Over the course of time, as properties on the south side of Monroe Avenue are redeveloped, the Town will have the ability to restrict access, further improving the corridor.
13. Multi-modal Transportation Considerations - a. 2012 Bike Walk Brighton (BWB) Master Plan Recommendations – in light of the significant un-mitigable conditions at the maintenance and along the corridor, it is imperative that a continuous pedestrian/bicycle system is provided beyond the Plaza's front door. Hence, it is recommended that additional treatments (pedestrian signals, new crosswalks, stop bars, etc.) at both the Monroe Avenue intersections with Westfall Road and at Clover Street be incorporated into the mitigation plan. Response: This has been clarified in the updated TIS (Section IX) and SDEIS. The proposed development does not pose significant negative impacts on pedestrian and bicycle traffic, instead improves it greatly through internal site design and Auburn Trail Improvements that go well beyond the physical boundaries of the development. Additional treatments at these intersections are not proposed. (See revised TIS Section IX Pages 17-19).
FEIS January 2018 220
b. We recommend that the Project Sponsor coordinate with NYSDOT to institute high visibility crosswalks at the subject intersections due to the congestion and volume of traffic along the Monroe Avenue corridor. High visibility crosswalks may not be the standard specifications; however, they are used in the region including on Monroe Avenue east of this area. Response: Addressed in the TIS (Section IX) NYSDOT policy for Region 4 (our region) dictates that crosswalks are to be of standard design versus higher visibility. (See revised TIS Section IX Pages 17-19).
c. We are in concurrence with the recommended Auburn Trail improvements and the adjacent crossings along Allens Creek Road and on Clover Street. ln addition to the warning signs and crosswalks, the following additional elements are recommended based on the high speeds (38 mph and 42 mph) recorded along these streets: 1. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (solar powered) - pedestrian actuated flashing beacons. 2. Sidewalks to the next immediate intersections/cross streets north and south of both crossings. This will fulfill a goal to provide safe pedestrian linkages among neighborhoods, commercial districts and recreation areas. Response: Comment acknowledged and flashing Beacons are addressed in the TIS (Section IX). Sidewalk or trail amenities and improvements are not proposed beyond Clover Street and Allen’s Creek and are detailed in the application. (See revised TIS Section IX Pages 17-19).
d. We are in concurrence with the additional sidewalk system on the north side of Monroe Avenue along the property frontage to Clover Street intersection. Response: Comment Acknowledged
14. Capacity analysis during the AM and Saturday peak hours for various unsignalized intersections are missing. While the DEIS text references the analysis being completed for all three periods, Table VI (page 18) only shows capacity operations for the PM peak hour. The
FEIS January 2018 221
Synchro files indicate that the analysis was performed, but the DEIS text does not include the results of the analysis. Response: This has been clarified in the updated TIS and SDEIS. For the intersections of Allens Creek/Whitestone, Clover/Towpath, Clover Warren, and Allens Creek/Schoolhouse, only the PM peak hour capacity analysis was performed.
It was agreed upon during the scoping process, including SRF Engineers, Stantec Engineers and Brighton Town Staff, that these intersections are most significantly impacted by traffic during the PM peak hour. During the scoping process, it was agreed that if the results of the PM peak hour analysis concluded little to no significant impact, AM peak and Saturday peak did not require analysis. Based on the results of the PM peak hour capacity analysis, no significant negative impact was found and therefore no further study is necessary or beneficial to the TIS for these specific intersections. This methodology was found acceptable by NYSDOT in their review of the previous version of the TIS. (See revised TIS Section IV.E. Pages 5-6 and Section XI Pages 19-30).
15. Capacity Analysis - According to the analysis presented, the following intersections will experience decreases in operations during various peak hours and mitigation should be identified: (Reference: Whole Foods DEIS Substantive Review Comments).
a. Monroe @ Clover - various movements along with overall intersection operations will drop. While geometric improvements are not recommended to serve only peak hour conditions, other mitigation to address vulnerable users (pedestrians/bikes) through the intersection should be provided; b. Monroe @ Plaza - entering left turns (north or south side) will experience significant delays. Exiting left turns (north or south side} will also experience significant delays. The delay is not even estimated by the software. Excessive delays cause driver frustration and erratic behavior that may lead to safety concerns, additional congestion or simple loss of customers to all businesses; and c. Plaza unsigna!ized access - exiting right turning vehicles will experience excessive delays due to the high volumes and speed of traffic entering the 1-590 on-ramp. This could be problematic and if approved, to be monitored.
FEIS January 2018 222
Response: These comments are addressed in the updated TIS and SDEIS. There are some intersections that will experience a decrease in LOS, others will experience an increase in LOS. Mitigation is proposed and discussed in the TIS. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
16. Queuing analysis results along Monroe Avenue are highly questionable considering that existing queues from the Clover Street intersection back up to the 1-590 ramps. The results shown have not been validated and appear to be notably underestimated. Response: This has been addressed in the updated TIS and SDEIS. See revised TIS Section XI Pages 27-30).
17. Queuing discussion internal to the Plaza is also misleading. Since the validity of the capacity analysis is in question, the report is showing the internal queue (276 feet) going well beyond the storage provided (240 feet). This blocks the access point to the retail building and the Starbucks only access point. The exiting queue will also spill back into the parking lot for Whole Foods Market, likely causing gridlock at the internal intersection. Response: This has been addressed in the updated TIS and SDEIS. The site has been modified to improve internal circulation. Based on the revised study and updated site plan, the queue will not exceed the storage capacity. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 27-30).
18. We are opposed to centralized bicycle rack locations. The development should be ped/bike friendly in order to be livable. Forcing the site to be "walk only" is not good planning practice, not sustainable, nor enforceable. Cyclists will want 1o park their bike as close to the building entrances as possible for safety and security reasons. We are in concurrence with the additional bike rack at the coffee shop location. Additional racks should be provided immediately outside each retail building, hopefully with cover from the elements.
FEIS January 2018 223
Bike racks and other cycling amenities are not to be considered as "amenities"; these are needed to accommodate all users and should be considered as a required element of all sites. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
19. RGRTA correspondence is not provided in the appendix as referenced. A plan with a couple of non-legible notes is provided. Response: RGRTA correspondence is provided in the appendices of the SDEIS.
20. The traffic signal at the Plaza entrance along with any pedestrian crossings should not to be considered "amenities" but rather as required elements of the transportation network to accommodate all users. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
21. We are in concurrence with the provision of high occupancy vehicle parking, low emission vehicle parking, and electrical charging stations. Response: Comment acknowledged.
22. Traffic Analysis Technical Comments - a. The capacity analysis results contained in the TIS were obtained from Synchro. However, Synchro has limitations when it comes to over saturated intersections, which may result in the underreporting of delay and queuing. It is recommended that SimTraffic models (calibrated with field queuing and delay data) be used to verify the Synchro results. More advanced micro simulation models such as Vissim would better reflect the complex operations in this corridor. Response: This has been addressed in the updated TIS and SDEIS after consultation with both Stantec and NYSDOT regarding the method of reporting. (See revised TIS Section VI Page 6).
b. There are general model issues that are shared between the various peak hours, as well as inconsistencies between the peak hour models.
FEIS January 2018 224
A detailed review of each model should be conducted to ensure that it is consistent with the other models, as well as with existing and/or proposed conditions.
Examples include, but are not limited to: 1. Minimum initial green times of less than 5 seconds. 2. Minimum and total split times less than what is required. 3. Varying yellow and all red times at the same intersections between AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. 4. Signal recall modes and detector locations/settings. 5. Inconsistencies in startup lost time between intersections in the same model. For example, the intersection of NY 31 and Clover Street has a lost time adjustment of -2.5 seconds (needs backup as to why this was chosen), while other intersections have a lost time adjustment of O seconds. Field data and/or NYSDOT standards should be used to provide reasonable lost times adjustments at all signalized intersections. 6. Lane configurations along NY 31 and Allen's Creek vary between the Existing Condition AM, PM, and Saturday peak hour models. For example, NY 31 westbound shows a three-lane segment between Clover Street and South Side Driveway in the Saturday peak hour, a two-lane segment with left turn bay in the PM peak hour, and no left-turn bay in the AM peak hour. These variations are likely to have a minimal impact on the Synchro results; however, they have a significant impact on the operation of the SimTraffic simulations, particularly as it pertains to lane use and queuing at upstream and downstream signalized intersections.
Many of these same issues carry over into the Alternative 1 models where lane configurations at some locations are inconsistent with what is shown in the site plan. The models should be revised to be both consistent with existing and proposed conditions, as well as each other.
FEIS January 2018 225
c. There is no evidence of model calibration in the TIS documentation. This is reflected in the Synchro capacity analysis results and SimTraffic simulation runs, which show a lack of queuing and congestion, particularly during the PM peak hour currently experienced along the NY 31 corridor. AM, PM, and Saturday peak hour queue measurements should be taken along all intersection approaches to determine if unmet demand needs to be added into the turning movement count volumes. In addition, travel time and delay runs should be conducted on NY 31, Allen's Creek Road, and Clover Street to provide additional calibration data which could be applied to signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Once model calibration has been completed, these models should be used as the base models for the No Build and Build condition models. d. Volumes should be balanced between intersections where there are no other driveways or access points. e. Heavy vehicle percentages are required. It appears that all intersection movements have the Synchro default of 2% heavy vehicles. f. The models do not include any pedestrian or bicycle volume. g. Bus stoppages should be included in the models. h. Verify right-tum on red restrictions at signalized intersections, particularly the signalized double right-turn lanes from the 1-590 ramps. It is likely that these are No Turn on Red. i. Lane widths should be verified for all intersection approaches. All intersections are coded with the default 12-foot lanes. j. The right-turn bay to access 1-590 North from westbound NY 31 appears to be too short and should be closer to the site driveway. k. Verify the length of the westbound left-turn bay to Ramp 28. I measure 200 feet but the model shows 300 feet. l. Eliminate the unnecessary node between Allen's Creek Road and Exit 28 Ramp by coding the eastbound right-turn as a channelized right-tum movement at the Exit 26 Ramp intersection.
FEIS January 2018 226
m. Utilize a gap analysis data to calibrate the critical gap and follow up time at unsignalized intersections. n. Update the lane configurations; particularly turn bays along NY 31 in all models so that they match the proposed plans. Left turn bays should not be coded as full lanes so as not to create undue queuing in the SimTraffic models because of lane alignment and utilization imbalances. o. The proposed plan shows a single left-turn bay that is striped past the unsignalized driveway, which is intended to serve both left-turn movements. This configuration is undesirable from a safety standpoint, as a vehicle in the left-turn lane destined for the signal may not anticipate a vehicle in front of them stopping in the left-turn bay to enter the unsignalized driveway. Furthermore, it would likely have a negative impact on the capacity of the leftturnbay as vehicles that are intending to turn left at the signal may get stuck behind vehicles waiting to turn left at the unsignalized location. In addition, queuing from the signal may block the ability for vehicles to utilize the unsignalized access. p. Consideration should be given to separating the left-turn bays for the two movements. However, a queue analysis will need to be conducted to determine if the resulting shorter left-turn bay would be adequate to accommodate peak period queuing at the signalized intersection. If not, all left-turns should be accommodated at the signal. q. NYSDOT has required that the new signalized intersection provide permitted left turns rather than protected-permitted. However, providing permitted left-turns would lead to queue spillback, which would block through lanes negating the intended benefit of the permitted lefts to the through movements, and would likely lead to more aggressive/risky driving behavior given the limited gaps in traffic during the peak periods. For example, the PM peak hour model shows that queues for the westbound left-turn movement into the south side driveway would extend through the Clover Street intersection, spilling back into the through lanes.
FEIS January 2018 227
Furthermore, all adjacent signalized intersections within the commercialized corridor of NY 31 have left-turn lanes with protected-permitted left-turn movements. Therefore, protect-permitted left turns should also be provided for driver expectationas well as for traffic operations. r. Various miscellaneous minor errors or omissions in updating figures, volumes, labels, etc. were noted throughout the TIS report and appendix; every effort should be made to provide an accurate document. Response: Comments b through r above have been addressed in the updated TIS after consultation with both Stantec and NYSDOT. The applicant and Stantec agreed on the parameters of the model prior to completing the study. (See revised TIS Appendix for Synchro printouts).
Geology, Soils and Topography 1. With 15,491 cubic yards (cy) of unsuitable fill being removed from the site and approximately 4,094 cy of fill being generated, it appears that the site grading ls out of balance. Please provide verification of there being "balanced earthwork", as stated in the DEIS. What is the anticipated quantity of additional import material? Response: The earthwork has been balanced to the maximum extent practicable given the soil conditions and elevation restraints associated with adjoining properties. The building was raised to limit the amount of exported material. Additionally, stone will be used to bridge soft spots in the soil rather than mass exporting. Appendix 8 provides an updated earthwork analysis.
2. The geotechnical analysis indicates that the on-site soil contains organics and other deleterious material and requires removal. The construction and operation discussion should include a discussion of the removal of this material. The anticipated truck traffic Based on the volume of material to be removed and brought to the sight must be reviewed. Response: After further discussion with the Geologists and the nature of the existing site being already developed it is anticipated that only some of the originally anticipated unsuitable soils to be removed will be removed. Once construction has begun this can be better evaluated. The intent is to keep as much if not all material onsite.
FEIS January 2018 228
3. The "Section Cut & Fill Report" suggests that approximately 17,000 cy of fill will be imported to the site and 15,500 cy of excavated material will be removed from the site. The total volume of material imported and exported from the site will be approximately 32,500 cy. The volume of a 10-wheel dump truck is 10 to 14 cy. Therefore, importing and exporting material from the site will require 2,300 to 3,250 truck trips to and from the site. The DEIS states," No impacts are anticipated from this other than typical construction traffic". Information supporting this statement must be provided. The traffic analysis should evaluate the impact of this truck traffic. This analysis must consider that the traffic signal will not be operation during construction. How will the impact of this truck traffic be mitigated? Response: The cut and fill report has been revised and the amount of material leaving the site has decreased significantly as a result of the change in the building elevation. The site currently balances and does not require fill material. Areas where unsuitable material is encountered, the excavated material will be left onsite and bermed up, and structural fill imported. After speaking with the geologists, the amount of unsuitable material has also reduced, the general consensus is the site is currently developed and there is an opportunity to limit the structural fill areas and bridge over the soft spots using stone materials. This will result in a significant decrease in the initial anticipation of the amount of truck traffic. Refer to appendix 8 for calculations addressing the projected earthwork quantities and trucks. Most of the materials will be imported and exported outside of the peak hours of travel along the Monroe Avenue Corridor. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be implemented to ensure proper dust control and upkeep of Monroe Avenue. The majority of truck traffic will exit and enter the site outside of the peak hours. Traffic control in accordance with the NYSDOT requirements will be provided along Monroe Avenue to allow construction vehicles to safely enter and exit the site.
4. The geotechnical analysis recommends pavement slopes of 1.5 to 2 percent. Please confirm that the parking area grading will be consistent with the recommendation of the geotechnical analysis. Response: The majority of the pavement will be constructed with slopes from 1.5%-2%. This is a standard recommendation and as with any parking lot, there will be some areas that slightly deviate from those recommendations. However, all parking lot slopes will be constructed within all applicable guidelines and requirements.
FEIS January 2018 229
5. The "Section Cut & Fill Report" suggests that approximately 9,000 cy of fill will be obtained using on-site materials. The geotechnical analysis suggests that most of this soil is not useable. Please explain this contradiction. Response: The unsuitable material can be used in berms and other areas that don’t require structural support.
6. The grading plan is not reflective of the proposed bioretention areas. These areas should be delineated on the grading plan. Based on the information presented in the geotechnical report the bioretention areas will likely require underdrains. Response: Bioretention areas are illustrated on the Grading and Erosion Control Plan provided at Figure 6. The bioretention areas will include underdrains.
7. The DEIS indicates that the site will be mass graded and a 5-acre waiver will be sought. This approach is discouraged as it is impractical. The Project Sponsor must demonstrate that a 5-acre waiver is essential to the construction of the project. Otherwise, a conceptual phasing plan must be developed which illustrates that no more than 5 acres of the site will be disturbed at one time during the development of this site. Clearing and grubbing the site constitutes site disturbance. The owner or operator shall prepare a phasing plan that defines the maximum disturbed area of 5 acres per phase, and the specific sequencing and phasing that will be done to minimize the amount and duration of exposed areas to the maximum extent practicable. The phasing plan shall illustrate successive clearing and grubbing, grading, utility work, erosion control and restoration measures by phase. The phasing plan shall delineate the areas of disturbance, the period of disturbance for each area and detail the time limits for soil stabilization. The site should be designed to minimize earth disturbance and the stockpiling of soil. Response: A 5 Acre waiver is not impractical as most developments in western NY over 5 acres in area are granted a waiver. The project as proposed will be constructed in a single phase. Prior to construction, an erosion control phasing plan will be provided to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction which demonstrates the required stabilization measures in accordance with the applicable State and Local requirements which will minimize potential environmental impacts.
FEIS January 2018 230
Surface Waters/Drainage 1. The proposed stormwater discharge to the east is in conflict with the existing 12" watermain. Please identify the necessary re-grading and subsequent tree removal needed to allow for the appropriate relocation of the stormwater discharge. Response: Comment has been addressed in the revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (See Appendix 6). The storm sewer discharge will be to existing grade providing approximately 5’ of vertical separation from the watermain.
2. Please verify that there is adequate swale definition leading to the 18" CMP culvert on Clover Street to minimize local ponding. Response: Comment has been addressed in the revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (See Appendix 6).
3. The proposed access road will result in the elimination of the existing bioretention area at the southern end of the Dunkin Donuts. The drainage calculations must consider this area and the proposed drainage improvements must provide compensating stormwater control and treatment. Response: Comment has been addressed in the revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (See Appendix 6). The AMP area has been redesigned to provide stormwater management in accordance with the SPDES GP-0-02-15 and Town stormwater regulations.
4. The existing project site discharges to two culverts beneath Clover Street. One culvert ultimately discharges to the Whitestone Lane storm water collection system while the other culvert discharges to an existing swale along the rear yards of the properties along the north side of Shoreham Drive. Figure 3.3.2C incorrectly shows ultimate disposition of these discharge points.
The drainage analysis must evaluate both discharge points for water volume and flow rate impacts. The flow rate analysis must consider the existing discharge rates at these points when evaluating the project's compliance with the NYSDEC Stormwater Design Manual, Chapter 215 of the Code of the Town of Brighton and the Irondequoit Creek requirements.
FEIS January 2018 231
Response: The updated “Drainage area Maps” are in appendix 6 of the revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. These maps depict the ultimate discharge points described above, Whitestone lane Storm Water Collection System and the Swale on the northside of Shoreham dr. Below is a summary of the hydraulic calculations that are contained within appendix I of the SWPPP, this summary includes both existing and proposed runoff rates as well as existing and proposed volumes discharged:
Shoreham Dr., Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 9.5 11.8 18.5 28.1 33.4 Volume (cf) 19,633 24,388 39,264 61,373 74,037 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3.6 4.6 7.4 11.6 13.9 Volume (cf) 12,545 15,782 26,020 41,391 50,236 Reduction Rate (cfs) 5.9 7.2 11.1 16.5 19.5 Volume (cf) 7,088 8,606 13,244 19,982 23,801
White Stone Lane, Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.9 3.6 5.5 8.4 9.9 Volume (cf) 6,800 8,391 13,338 20,656 24,838 Proposed Rate (cfs) 0.070 0.19 1.4 3.0 3.6 Volume (cf) 1,774 6,766 22,085 44,470 57,195 Reduction/Increase Rate (CFS) 2.83 3.41 4.1 5.4 6.3 Volume (CF) 5,026 1,625 8,747 23,814 32,357
FEIS January 2018 232
Clover St. and NYS Route 31
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 6.2 7.4 10.9 16.06 18.9 Volume (cf) 13,415 16,176 24,635 36,975 43,985 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3 3.7 5.5 8.2 9.7 Volume (cf) 6386 7793 12135 18510 22142 Reduction Rate (cfs) 3.2 3.7 5.4 7.86 9.2 Volume (cf) 7,029 8,383 12,500 18,465 21,843
Northside of Monroe Ave Hydraulic Summary (White Stone, Shoreham and Clover St.) Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Total Existing (cfs) 18.4 22.4 34.5 51.8 61.5 Total Proposed (cf) 5.5 6.8 10.8 17.1 21.9 Reduction 12.9 15.6 23.9 34.7 39.6 Total Runoff Volume Pre Vs Post Total Existing (cfs) 39,848 48,955 77,237 119,004 142,860 Total Proposed (cf) 20,705 30,342 60,241 104,371 129,573 Reduction/Increase 19,143 18,613 16,996 14,633 13,287
South Side of Monroe Ave
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.381 2.907 4.497 6.769 8.044 Volume (cf) 4,928 6,081 9,667 14,970 18,000 Proposed Rate (cfs) 2.317 2.843 4.435 6.714 7.993 Volume (cf) 4,771 5,912 9,473 14,755 17,778 Reduction Rate (cfs) 0.064 0.064 0.062 0.055 0.051 Volume (cf) 157 169 194 215 222
FEIS January 2018 233
The tables above indicate a slight overall increase in volume of runoff as a result of the improvements located on the northside of Monroe ave, the volume is mitigated by reducing the runoff rate using green infrastructure and standard stormwater management practices.
Conversations with town staff, indicate the desired discharge point for a majority of the runoff volume is the White Stone Lane Analysis Point, as this discharge point ultimately conveys stormwater to an existing system. As a result, the project was designed to redirect a majority of the runoff volume to this this analysis point at a lesser rate the pre-developed conditions, the summary table above supports the design concept. The overall volume has increased under post developed conditions while the runoff rate is less. This concept will also re-direct all runoff from Monroe Avenue to the clover street analysis point.
The improvements on the southside of Monroe Ave result in a decrease in impervious area which yield a slight decrease in volume and rate as more water will be infiltrated into the ground. An infiltration basin is also proposed on the southside, this basin is not included in the hydraulic calculations as it is not required to reduce rate and volume, it is only proposed to treat the required water quality volume in accordance with the NYSDEC Stormwater Design Manual because of the improvements.
For all analysis points the Pre Vs Post runoff rate is less. There is a slight increase in volume, however this is mitigated using the required stormwater practices found within the NYSDEC stormwater manual.
5. The existing condition drainage calculations define the allowable discharge from the project site. ft appears that the existing allowable discharge from the site calculation considered the entire site including the portion that discharges to the northern most culvert. This methodology will result in an increase in the allowable discharge rate at the southern culvert. The existing condition drainage calculations must be revised to consider the different discharge points.
FEIS January 2018 234
Response: The existing conditions drainage calculations were revised to include four separate analysis points which are described as follows within the drainage calculations of the SWPPP (appendix 6); 1) Shoreham Dr. 2) White Stone Lane 3) Clover St 4) NYS Route 31. The proposed drainage analysis includes three separate analysis points described as follow; 1) Shoreham Dr. 2) White Stone Lane 3) Clover St. & NYS Route 31. The analysis points and drainage areas for proposed are less as Clover St. and NYS Route 31 were combined to ultimately discharge to the Clover St. Sewer at a lesser rate with less volume.
To address the comment above, the drainage calculations were ultimately divided and analyzed as 3 separate points, where previously they are discharged to one point. By dividing the discharge point we are able to break down the rates to confirm they are not increased as a result of the project. In addition, we also re-directed some runoff volume away from Shoreham Dr. To White Stone Lane as White Stone Lane connects to a closed storm sewer where Shoreham Dr. is and open drainage ditch on neighboring property. This approach will also limit the impact from flooding to far less than its potential today. This method was ultimately suggested by town staff at the Town of Brighton. Below is the summary of the discharge points, their existing and proposed runoff of rates and volumes. More detailed calculations can be found in the SWPPP under appendix 6.
Shoreham Dr., Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 9.5 11.8 18.5 28.1 33.4 Volume (cf) 19,633 24,388 39,264 61,373 74,037 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3.6 4.6 7.4 11.6 13.9 Volume (cf) 12,545 15,782 26,020 41,391 50,236 Reduction Rate (cfs) 5.9 7.2 11.1 16.5 19.5 Volume (cf) 7,088 8,606 13,244 19,982 23,801
FEIS January 2018 235
White Stone Lane, Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.9 3.6 5.5 8.4 9.9 Volume (cf) 6,800 8,391 13,338 20,656 24,838 Proposed Rate (cfs) 0.070 0.19 1.4 3.0 3.6 Volume (cf) 1,774 6,766 22,085 44,470 57,195 Reduction/Increase Rate (CFS) 2.83 3.41 4.1 5.4 6.3 Volume (CF) 5,026 1,625 8,747 23,814 32,357
Clover St. and NYS Route 31
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 6.2 7.4 10.9 16.06 18.9 Volume (cf) 13,415 16,176 24,635 36,975 43,985 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3 3.7 5.5 8.2 9.7 Volume (cf) 6386 7793 12135 18510 22142 Reduction Rate (cfs) 3.2 3.7 5.4 7.86 9.2 Volume (cf) 7,029 8,383 12,500 18,465 21,843
Northside of Monroe Ave Hydraulic Summary (White Stone, Shoreham and Clover St.) Stormwater Runoff Rate and Voume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Total Existing (cfs) 18.4 22.4 34.5 51.8 61.5 Total Proposed (cf) 5.5 6.8 10.8 17.1 21.9 Reduction 12.9 15.6 23.9 34.7 39.6 Total Runoff Volume Pre Vs Post Total Existing (cfs) 39,848 48,955 77,237 119,004 142,860 Total Proposed (cf) 20,705 30,342 60,241 104,371 129,573 Reduction/Increase 19,143 18,613 16,996 14,633 13,287
FEIS January 2018 236
South Side of Monroe Ave
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.381 2.907 4.497 6.769 8.044 Volume (cf) 4,928 6,081 9,667 14,970 18,000 Proposed Rate (cfs) 2.317 2.843 4.435 6.714 7.993 Volume (cf) 4,771 5,912 9,473 14,755 17,778 Reduction Rate (cfs) 0.064 0.064 0.062 0.055 0.051 Volume (cf) 157 169 194 215 222
6. The southern culvert crosses beneath Clover Street and discharges to a depression behind the properties on the north side of Shoreham drive. It appears that this depressed area does not have an outfall and the stormwater eventually infiltrates into the soil. ft is particularly important that the volume of stormwater discharged to this culvert is not increased. It may be necessary to divert a portion of the stormwater volume to the northern discharge point. Response: The project has been designed to convey proposed drainage runoff through three separate discharge points: 1) Shoreham Dr. 2) White Stone Lane 3) Clover St. & NYS Route 31. Each point analyzes existing and proposed stormwater runoff and rates and volumes. Town staff has indicated that the project must not result in an increase in the volume of stormwater discharged to the depressed area behind the properties on the north side of Shoreham Drive because there does not appear to be an outfall. This was accomplished by diverting runoff to other discharge points particularly where a closed storm sewer is present. Below is the summary of the drainage calculations that can be found within the SWPPP located in Appendix 6. As shown below the total reduction in the runoff rates for each storm event for Shoreham Dr. averages approximately 50% and a reduction in volume of approximate 60% from existing.
FEIS January 2018 237
Shoreham Dr., Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 9.5 11.8 18.5 28.1 33.4 Volume (cf) 19,633 24,388 39,264 61,373 74,037 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3.6 4.6 7.4 11.6 13.9 Volume (cf) 12,545 15,782 26,020 41,391 50,236 Reduction Rate (cfs) 5.9 7.2 11.1 16.5 19.5 Volume (cf) 7,088 8,606 13,244 19,982 23,801
White Stone Lane, Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.9 3.6 5.5 8.4 9.9 Volume (cf) 6,800 8,391 13,338 20,656 24,838 Proposed Rate (cfs) 0.070 0.19 1.4 3.0 3.6 Volume (cf) 1,774 6,766 22,085 44,470 57,195 Reduction/Increase Rate (CFS) 2.83 3.41 4.1 5.4 6.3 Volume (CF) 5,026 1,625 8,747 23,814 32,357
FEIS January 2018 238
Clover St. and NYS Route 31
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 6.2 7.4 10.9 16.06 18.9 Volume (cf) 13,415 16,176 24,635 36,975 43,985 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3 3.7 5.5 8.2 9.7 Volume (cf) 6386 7793 12135 18510 22142 Reduction Rate (cfs) 3.2 3.7 5.4 7.86 9.2 Volume (cf) 7,029 8,383 12,500 18,465 21,843
Northside of Monroe Ave Hydraulic Summary (White Stone, Shoreham and Clover St.) Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Total Existing (cfs) 18.4 22.4 34.5 51.8 61.5 Total Proposed (cf) 5.5 6.8 10.8 17.1 21.9 Reduction 12.9 15.6 23.9 34.7 39.6 Total Runoff Volume Pre Vs Post Total Existing (cfs) 39,848 48,955 77,237 119,004 142,860 Total Proposed (cf) 20,705 30,342 60,241 104,371 129,573 Reduction/Increase 19,143 18,613 16,996 14,633 13,287
South Side of Monroe Ave.
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.381 2.907 4.497 6.769 8.044 Volume (cf) 4,928 6,081 9,667 14,970 18,000 Proposed Rate (cfs) 2.317 2.843 4.435 6.714 7.993 Volume (cf) 4,771 5,912 9,473 14,755 17,778 Reduction Rate (cfs) 0.064 0.064 0.062 0.055 0.051 Volume (cf) 157 169 194 215 222
FEIS January 2018 239
7. The surface water section must discuss the existing downstream drainage conditions in the Whitestone Lane and Shoreham Drive area, the projects impact on this area and any mitigating measures to reduce this impact. Supporting documentation must be provided. Response: There are several mitigation practices that have been implemented to ensure the proposal does not increase storm water volumes and rates. Underground storage is the mitigation technique used for stormwater runoff conveyed to the white stone lane storm sewer. An infiltration basin has been designed to help mitigate the stormwater runoff rates and volumes for the Shoreham Dr. analysis point; in addition, the drainage area for this particular area has been significantly reduced in efforts to drastically reduce the discharge volume to Shoreham Dr. This volume has been redirected to the other two analysis points as they have closed storm sewers to ultimately convey stormwater. Below a summary table which shows the reduction to each area as well as the overall reduction. This is a summary of the drainage calculations that are contained in SWPPP located in Appendix 6.
Shoreham Dr., Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 9.5 11.8 18.5 28.1 33.4 Volume (cf) 19,633 24,388 39,264 61,373 74,037 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3.6 4.6 7.4 11.6 13.9 Volume (cf) 12,545 15,782 26,020 41,391 50,236 Reduction Rate (cfs) 5.9 7.2 11.1 16.5 19.5 Volume (cf) 7,088 8,606 13,244 19,982 23,801
FEIS January 2018 240
White Stone Lane, Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.9 3.6 5.5 8.4 9.9 Volume (cf) 6,800 8,391 13,338 20,656 24,838 Proposed Rate (cfs) 0.070 0.19 1.4 3.0 3.6 Volume (cf) 1,774 6,766 22,085 44,470 57,195 Reduction/Increase Rate (CFS) 2.83 3.41 4.1 5.4 6.3 Volume (CF) 5,026 1,625 8,747 23,814 32,357
Clover St. and NYS Route 31
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 6.2 7.4 10.9 16.06 18.9 Volume (cf) 13,415 16,176 24,635 36,975 43,985 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3 3.7 5.5 8.2 9.7 Volume (cf) 6386 7793 12135 18510 22142 Reduction Rate (cfs) 3.2 3.7 5.4 7.86 9.2 Volume (cf) 7,029 8,383 12,500 18,465 21,843
Northside of Monroe Ave Hydraulic Summary (White Stone, Shoreham and Clover St.) Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Total Existing (cfs) 18.4 22.4 34.5 51.8 61.5 Total Proposed (cf) 5.5 6.8 10.8 17.1 21.9 Reduction 12.9 15.6 23.9 34.7 39.6 Total Runoff Volume Pre Vs Post Total Existing (cfs) 39,848 48,955 77,237 119,004 142,860 Total Proposed (cf) 20,705 30,342 60,241 104,371 129,573 Reduction/Increase 19,143 18,613 16,996 14,633 13,287
FEIS January 2018 241
South Side of Monroe Ave
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.381 2.907 4.497 6.769 8.044 Volume (cf) 4,928 6,081 9,667 14,970 18,000 Proposed Rate (cfs) 2.317 2.843 4.435 6.714 7.993 Volume (cf) 4,771 5,912 9,473 14,755 17,778 Reduction Rate (cfs) 0.064 0.064 0.062 0.055 0.051 Volume (cf) 157 169 194 215 222
8. The DEIS states, "Discharge from the redevelopment site is primarily to two (2) points located along Clover Street. These drainage points represent culvert inlets on the south side of Clover Street. The culverts convey stormwater flows to the north side of Clover Street where the flow from the culverts combine and flow north through the Shoreham Drive neighborhood.” This statement is incorrect. One culvert ultimately discharges to the Whitestone Lane storm water collection system while the other culvert discharges to an existing swale along north side of Shoreham Drive. The stormwater analysis must be revised to reevaluate these separate discharge points. Response: The revised analysis includes three separate analysis points which corresponds with the comment above. The three points are defined as 1) Shoreham Dr. 2) White Stone Lane 3) Clover St. & NYS Route 31, this is like the existing drainage analysis except that Clover St and NYS Route 31 each drain to different areas, where under proposed conditions they are combined and drain to the Clover St. Storm sewer. Below is the summary table which defines each of the analysis points and shows both existing and proposed runoff rates and volumes. More detailed calculations can also be found within the SWPPP located in Appendix 6.
FEIS January 2018 242
Shoreham Dr., Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 9.5 11.8 18.5 28.1 33.4 Volume (cf) 19,633 24,388 39,264 61,373 74,037 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3.6 4.6 7.4 11.6 13.9 Volume (cf) 12,545 15,782 26,020 41,391 50,236 Reduction Rate (cfs) 5.9 7.2 11.1 16.5 19.5 Volume (cf) 7,088 8,606 13,244 19,982 23,801
White Stone Lane, Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.9 3.6 5.5 8.4 9.9 Volume (cf) 6,800 8,391 13,338 20,656 24,838 Proposed Rate (cfs) 0.070 0.19 1.4 3.0 3.6 Volume (cf) 1,774 6,766 22,085 44,470 57,195 Reduction/Increase Rate (CFS) 2.83 3.41 4.1 5.4 6.3 Volume (CF) 5,026 1,625 8,747 23,814 32,357
FEIS January 2018 243
Clover St. and NYS Route 31
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 6.2 7.4 10.9 16.06 18.9 Volume (cf) 13,415 16,176 24,635 36,975 43,985 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3 3.7 5.5 8.2 9.7 Volume (cf) 6386 7793 12135 18510 22142 Reduction Rate (cfs) 3.2 3.7 5.4 7.86 9.2 Volume (cf) 7,029 8,383 12,500 18,465 21,843
Northside of Monroe Ave Hydraulic Summary (White Stone, Shoreham and Clover St.) Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Total Existing (cfs) 18.4 22.4 34.5 51.8 61.5 Total Proposed (cf) 5.5 6.8 10.8 17.1 21.9 Reduction 12.9 15.6 23.9 34.7 39.6 Total Runoff Volume Pre Vs Post Total Existing (cfs) 39,848 48,955 77,237 119,004 142,860 Total Proposed (cf) 20,705 30,342 60,241 104,371 129,573 Reduction/Increase 19,143 18,613 16,996 14,633 13,287
South Side of Monroe Ave
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.381 2.907 4.497 6.769 8.044 Volume (cf) 4,928 6,081 9,667 14,970 18,000 Proposed Rate (cfs) 2.317 2.843 4.435 6.714 7.993 Volume (cf) 4,771 5,912 9,473 14,755 17,778 Reduction Rate (cfs) 0.064 0.064 0.062 0.055 0.051 Volume (cf) 157 169 194 215 222
FEIS January 2018 244
9. Tables 4.2-3 and 4.2-4 summarize the peak discharge rates and un-detained stormwater run-off volume for the entire project. These tables must be revised to reflect the two discharge points along Clover Street. Response: The SWPPP has been updated to reflect the two discharge points.
10. The first paragraph on page 186 states, "Table 4.2-4 summarizes the access management area un-detained developed peak flow rates for the drainage area (before stormwater management facility routing). Table 4.2-4 includes data regarding stormwater volumes. This paragraph must be revised. Response: Comment has been addressed in the revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, refer to Appendix 6.
11. It must be clear that the "Sequence of Major Activities" in the SWPPP includes the development along the south side of Monroe Avenue. A separate sequence may be appropriate. Response: A separate sequence is provided in the updated SWPPP for the south side of Monroe Avenue.
12. The DEIS evaluates the watershed upstream of the Whitestone Lane and Shoreham area however it does not include a detailed discussion of the existing downstream drainage conditions in the Whitestone Lane and Shoreham Drive area, the projects impact on this area and mitigating measures to reduce this impact. In addition, the SWPPP and or Engineer's Report should discuss the evaluation of these areas. Response: There are several mitigation practices that have been implemented to ensure the proposal does not increase storm water volumes and rates downstream. Underground storage is the mitigation technique used for stomrwater runoff conveyed to the white stone lane storm sewer. An infiltration basin has been designed to help mitigate the stormwater runoff rates and volumes for the Shorham Dr. analysis point; in addition, the drainage area for this particular area has been significantly reduced in efforts to drastically reduce the discharge volume to Shorham Dr. This volume has been redirected to the other two analysis points as they have closed storm sewers to ultimately convey stormwater. The SWPPP and Engineer’s reports include the detailed evaluation of these areas and the calculations associated with it.
FEIS January 2018 245
Below is a summary table which shows the results of all mitigation practices, the calculations show a positive impact to the downstream drainage basin. More detailed information can be found in the SWPPP located in Appendix 6.
Shoreham Dr., Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 9.5 11.8 18.5 28.1 33.4 Volume (cf) 19,633 24,388 39,264 61,373 74,037 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3.6 4.6 7.4 11.6 13.9 Volume (cf) 12,545 15,782 26,020 41,391 50,236 Reduction Rate (cfs) 5.9 7.2 11.1 16.5 19.5 Volume (cf) 7,088 8,606 13,244 19,982 23,801
White Stone Lane, Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.9 3.6 5.5 8.4 9.9 Volume (cf) 6,800 8,391 13,338 20,656 24,838 Proposed Rate (cfs) 0.070 0.19 1.4 3.0 3.6 Volume (cf) 1,774 6,766 22,085 44,470 57,195 Reduction/Increase Rate (CFS) 2.83 3.41 4.1 5.4 6.3 Volume (CF) 5,026 1,625 8,747 23,814 32,357
FEIS January 2018 246
Clover St. and NYS Route 31
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 6.2 7.4 10.9 16.06 18.9 Volume (cf) 13,415 16,176 24,635 36,975 43,985 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3 3.7 5.5 8.2 9.7 Volume (cf) 6386 7793 12135 18510 22142 Reduction Rate (cfs) 3.2 3.7 5.4 7.86 9.2 Volume (cf) 7,029 8,383 12,500 18,465 21,843
Northside of Monroe Ave Hydraulic Summary (White Stone, Shoreham and Clover St.) Stormwater Runoff Rate and Voume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Total Existing (cfs) 18.4 22.4 34.5 51.8 61.5 Total Proposed (cf) 5.5 6.8 10.8 17.1 21.9 Reduction 12.9 15.6 23.9 34.7 39.6 Total Runoff Volume Pre Vs Post Total Existing (cfs) 39,848 48,955 77,237 119,004 142,860 Total Proposed (cf) 20,705 30,342 60,241 104,371 129,573 Reduction/Increase 19,143 18,613 16,996 14,633 13,287
South Side of Monroe Ave
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.381 2.907 4.497 6.769 8.044 Volume (cf) 4,928 6,081 9,667 14,970 18,000 Proposed Rate (cfs) 2.317 2.843 4.435 6.714 7.993 Volume (cf) 4,771 5,912 9,473 14,755 17,778 Reduction Rate (cfs) 0.064 0.064 0.062 0.055 0.051 Volume (cf) 157 169 194 215 222
FEIS January 2018 247
13. The SWPPP and/or an Engineer's report should discuss the existing and proposed stormwater volume being discharged offsite. This discussion should include the existing and proposed volume of water being discharged to the Whitestone Lane and Shoreham Drive areas. Response: The existing conditions drainage calculations were revised to include four separate analysis points which are described as follows within the drainage calculations of the SWPPP (appendix 6); 1) Shoreham Dr. 2) White Stone Lane 3) Clover St 4) NYS Route 31. The proposed drainage analysis includes three separate analysis points described as follow; 1) Shoreham Dr. 2) White Stone Lane 3) Clover St. & NYS Route 31. The analysis points and drainage areas for proposed are less as Clover St. and NYS Route 31 were combined to ultimately discharge to the Clover St. Sewer at a lesser rate with less volume.
To address the comment above, the drainage calculations were ultimately divided and analyzed as 3 separate points, where previously they are discharged to one point. By dividing the discharge point we are able to break down the rates to confirm they are not increased as a result of the project. In addition, we also re-directed some runoff volume away from Shoreham Dr. To White Stone Lane as White Stone Lane connects to a closed storm sewer where Shoreham Dr. is and open drainage ditch on neighboring property. This approach will also limit the impact from flooding to far less than its potential today. This method was ultimately suggested by town staff at the Town of Brighton. Below is the summary of the discharge points, their existing and proposed runoff of rates and volumes. More detailed calculations can be found in the SWPPP under Appendix 6.
FEIS January 2018 248
Shoreham Dr., Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 9.5 11.8 18.5 28.1 33.4 Volume (cf) 19,633 24,388 39,264 61,373 74,037 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3.6 4.6 7.4 11.6 13.9 Volume (cf) 12,545 15,782 26,020 41,391 50,236 Reduction Rate (cfs) 5.9 7.2 11.1 16.5 19.5 Volume (cf) 7,088 8,606 13,244 19,982 23,801
White Stone Lane, Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.9 3.6 5.5 8.4 9.9 Volume (cf) 6,800 8,391 13,338 20,656 24,838 Proposed Rate (cfs) 0.070 0.19 1.4 3.0 3.6 Volume (cf) 1,774 6,766 22,085 44,470 57,195 Reduction/Increase Rate (CFS) 2.83 3.41 4.1 5.4 6.3 Volume (CF) 5,026 1,625 8,747 23,814 32,357
FEIS January 2018 249
Clover St. and NYS Route 31
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 6.2 7.4 10.9 16.06 18.9 Volume (cf) 13,415 16,176 24,635 36,975 43,985 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3 3.7 5.5 8.2 9.7 Volume (cf) 6386 7793 12135 18510 22142 Reduction Rate (cfs) 3.2 3.7 5.4 7.86 9.2 Volume (cf) 7,029 8,383 12,500 18,465 21,843
Northside of Monroe Ave Hydraulic Summary (White Stone, Shoreham and Clover St.) Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Total Existing (cfs) 18.4 22.4 34.5 51.8 61.5 Total Proposed (cf) 5.5 6.8 10.8 17.1 21.9 Reduction 12.9 15.6 23.9 34.7 39.6 Total Runoff Volume Pre Vs Post Total Existing (cfs) 39,848 48,955 77,237 119,004 142,860 Total Proposed (cf) 20,705 30,342 60,241 104,371 129,573 Reduction/Increase 19,143 18,613 16,996 14,633 13,287
South Side of Monroe Ave
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.381 2.907 4.497 6.769 8.044 Volume (cf) 4,928 6,081 9,667 14,970 18,000 Proposed Rate (cfs) 2.317 2.843 4.435 6.714 7.993 Volume (cf) 4,771 5,912 9,473 14,755 17,778 Reduction Rate (cfs) 0.064 0.064 0.062 0.055 0.051 Volume (cf) 157 169 194 215 222
FEIS January 2018 250
14. The Stormwater Analysis must compare the existing versus the proposed peak flow rates and stormwater volumes at the existing discharge points. Special consideration must be given to the volume and rate of stormwater discharged to the Whitestone Lane and Shoreham Drive areas. Response: The existing conditions drainage calculations were revised to include four separate analysis points which are described as follows within the drainage calculations of the SWPPP (appendix 6); 1) Shoreham Dr. 2) White Stone Lane 3) Clover St 4) NYS Route 31. The proposed drainage analysis includes three separate analysis points described as follow; 1) Shoreham Dr. 2) White Stone Lane 3) Clover St. & NYS Route 31. The analysis points and drainage areas for proposed are less as Clover St. and NYS Route 31 were combined to ultimately discharge to the Clover St. Sewer at a lesser rate with less volume.
To address the comment above, the drainage calculations were ultimately divided and analyzed as 3 separate points, where previously they are discharged to one point. By dividing the discharge point we are able to break down the rates to confirm they are not increased as a result of the project. In addition, we also re-directed some runoff volume away from Shoreham Dr. To White Stone Lane as White Stone Lane connects to a closed storm sewer where Shoreham Dr. is and open drainage ditch on neighboring property. This approach will also limit the impact from flooding to far less than its potential today. This method was ultimately suggested by town staff at the Town of Brighton. Below is the summary of the discharge points, their existing and proposed runoff of rates and volumes. More detailed calculations can be found in the SWPPP under Appendix 6.
FEIS January 2018 251
Shoreham Dr., Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 9.5 11.8 18.5 28.1 33.4 Volume (cf) 19,633 24,388 39,264 61,373 74,037 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3.6 4.6 7.4 11.6 13.9 Volume (cf) 12,545 15,782 26,020 41,391 50,236 Reduction Rate (cfs) 5.9 7.2 11.1 16.5 19.5 Volume (cf) 7,088 8,606 13,244 19,982 23,801
White Stone Lane, Analysis Point
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.9 3.6 5.5 8.4 9.9 Volume (cf) 6,800 8,391 13,338 20,656 24,838 Proposed Rate (cfs) 0.070 0.19 1.4 3.0 3.6 Volume (cf) 1,774 6,766 22,085 44,470 57,195 Reduction/Increase Rate (CFS) 2.83 3.41 4.1 5.4 6.3 Volume (CF) 5,026 1,625 8,747 23,814 32,357
FEIS January 2018 252
Clover St. and NYS Route 31
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 6.2 7.4 10.9 16.06 18.9 Volume (cf) 13,415 16,176 24,635 36,975 43,985 Proposed Rate (cfs) 3 3.7 5.5 8.2 9.7 Volume (cf) 6386 7793 12135 18510 22142 Reduction Rate (cfs) 3.2 3.7 5.4 7.86 9.2 Volume (cf) 7,029 8,383 12,500 18,465 21,843
Northside of Monroe Ave Hydraulic Summary (White Stone, Shoreham and Clover St.) Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Total Existing (cfs) 18.4 22.4 34.5 51.8 61.5 Total Proposed (cf) 5.5 6.8 10.8 17.1 21.9 Reduction 12.9 15.6 23.9 34.7 39.6 Total Runoff Volume Pre Vs Post Total Existing (cfs) 39,848 48,955 77,237 119,004 142,860 Total Proposed (cf) 20,705 30,342 60,241 104,371 129,573 Reduction/Increase 19,143 18,613 16,996 14,633 13,287
South Side of Monroe Ave
Stormwater Runoff Rate and Volume per Analysis Point ) Description 1 year 2year 10 year 50 year 100 year Existing Rate (cfs) 2.381 2.907 4.497 6.769 8.044 Volume (cf) 4,928 6,081 9,667 14,970 18,000 Proposed Rate (cfs) 2.317 2.843 4.435 6.714 7.993 Volume (cf) 4,771 5,912 9,473 14,755 17,778 Reduction Rate (cfs) 0.064 0.064 0.062 0.055 0.051 Volume (cf) 157 169 194 215 222
FEIS January 2018 253
15. The information presented in tables 4.2-3 and 4.2-4 is not consistent with the information presented in the Summary for Link Site Total: sheets contained in the SWPPP. This information should be identical. Response: The SWPPP has been revised, and all tables correspond correctly as they should.
16. Boring B15-22 is located within the Sub-Surface Detention Area 1a and suggests that the water table is 3' - 4' and bedrock is at approximately 6'-6" below the existing grade. The information in the SWPPP indicates that the underground storage system will be installed at a depth of approximately 8' below the existing surface elevation. The SWPPP and DEIS must discuss how the proposed design will address the ground water and bedrock elevations. Response: The plans have been revised, there is no longer an underground storage system required at that depth, the proposed system will be above the water elevation and rock and installed in accordance with the manufactures recommendations. A detail has been provided on the grading plan illustrating the depth of the water table in relation to the underground storage.
17. During a 100-year event Sub-Surface Detention Area will overtop the parking area. It does not appear that the outfall structure rating table accounts for onsite storage within the parking area. The DEIS and SWPPP must discuss how this stormwater will be controlled and contained on-site. Response: The plans have been revised, the sub-surface detention area is sized to handle a 100- year storm event.
18. How was the 6.5-foot rise derived for the Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir? Response: The plans have been revised, there is no longer a weir proposed.
19. A map/figure should be provided which illustrates the anticipated contributing area for the Green Infrastructure practices. The SWPPP must demonstrate that the plan proposes that a minimum of 25% of the water quality volume (WQv) from the disturbed, impervious area is captured and treated by the implementation of standard SMP or reduced by application of green infrastructure techniques.
FEIS January 2018 254
Response: The requested map is included in the revised SWPPP. The stormwater management has been revised so that at least 25% of the WQv for existing disturbed pavement is treated and 100% of the new pavement area is treated. This equates to 7 acres of existing area and 0.5 acres of proposed area. Per the NYSSWDM RRv techniques will only be provided for the new impervious area (0.5 acres).
20. Infiltration tests must be provided demonstrating that the areas proposed to be overlain with porous pavement have adequate infiltration rates. The underlying parent soils should have a minimum infiltration rate of 0.5 inches per hour. Soil testing is required as set forth in Appendix D of the NYSDEC Stormwater Design Manual. Response: Infiltration tests will be completed as part of the final development plans and SWPPP. If infiltration is not successful using native material, infiltration material will be imported having an infiltration rate to meet the requirements of the NYSDEC stormwater Design Manual, to achieve the desired runoff reduction volume.
21. The stormwater management practices for runoff reduction indicates that the maximum contributing area for the “Impervious Disconnection” practice is 2,000 sf. It appears that the calculations are considering 23, 300 sf of total roof area consisting of 17,000 sf of the Whole Foods store and 6,300 sf of the retail building. This appears to be an improper use of this practice. Response: Rooftop disconnection is no longer proposed as it is not required to satisfy the applicable green infrastructure requirements.
22. The water quality calculations consider the underground detention area tributary to D-2a as a treatment area. We could not identify a reference to this area on the maps. This area must serve as an infiltration area to provide water quality treatment. The water table depth and infiltration rates may preclude this area from consideration as a water quality feature. Response: Drainage area D-2a is no longer proposed or included in the calculations.
23. The Rv calculation for the Requirements for overall increase in impervious area seem to consider and impervious coverage of 8%. The percentage is much greater than 8% and the calculation appears incorrect.
FEIS January 2018 255
Response: The RRv calculations have been revised. Per the NYSDEC SWDM for redeveloped sites, the DEC requires only the additional or new impervious area to be treated using RRv/Green infrastructure techniques, this increase is 0.5acres. The WQv is calculated by using 25% of the current impervious area (approx. 7 acres) and 100% of the new impervious area (approx. 0.5 acres).
24. The SWPPP and/or engineers report must include a discussion and calculations regarding the overall watershed contributing to the Whitestone Lane and Shoreham Drive area. Response: Comment has been addressed in the revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (See appendix 6) The runoff from the proposed development is significantly less to both discharge areas, these areas are detailed within the hydraulic calculations portion of the SWPPP.
25. The bioretention area will require the installation of an underdrain due to the high groundwater and the infiltration rates of the existing soils. The NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual indicates that the % of WQv provided by this practice must be reduced by 40% when the practice includes the installation of an underdrain. Response: Underdrain is proposed within the proposed infiltration area, the calculations for the required WQv can be found within the Green Infrastructure Worksheets of the SWPPP located in Appendix 6.
Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology 1. The Wildlife discussion regarding endangered species must consider the project's impact on the Long-Eared bat and provide mitigation if necessary. Response: Construction near habitable areas of the Long-Eared bat will postponed/stopped during the required timeframe outlined by the NYSDEC. Tree clearing will take place outside the timeframes designated by the NYSDEC.
FEIS January 2018 256
Land Use and Zoning 1. The preservation of open space that is presented as an amenity should be considered a mitigation measure. An open space buffer between the surrounding residential uses and the encroachment of the proposed commercial development within the existing residential zoning district is necessary to mitigate the impacts that will be created. Response: There is adequate area on the residential property to allow for both the construction of single family residence as well as the buffering for the commercial portion of the project, refer to Section 1.6.
2. Greater detail must be provided regarding the proposed incentives to allow the regulations of the (BF-2 Commercial District) less restrictive zoning district to apply within the existing residential zoning district. The specific their impacts analyzed and discussed. Response: Refer to section 1.5 of this FEIS.
Community Services 1. The existing overhead lines through the RG&E property are identified to be removed. Please identify the location and size of the infrastructure to replace these electrical transmission lines. Are the lines going to be buried? What will become of the poles and electric lines? Response: Based on preliminary discussions with RG&E, the poles and lines will be moved to accommodate the proposed trail. The final location of the poles will be provided as part of the construction documents.
2. It is imperative that Emergency Service providers are able to access the project area from other than Monroe Avenue, as it may be in gridlock at certain times. Response: Emergency vehicles will have access to the site via two driveways on Monroe Ave. Although the applicant does not have access rights to Clover Street, emergency vehicles could enter via the adjacent properties or along the improved trail system. Removable bollards are proposed at Allen’s Creek Road to provide emergency access and restrict typical vehicular access.
FEIS January 2018 257
Furthermore, as shown at Section 3.2(4), the Fire Department has confirmed that the traffic improvements will not restrict their access to the Site.
3. The geotechnical analysis indicates that bedrock may be found at depths of 7-13 feet. The installation of the sanitary sewer may require the removal of bedrock. Removal of bedrock is generally completed with a hoe-ram or explosives. The depth of the utilities should be evaluated to determine if they will require the removal of bedrock. If bedrock must be removed the noise study should evaluate the impact of hoe-ramming. Response: The depth of the sanitary sewer is shown on the utility plan at figure 5. There will be minimal disturbance to the rock ledge, where the sewer does impact the ledge, rock teeth mounted on an excavator will be used for the shallow excavation into the rock.
4. The sanitary sewer capacity analysis should compute the average daily demand based on the operational period to determine the average day demand. The average daily demand should be multiplied by the peaking factor to determine the peak hour rate. The peak hour rate must be evaluated. Response: The updated Sanitary Sewer Study includes the peak hour rate and is provided at Appendix 9.
5. The DEIS indicates that the depth of the proposed sewer at the north-west corner of the Mario’s Restaurant property is sufficient for connection of the proposed buildings however, no invert elevations are provided in the text on the plans. Elevation data should be provided verifying the use of the proposed sanitary sewer. A minimum of 4 feet of cover must be maintained above the entire length of the sanitary sewer. Response: Sanitary sewer depths (rims and inverts) are provided on the utility plan provided at figure 5.
6. The project sponsor has committed that no tax abatements will be sought from COMIDA. This commitment must be binding on all successors and assigns of the property.
FEIS January 2018 258
Response: There will be an agreement between the applicant and the Town under which the applicant and its successors and assigns agree not to seek tax abatements for the project under COMIDA or any other tax abatement program.
Noise 1. The noise study should include a map showing the locations of the sound monitoring sites and the eight receiver locations R1 through RB. Response: See Figure 1-1 within Page 5 of the Sound Study Showing a Map of the Sound Monitoring Sites Labeled with a number and double red circles, and the eight noise receiver sites labeled with a number and double blue circles.
2. It is unclear whether the noise study considers the proposed retail buildings. Their roof top units may be closer to the residential properties and result in slightly higher proposed total (DBA). Response: See Figure 1-1 within Page 5 of the Sound Study Showing a map of the Sound Monitoring Areas. The figure shows an overlay of the Proposed Development including all of the proposed Retail Buildings. It was assumed that the Retail Buildings would have a minimum of 1.5 tons of HVAC for per 200 Square Feet. The Roof Top Units were assumed to have been spread from all the way across the Buildings, including areas closest to the Residential Properties.
3. The Construction period for the project is anticipated to be 18 months. During construction the anticipated noise buffers such as proposed landscaping, and fencing will not be installed which may result in noise levels much higher that the proposed levels anticipated by the completed project. The geotechnical report suggests that there will be substantial truck traffic transporting fill and excavation material offsite. The noise study should provide the anticipated noise levels at the eight receiver locations during construction and if necessary describe the mitigation measures. Response: The noise study considers heavy vehicles which are similar to the types of equipment used during construction.
FEIS January 2018 259
The construction noise would be similar to standard construction sites, not unlike the construction of the City Mattress building on the South Side of Monroe Avenue. In addition, the amount of fill required has been substantially reduced, thus reducing the amount of Truck traffic. the contractor will also be required to follow all noise ordinances set forth in the Town of Brighton’s Town Code. Fencing, berming and landscaping along the northern portion of the project will be installed at the onset of construction as weather and seasonal conditions permit to mitigate noise associated with construction vehicles.
Construction Impacts 1. Please elaborate on what is meant by "normal practices for dust control" and watering will be provided "as needed". Will there be a water truck or tank available on site throughout the construction period? Response: Normal practices include ensuring areas are stabilized when idle to prevent open soils, the installation of a stabilized construction entrance and the availability of a watering truck. Yes, a water truck will be available during construction.
2. Please provide more specific information on what is envisioned to be contained in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and how it will be monitored and enforced throughout construction. Response: The stormwater pollution prevention plan contains all of the required elements of the NYSDEC General Permit for construction activities and is provided at appendix 6. It will be enforced in accordance with NYSDEC requirements and local Town law which mandates weekly inspections and reporting by qualified personnel. Additionally, the Town has a designated stormwater officer who will monitor both the site and reporting. Any violations or deviations from the SWPPP will be reported within 24 hours of the inspection. Should a 5-acre waiver be granted, there will be NYSDEC mandated SWPPP inspections two times per week until disturbance is reduced to less than 5 acres.
FEIS January 2018 260
3. Please expand upon the construction related traffic impacts/mitigation. How many trucks might be expected for disposing of waste, import and export of fill material, construction workers, etc.? How will constriction staging areas be provided throughout the site for each major phase of construction? Response: It is anticipated that there will be approximately 200 workers or 100 trucks on site during the height of construction. The majority of workers will arrive prior to the peak hour and leave prior to the PM peak. The trucks will be parked in the parking area. The grading plan shows the proposed staging. Construction debris and waste will be handled with roll off dumpsters which will be hauled at a rate of approximately one per day. Truck traffic associated with the earthmoving activities is provided at Appendix 8.
Alternatives 1. While Table 6.3-1 does contain a summary of various alternatives with a lower density than the proposed action (Alternatives 2, 5, 6 and 8), including a comparison of trip generation and traffic access. What needs to be included in this relative comparison analysis is how the traffic will operate at these reduced densities. Please expand upon these reduced density scenarios to include a comparison of traffic operations throughout the corridor. Response: This has been addressed in the updated TIS and SDEIS. The reduction in density has little impact to the traffic flow on Monroe Avenue. The signal light is the most significant change to the corridor and is warranted under all considered alternatives. (See revised TIS Section VIII.C Pages 12-14 and Appendix for detailed analysis of Alternatives).
2. The DEIS indicates that the Hotel Plan Alternative is not consistent with the uses along the Monroe Avenue Corridor. Presently, there are two similar uses within close proximity to the proposed project site. This statement should be clarified. Response: An alternative with a Hotel is not part of the alternatives analysis contained within the DEIS or SDEIS nor was it required as part of the approved EIS scope.
FEIS January 2018 261
(2) Brighton Supervisor William Moehle- Comments August 1, 2016 Memo 1. Page 2 of the Executive Summary states “The Whole Foods redevelopment project is to be completed in a single phase.” However, the according to the DEIS, the Access Management Plan will only be partially completed by the Developer. Please clarify as issues regarding the Access Management Plan and its partial or full completion are significant for several issues addressed in the DEIS, including traffic and community benefit/tax analysis. Response: Refer to section 1.4 of this FEIS and Figure 2 for details regarding the current access management plan. The project now includes full completion of the AMP in a single phase and includes all of the properties on the south side of Monroe Avenue from 590 to Clover Street.
Additional improvements resulting from the implementation of the AMP include the modification of the curb cut at City Mattress to right in – right out.
2. Clarify the basis for the statement that sales tax, mortgage tax and income tax revenues will increase by a similar percentage to the increase in property tax. Response: An assumed 2% annual growth rate was used in the analysis and applied to the sales tax and income tax. Mortgage tax is a onetime charge.
3. P.ES 17 contains the statement that the addition of the new traffic signal will improve the flow of traffic into and out of this retail corridor.
In correspondence dated April 4, 2016, the DOT does state that a traffic signal is warranted, and that it will benefit side street traffic and pedestrians on both sides of Monroe Ave. However, that letter goes on to state “this traffic signal will further disrupt existing traffic on Monroe Avenue, with increased delays and queue lengths.” Please explain any inconsistency between these two statements, as well as the manner in which the developer intends to address other statements set forth in the April 4, 2016 and July 25, 2016 DOT correspondence, including particularly the statement that ‘the [TIS] queue lengths and delays are much shorter than actual conditions. This will lead to underestimation of background and full development conditions, with shorter delays and queue lengths that what can be expected.
FEIS January 2018 262
Each of the existing condition SYNCHRO and Simtraffic models should be revised to reflect existing delays and queue lengths.” Response: The traffic impact study process was both begun and completed while Monroe Avenue was under reconstruction by the NYSDOT. Therefore, SRF worked closely with NYSDOT obtaining the Synchro analysis model from NYSDOT to accurately represent the base conditions that would exist once the NYSDOT construction project was completed. Given the on-going construction activities in the corridor, accurate field observations and documentation of “existing” queueing could not be completed. The base Synchro model utilized signal timings at the intersections along Monroe Avenue from Westfall Road to Clover Street (including a brand-new ramp signal that had not previously existed) that were considered to be future design timings that would be implemented upon completion of the NYSDOT construction project. It has since come to our intention that some, and possibly all, of the design signal phasing and timing has not in fact been implemented in the field. This is the reason that current queuing does not match the modeled conditions. This was an error of omission by NYSDOT that was not communicated between the design group and the traffic engineering group. NYSDOT has since implemented a completely revised timing plan for the signals within the corridor. Hence, the existing base conditions have been completely revised and are provided in a new Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (SDEIS).
The statements set forth in DOT correspondences dated April 4, 2016 and July 25, 2016 are addressed later in this document under “Responses to DOT Comments”. In response to the “inconsistency” of the two DOT comments where DOT states that the new signal will both improve the flow of traffic and result in disrupting and delaying traffic as well as increasing queue lengths, DOT acknowledges that the signal and introduction of cross access between properties where it does not currently exist, will improve the flow and safety of traffic by reducing the turning conflicts on Monroe Avenue and allow for safer conditions by slowing the flow of traffic with the introduction of the signal and reduced uninterrupted stretch of corridor whereby vehicles accelerate to higher speeds.
FEIS January 2018 263
At the same time, this slowing and interrupting of the flow of traffic on Monroe Avenue will, at times, delay traffic as they must stop at a new signal. The signal will naturally create a new que where one does not currently exist. However, it will also permit new safer traffic movements for the vehicles seeking to enter Monroe Avenue from either the site or the south side. In further discussions with DOT, it is important to note that the coordination of signal timings of the new Whole Foods Plaza Signal and the Monroe Clover Signal will significantly mitigate the adverse impact of the signal while realizing the full benefits of the new signal.
The specific DOT comments that the previous TIS’s queue lengths underestimated was in fact not true. After more detailed discussion with DOT engineers, it was concluded that the queue lengths that demonstrated as a result of the computer modeling are defined differently than those observed visually. The computer model defines a queue as the length of the stopped vehicles at a red light. When the light turns green and the first vehicle begins to move, there is no longer a queue per the computer model’s definition. Visually however, just because the first vehicle begins to move, additional vehicles continue to arrive at the rear of the queue and give the visual conclusion that the queue continues to lengthen. The computer model does not recognize this, hence the discrepancy. It was concluded that the computer model was to be used as it is a traffic standard measurement for the purposes of analysis and for consistency, should be the measure used for comparison against other models.
The SYNCHRO and Simtraffic models have been revised in coordination with both NYSDOT and the towns traffic consultant to insure accuracy and consistency and are included in the updated TIS submitted. (See revised TIS Section VI Pages 6-9 and Section XI Pages 19-30).
4. P.ES 17 notes that the reduction in curb cuts in the Access Management Plan will improve safety and accessibility to and from retail sites on the south side of Monroe Ave. Clarify which curb cuts will be eliminated in Phase 1 of the Access Management Plan. Response: Please see response to comment #1.
FEIS January 2018 264
5. Please clarify the statement on P. 20 of the Executive Summary that “The density would meet the code requirement if the entire site were contemplated as commercial.” Response: The comment refers to the total land area on the north side of Monroe Avenue controlled by the applicant (10.1 Acres) which includes portions of R-1 zoned land. If the entire 10.1 acres were zoned commercial the allowable commercial density would be 101,000 sf. Considering the allowable building coverage in the RLA zone, the total allowable building coverage (commercial + residential) as of right is 79,682 sf.
6. P.ES24 references residences north of Clover Street. Clover Street runs north and south, hence there are no residences north of Clover Street that will be affected by the berm and privacy fence. Response: The statement in the DEIS is an error and is intended to reference “homes on the west side of Clover Street.
7. P.ES26 includes the statement that plaza operations will have no significant noise impacts, in part because deliveries will take place while the plaza is open. Please specify the specific hours of operation, hours of deliveries and compliance with Town noise law following the completion of construction. Response: The Whole Foods anchor tenant will be open from 7am to 10 pm. On typical days, there will only be 2 tractor trailer deliveries which will occur between 7am and 1pm and will comply with the Town noise ordinance.
8. The DEIS inconsistently identifies the size of the proposed Whole Foods Store, rather than the actual 53,900 store size. The Developer’s preferred alternative is a 53,900-square foot store; all references in the DEIS, and the corresponding conclusions, should be modified and clarified to reflect the actual store size under the preferred alternative. Response: The proposed Whole Foods store is 50,000 sf.
FEIS January 2018 265
9. Does the developer have the legal right to the access alternatives on Clover Street or Allens Creek Road identified as possible components of alternative options? None of the DEIS identified alternatives contemplate smaller Whole Foods options, except Alternative 8, which shows a 20,000-square foot store, smaller than any Whole Foods stores currently being developed. Alternatives should include smaller Whole Foods store; matching actual smaller sized stores currently being built by Whole Foods. Response: The developer does not have legal right to full access from the proposed development to Clover Street or Allens Creek. These are contemplated as alternatives because the developer was in the process of securing this legal right. The removal of these access points was intended to mitigate a perceived negative impact to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The applicant is obligated to deliver a 50,000 SF store. That is a Whole Foods business decision. Similar stores that have recently opened (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Connecticut and Maryland) are all in the 50,000-foot size. The Wegmans Pittsford store is over 120,000 square feet. The same situation exists in Whole Foods at the only other western NY store in which they also compete with Wegmans. They are in the process of constructing a 50,000 SF store in Amherst scheduled to open in 2017.
10. The DEIS states that the development provides “public access to an important trail system in the Town.” Clarify which trail system will be connected and whether the developer plans to improve and maintain connections to that trail system, and how such connections or lack thereof affect the value of onsite trail improvements as an amenity. Response: Refer to sections 1.4 and 1.6 of this FEIS The project now proposes improvements to the section of the trail from 1 ½ mile north of the project site to Highland Avenue, through the site and east to the Pittsford Town line. The developer will install the trail as depicted at Figure 3. The developer will maintain the portion of the trail that is on the subject property.
FEIS January 2018 266
11. On page 8 is a statement that there are 200 houses within a 25-minute walk of the proposed retail center. What is the basis for this statement? Response: The statement is based on average walking speed (3.1 mph) and was intended to demonstrate the number of households that would most likely use the Trail and other pedestrian accommodations in the area and on the site.
12. P13 continues to reference a “conceptual” access management plan for the south side of Monroe Ave. Response: Detail regarding the access management plan and the phases of the AMP are provided in the SDEIS with additional updates provided at section 1.4 of this FEIS. The implementation of the AMP is proposed as part of the project and is not conceptual.
13. P14 contains the statement that “the new Retail Shopping Center design will also improve vehicular access and circulation. Clarify this statement in light of the results of the SRF traffic study, which finds deterioration of ratings at many intersections, and significant delays in egress from the proposed project onto Monroe Ave. Response: Access to the site is improved through the elimination of a curb cut and the implementation of the signal light. Traffic formerly using the Site for Mario’s Restaurant, Mamasans, Clover lanes, etc. did not have the opportunity to safely exit the site during peak times of traffic flow. Those vehicles traveling east would have to wait for gaps in traffic to try and enter the corridor. Due to the relatively low number of gaps, this often led to dangerous and fast turns. The light will provide a protected phase for vehicles to exit without the possibility of being hit by oncoming traffic.
While there will be some delay at the light internal to the site, the primary access road has been designed to contain that queue so interior traffic patterns are not impacted. As shown in the capacity analysis of the TIS, the project does not result in a significant deterioration of the Levels of service at the studied intersections. The overall level of service at the Monroe Avenue proposed driveway is as follows: AM Peak – A PM Peak – C Sat Peak – C
FEIS January 2018 267
These are considered acceptable levels of service for New York State roads. See TIS section XI for additional discussion regarding intersection Levels of Service.
14. Under the Monroe County Sales Tax agreements, sales taxes are distributed county wide, not solely within the jurisdiction in which they originate. Therefore, to the extent that sales from Whole Foods is drawn from Wegmans, or other existing grocery stores or supermarkets within Monroe County, the sales taxes projected should be adjusted on a net basis to reflect decreased levels of sales taxes generated at those other stores. Response: Correct, while there is no way of determining the exact amount of revenue Whole Foods could detract from local grocers
15. Will successors and assigns of the property be bound by the developer’s agreement not to seek COMIDA aid? Response: No, the property will not be bound by an agreement that bounds the successors and assigns.
16. On P.35, a reference is made to an incentive of side yard parking setback of 0’ as part of the development of the Access Management Plan. It is not clear whether this incentive is intended to apply only to the areas where common drives will be built, or to each property in its entirety. Response: The 0’ setback applies to some of the lots but not all of them as outlined in Section 1.5 of this FEIS. In most cases, the setback is addressing an existing condition as the pavement currently spans between lots and will continue to do so.
17. On P.40, there is a statement that the 1060 feet of multi-use trail “will connect to the existing asphalt pathway at the western property border.” It is not clear from this description that the trail improvements will connect through to Allens Creek Road or to Clover Street.
FEIS January 2018 268
Please clarify this description of the scope of trail improvements, as well as clarifying how the trail and easement will coexist with vehicular access as described in certain of the alternatives to the preferred project. See also Figure 2.3.9, which does not extend to Allens Creek Road, and Figure 2.3.1D, which shows sidewalk improvements to the north of Allens Creek Road.
Who will build and maintain the trail between the northern most point of property owned by the developer for the project and Allens Creek Road, and between the southernmost portion of the project property over land owned by the Animal Hospital? The developer acknowledges that “The sidewalk network which connects to the [connection] hub is designed to promote users of the trail system to frequent Plaza businesses and the Monroe Avenue corridor,” and its value as an amenity should be clarified accordingly, along with the value of the directory signs and bicycle racks. To the extent the trail tends to reduce vehicular traffic to the plaza, it may be in part a mitigation of environmental impacts rather than an amenity. Response: As detailed in section 1.4 of this FEIS, the developer has committed to trail improvements that extend 1 ½ mile north of the site to Highland Avenue and east to the Town line. These improvements are well outside a normal scope of work and the boundaries of the parcel.
The TIS does not include a reduction in the number of anticipated trips because of the trail improvements and therefor, the maximum number of vehicles that may use the site is mitigated through traffic improvements. There will be no vehicular traffic in the trail areas. Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
18. Also on P.41, is the statement that the trail will be maintained by “the project sponsor or future owner of the Whole Foods Plaza.” How will this commitment run with the land? Response: The applicant will enter into a maintenance agreement with the Town which will be recorded at the County Clerk’s office.
FEIS January 2018 269
19. Clarify the value as amenities, if any, for the signal light and pedestrian signals, to the extent they also mitigate traffic issues and benefit the plaza. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
20. On page 45, the DEIS includes the statement that the access management plan will be implemented by the developer.
Clarify how much of Phase 1 is being implemented by the developer, including specifically the curb cuts that are eliminated or modified for those five lots. The DEIS repeatedly notes that the Access Management Plan will mitigate traffic issues in the area, and much of the traffic study is based on the assumption that the entire Access Management Plan will be completed by the developer.
Clarify the value of the partial implementation of Phase 1 of the Access Management Plan as an amenity, and whether the value of this offered amenity or other offered amenities is equivalent to its cost of construction. Response: The Access Management Plan that is being proposed, as an amenity to the Town of Brighton, includes the shared parking and cross access development from the City Mattress Site to the Country Inn and Suites property as detailed in Section 1.4 of this FEIS. The project includes the completion of the AMP from City Mattress to Clover Street.
Also see Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 270
21. Please clarify the current valuation methodology for the Clover Street lot, and whether a portion of its value represents mitigation of noise, visual and other environmental impacts of the project. Response: The valuation of the Clover Street lot is based on comparable assessments of adjacent single-family lots in the Clover Street area as shown at appendix 10. Noise and visual mitigation is provided outside the developable lot area so it is not considered in the calculation.
22. The discussion of the Access Management Plan starting on P.60 needs clarification. In speaking of the five western lots, while blockage from queues from the new light are cited, clarify how Phase 1 will eliminate or modify curb cuts to prevent such blockages?
Clarify how cross lot access for the next three parcels will be documented and recorded Discuss whether and if so, to what extent, those three lots may be affected by queues from the Clover/Monroe light and how that impact can be mitigated.
The final three easternmost properties are proposed to connect to Clover Street under the Plan; clarify whether any written agreements have been executed and recorded to formalize such access. On p.81 is a discussion of disadvantages of the access management plan, including a statement as to increased traffic and queuing at the new signal from the south side properties. Clarify whether this is a reference to internal queuing from the south side and if so, the data from traffic studies that support such a concern. If it is a reference to queuing on Monroe Ave., clarify how the access management plan, as opposed to the light itself, will cause queuing. On page 82, there is a listing of disadvantages of limiting curb cuts, including increased delay and queening of side road access points. Clarify any traffic study data that indicates the magnitude and impact of delay and queuing from the south side at this light. Response: See response to comment #1. Without the AMP, these lots would not have another safe access option to Monroe Avenue for left turns. Eight of the property owners have entered into a formal written agreement for cross access and shared parking. Once approved by the town, this agreement will be recorded and formalized with the clerk’s office and recorded as part of the property deed. No other properties in the AMP have any formal cross access agreements in writing.
FEIS January 2018 271
The resulting queue once the AMP is implemented is anticipated to be 103 feet as shown at Appendix 7.
23. The DEIS states that LEED Certification will not be sought. Clarify who will ensure that LEED standards will be met and maintained. Clarify the statement on p.247 that LEED Commercial Interiors certification will be sought and is not overly burdensome to the project sponsor. Response: LEED certification will not be formally sought because the certification effort is burdensome and offers no benefit. However, the buildings within the plaza will be built to LEED silver standards. The implementation of the new energy code and the fact that the project is a redevelopment site makes LEED silver a simple level to achieve. The building department is responsible to review the construction documents to ensure that the proposed buildings are compliant with the new energy code. At the time plans are submitted for building permit review, the architect shall provide a statement certifying that the building has been designed to LEED silver standards.
24. Will Whole Foods obtain Town of Brighton approval for the “public market” style activities cited on P. 75, including “outdoor displays, entertainment and food service outdoors”? What will the impact of these activities be on local restaurants and the Brighton Farmers Market? What will the impact of these activities be on traffic on Monroe Ave. and internal traffic flow? Response: Any activity on the site will obtain all necessary approvals from the Town of Brighton. It is anticipated that "public market style" activities will be complementary to those offered by local restaurants and the Town's Farmers Market. It is expected that these activities will not generate independent traffic, but will be part of the traffic which will be coming to the site.
25. Page 83 indicates that because there are no access points on either Clover Street or Allens Creek Road, delays will be lengthened for “customer traffic exiting at the new signal during the weekday afternoon peak commuter period.”
FEIS January 2018 272
Clarify this statement and the following statement as to the duration of these delays as to whether and if so how lengthy delays will occur on Saturday peak traffic period or other peak traffic periods.
The statement that delays to complete the movement is “approximately 2-3 minutes and comparable to what one finds at a local mall or busy grocery store.” This appears to be inconsistent with other data, including SYNCHRO results. The traffic study data included in the DEIS simply indicates that the delay is in excess of 2 minutes. Is there data that supports the statement that delays of the duration shown in the SYNCHRO study are typical of local malls or grocery stores? Response: The new TIS provides revised analyses based on new NYSDOT signal timings and clarifies these statements. The new signal will be coordinated with other signals along Monroe Avenue to allow traffic to exit the plaza for a set duration. During this time, it is expected that the queue within the plaza will clear. During the busiest of times, a motorist may have to wait two cycles for the signal. The signal has a cycle length of approximately 100 to 120 seconds which results in a 90 second internal delay. The reference to 2-3 minutes of delay is based on the previous analysis which has changed significantly due to NYSDOT improvements and proposed mitigation. As shown in the results of the TIS, the peak wait time is expected to be less than two minutes with vehicles comfortably fitting in the designed exit lane without impeding internal traffic. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
It also must be emphasized that the queuing being discussed here is internal to the project site. It occurs only to those who have voluntarily decided to come to the site. As with traffic conditions generally, to the extent that those coming to the project determine that the queuing at the times they come are unacceptable or otherwise undesirable, they would be expected to change their actions so as to avoid those busiest times. Further, project patrons expect that they will encounter delays and queuing internal to a project site such as this. If deciding to go to the project, they accept that this will occur. These internal delays and queuing allows those travelling the exterior roadways to avoid or minimize any impacts to them.
FEIS January 2018 273
26. Will there be demand based real time or so called “smart synchronization” of the traffic lights on Monroe Avenue from Westfall to Clover Street or other measures to improve synchronization of lights in the area? Response: “Coordination” of the signal lights is proposed between the proposed traffic signal, the signal at Clover Street and Monroe Avenue, and the I-590 signals. The applicant agrees that synchronization of the entire corridor would be beneficial; however, the NYSDOT will ultimately determine how the signals are interconnected and coordinated. It is the applicant’s understanding that NYSDOT has considered solutions including “smart synchronization” and is not currently in favor of this solution for this corridor. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
27. Clarify Table 2.2.11-1, and the apparent similarity to a table showing general shopping patterns from an unrelated study conducted in 2003. Clarify the seasonality of operational volume. Response: The seasonality of the traffic volumes has been further clarified and discussed at section IV.D Pages 4-5 of the revised TIS.
28. Reference is made to private agreements between property owners related to access on the south side of Monroe Ave. Clarify the substance of these agreements, whether they are written or oral, if oral, whether they will be converted to writing and if written, whether they will be recorded. Response: Written agreements among all parties consenting to the implementation of the AMP would be required to be recorded with the County Clerk’s office prior to construction.
29. Clarify the sequence of submissions of draft DEIS documents. The materials submitted to the Town in October 2015 were not a draft DEIS intended for formal submission. Clarify this fact. Response: Refer to section 1.1 of this FEIS for detail regarding the various submissions of EIS documents.
FEIS January 2018 274
30. The January 2016 draft DEIS contained ambiguous language concerning the concept of design hourly volume (DHV), the use of the thirtieth highest hourly volume in a year as being the most suitable for highway design. Based on comments received to the January 2016 draft of the DEIS, the current DEIS modified and further addressed the DHV discussion. However, that modified discussion, which begins on P.142, still needs significant clarification. It remains unclear whether the developer and/or its traffic engineer has used the 30th busiest hour of the year, or if they have excluded the hours that fall during the holiday season, generally between mid-November and early January, which would exclude 12% of the hours of the year. Clarify the further statement, referencing a chart that is not provided, and a study done in Pittsford, rather than Brighton, that suggests that “the Monroe Avenue corridor actually experiences higher traffic volumes during the summer months than during the Christmas season,” the relevance of a study of traffic on Monroe Ave. in Pittsford to this DEIS, and whether this statement means that summer months should also be excluded from determining DHV. Finally, there is a statement that “traffic volumes used for analysis purposes in this study are adjusted for seasonality to reflect an average condition for the year”.
Clarify the meaning of this statement that traffic volumes are averaged for the year, and the apparent conflicts with previous statements concerning the hours used in the calculation of DHV, with respect to the earlier statement that the 30th busiest hour is used to determine DHV. There is a reference to a Figure 3.4.1, as part of a discussion concerning the seasonal differentials in traffic volumes in this area.
The Figures attached to the DEIS do not include a Figure 3.4.1, nor does there appear to be a Table 3.4.1 in the body of the DEIS. Response: These statements are clarified in the updated TIS. Reference to the 30th highest hour has been removed from the TIS. The discussion regarding holiday season traffic has been updated in the TIS in Section IV.D. It includes the following text: “Operational analyses of highways focus on the peak hour, because it represents the most critical period for traffic operations and has the highest capacity requirements. The peak hour volume, however, is not a constant from day to day, or from season to season.
FEIS January 2018 275
Economic considerations in the planning and design of highways make it impractical to design for the highest expected hourly volumes (e.g. Pre-Christmas). Instead a design hourly volume (DHV) is typically selected from consideration of the specific relationship between the percentage of annual average daily traffic and the highest hours of the year given the functional class and operational characteristics of the route.”[1] Traffic volumes vary from hour to hour and from day to day. Seasonal fluctuations in traffic volumes reflect the social and economic activity of the area served by the highway (e.g. Christmas related retail activity). The original reference in the DEIS was an erroneous reference. If an hourly value that represents more seasonal volumes (e.g. pre- Christmas) is used for highway design, a sizable increase in design requirements and highway construction costs may accommodate only a very few hours of the year. For these reasons, pre-Christmas season traffic is typically not analyzed and certainly not used for design purposes although it is recognized that traffic volumes, particularly in the vicinity of retail facilities, will be higher during the few weeks prior to Christmas. It is noted that Monroe Avenue experiences elevated traffic volumes during the Christmas season between late-November and early January. However, this accounts for approximately 10%% of the year and should not be used for design purposes. During peak evening weekday and Saturday mid-day hours during this late November through early January “Holiday” period, it can be expected that traffic volumes may increase by 10-15% which typically brings the Monroe Avenue corridor close to capacity, as it has for many years.
Queues, delays and volumes will increase, as they have in years past. When considering the number of additional trips generated in the proposed development, and factoring in the existing trips from the same site, the additional trips generated from the newly developed site will have a negligible impact on “Holiday traffic”. The traffic volumes used for analysis purposes in this study are adjusted for seasonality to reflect an average condition for the year. In addition, the variations in traffic volumes from one month to another is on the order of 100 to 200 vehicles per direction during the peak hours or approximately 10%- 20%. (See revised TIS Section IV.D Pages 4-5).
[1] Traffic Engineering Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1992.
FEIS January 2018 276
31. Please clarify the definition of “2017 Background Conditions” used in Table 3.4.2-1 and 3.4.2-2. Also, clarify why the Tables suggest that 2017 background conditions at certain locations are significantly improved from existing conditions while other locations show significant deterioration. Response: Background conditions represent the anticipated traffic volumes in the study area without the development of the project. These are generated by using the existing volumes and then applying a growth rate factor based on historical data collected in the area. In this case, a 1% growth rate factor was applied to the traffic volumes. As shown in the revised TIS, none of the approaches or intersections improve under background conditions but some do experience a minor drop in Level of Service. This is to be expected with the minor increase in volumes. (See revised TIS Section V Page 6 and Section VI Pages 7-9).
32. Please provide complete data for all listed intersections in Table 3.4.2-1 and Table 4.4-2. Please clarify which driveway is referenced in Table 4.4-2 and the subsequent discussion on p.219 as “Allens Creek/Existing Driveway, and why this data only appears in Table 4.4-2 and not in Table 3.4.2-1. Please include data for both the north side and south side Allens Creek office park driveways. Response: Table 1 of the TIS provides a summary of intersection turning movement count data collection dates. All TMC data is included in the TIS Appendix. (See revised TIS Section IV.B Page 2-4).
33. Clarify the statement on P.179 that the proposed development will result in a decrease in the stormwater discharge rates to clarify whether stormwater mitigation measures required for the project, rather than the project itself, will reduce discharge rates. Response: The decrease in stormwater runoff rates is a result of mitigation required for the project.
FEIS January 2018 277
34. The reference on P.180 to Figure 4.2.2 depicting the development site drainage areas and discharge points appears to be incorrect. Figures 4.2.1 and 4.2.1A appear to show these items, for the Whole Foods Plaza portion of the project and the access management portion of the project, respectively. Response: The drainage areas have been updated. See revised SWPPP, appendix 6.
35. The statement that “For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that all nine south side properties may connect to the signal at the time of full development of the Whole Foods site, and that right-in, right-out are permitted at most existing driveways with left turns entering and exiting allowed only at the new signal,’ appears to be inconsistent with the developer’s intended phasing and limited responsibility for implementation of the access management plan. Clarify that statement in light of the previous statement that “It is recommended that the Access Management Plan be evaluated after the Whole Foods Plaza and improvements to the five properties (Friendly’s to Dunkin) are complete and functioning to evaluate the impact of adding additional properties to have access to the new traffic signal, and the four bulleted paragraphs on p.205, which also seem to indicate that only properties from the former Friendly’s site to the existing Dunkin Donuts site will access from the new signal and use the new cross connection to access their respective sites.
Clarify how the Capacity Analysis Results set forth in Tables 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 would be affected if only that portion of Phase 1 of the access management plan proposed to be constructed by the developer is actually implemented. Explain the statement that no right turns will be made into and out of the former Pizza Hut site. Response: See response to comments #1 and #22.
36. Clarify the basis for the statement that the 3900 square feet of mezzanine space will not generate any traffic, and the statement concerning traffic generation if that area is considered sales space. Response: The 3,900 S.F. mezzanine has been removed from the proposed site plan and therefore no longer relevant to the proposed development.
FEIS January 2018 278
37. Clarify the impacts on the Brighton Police Department if one or more officers must be assigned to traffic control during the initial months of operation or on a longer-term basis, including the staffing impact of potential long-term overtime and availability of sufficient personnel. Response: During the initial months of operation police services may be needed to assist with traffic flow as required by the Town at the expense of the developer. However, there will not be a significant burden after the store stabilizes which is anticipated 2-3 weeks after opening. This condition has been recently verified at the Whole Foods in Buffalo which recently opened. Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
38. Clarify whether multiple failing or near fail signalized intersections have a cumulative impact on the overall through traffic flow at peak hours along Monroe Ave. greater than the implications of a single failed or near-failed intersection. Response: There are very few “failing” conditions in the Monroe Avenue corridor. Cumulative effects of intersection operations are addressed and quantified by evaluating queuing conditions within the corridor. The queuing discussion is included in the updated TIS. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
39. In light of the April 4 letter from the NYS DOT and the follow up letter from the DOT, dated July 25, 2016, and the discussions of operating conditions under 2017 background conditions and following development in the DEIS, clarify the differences between the Synchro methodology and the delay study methodology, why the conclusion in the discussion of the Clover/Towpath and Clover Warren intersections in the DEIS is that the delay study is more accurate than the Synchro methodology and if more accurate, why the delay study is not cited in the discussions on other intersections. Response: This is discussed in the updated TIS. Actual delay studies at unsignalized intersections provide a more accurate estimate of LOS than using a model to calculate the LOS based upon traffic volumes because the Synchro model can only make assumptions and estimations as they relate to actual driver behavior. For example, drivers exiting Towpath Lane presumably live or work on Towpath Lane and travel that roadway on a daily basis.
FEIS January 2018 279
They are familiar with actual traffic conditions and may make travel choices (such as the size of a gap needed to make a left turn) that differ from the assumptions contained in the Synchro model. Thus, actual delay data is more representative of the real-world conditions than Synchro projections. This is only valid at unsignalized intersections. (See revised TIS Section IV.E.).
40. Discussion Paragraph 13, Monroe Ave at Westfall-Allens Creek Roads, on page 224, should include data for all peak hours. Also, please clarify the basis for concluding that signal-timing adjustments could improve performance. Response: This is discussed in the updated TIS in the capacity analysis results. (See revised TIS Section XI).
41. In the Queuing Discussion, please explain the definition of 95th percentile queues and the basis used to determine that that is the appropriate standard. Also, please clarify the impact of the 1032 and 941-foot queues on Monroe Ave. on performance at other intersections. The April 4, 2016 letter from the DOT states that the queuing analysis significantly understates background queuing data and therefore full development queuing data. Please clarify and explain the impact on the queuing analysis if the DOT objections are accurate or if the actual queuing data is between the DOT and SRF data.
In the discussion of queuing of traffic exiting the proposed Plaza, please clarify the impact of the internal merge of traffic from the proposed Starbucks drive through and other retail operations with traffic leaving the Whole Foods store. Response: The 95th percentile is an industry standard used in evaluating queue lengths, this is further discussed in the updated TIS. When the correspondence from the NYSDOT was issued, the traffic signal at the intersection of Clover Street and Monroe Avenue was not functioning properly. The original Traffic Study submitted as part of the DEIS was prepared using signal timing data provided directly to the applicant by the NYSDOT.
FEIS January 2018 280
That data included signal timing at Monroe and Clover Street which provided an eastbound green time of over 70 seconds. Shortly after the completion of the DEIS, it was determined that the intersection of Monroe and Clover was not functioning as designed and anticipated by the NYSDOT, it was only providing approximately 40 seconds of eastbound green time. The dysfunction of the light led to increased queueing and delays in the Monroe Avenue corridor through the spring and summer of 2016. This was the congestion that was referred to in the DOT’s letter. (See revised TIS Section XI).
After it was discovered by the applicant that the light was not working as designed, the NYSDOT began to implement incremental increases to the westbound green time. As a result, the traffic along Monroe Avenue improved significantly as evidenced by field observations conducted throughout September and October of 2016. The revised TIS includes the final programmed signal timing which now provides over 65 seconds of green time similar to the NYSDOT’s original design. As demonstrated in that report, based on the improved conditions of Monroe Avenue, the project as currently proposed does not have a significant adverse impact to the traffic.
42. Clarify the anticipated delays making left turn from the new signalized light onto Monroe Ave. at peak periods. Explain the inconsistency between statements in the DEIS that peak delays will be 1 to 2 light cycles, or 3 minutes, with the analysis of the Synchro data that suggests as much as 7-8 minute delays. Clarify whether the traffic study analysis considers whether a Whole Foods store may generate different traffic volume per square foot than a generic supermarket. Response: See answer to comment #25. As demonstrated in the updated analysis, the delays and queueing exiting the driveway are significantly reduced as compared to the previous submission. (See revised TIS Section XI).
43. The gap analysis suggests little change to gap availability for Towpath turns onto Clover. Please clarify the current conditions with the statement that there are sufficient gaps during AM and PM hours, in light of the data in Table 4.4-2.
FEIS January 2018 281
Response: The proposed development will add 10(31)[43] southbound trips and 33(30)[33] northbound trips during the AM(PM)[SAT} peak hours respectively passing Towpath Lane and Warren Avenue. This relatively low volume of traffic is not expected to significantly impact gap availability during these peak hours. (See revised TIS Section XIV Pages 36- 38).
44. Please clarify the statement on p.237 that all transportation alternatives evaluated include pedestrian connectivity to the surrounding areas. Which areas are assumed to have pedestrian connectivity and which elements of connectivity are assumed to have been implemented? Response: The statement is intended to imply that any development alternative would have internal sidewalks that connect to the sidewalk on the north side of Monroe Avenue. Any development alternative that does not rely on approval of the requested incentive zoning should not be expected to include any of the proposed amenities such as enhanced connectivity.
45. Clarify the basis for concluding that the Whole Foods Plaza proposal has already increased property values. Response: It was an arbitrary statement based on everyday conversation and recent sale prices of properties, for example the City Mattress parcel.
46. Please clarify the meaning of the final sentence on p.255. Response: The last sentence on page 255 is an erroneous statement.
47. Clarify the basis for the statement that the new development will generate less organic waste than the existing restaurant uses on the site. Response: The former restaurant use consistently discarded unused food.
48. Clarify the statements in Section 4.6.4 concerning the need for mitigation on police protection services in light of the earlier statement about the potential need for short term police traffic services following the opening of the Whole Foods store.
FEIS January 2018 282
Response: During the initial months of operation police services may be needed to assist with traffic flow as required by the Town at the expense of the developer. However, there will not be a significant burden after the store stabilizes which is anticipated 2-3 weeks after opening. This condition has been recently verified at the Whole Foods in Buffalo which recently opened. Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
49. Clarify the calculation of the undiscounted estimate of a $340,000 increase in annual tax revenue going to the Brighton Central School District with the current estimated increase in school tax revenues in the first year of plaza operations. Clarify whether the tax projection of $483,000 on p.274 or the $438,000 number earlier cited is accurate. Clarify the basis for estimating the aggregate increase in property tax revenues of as much as $1,000,000. Response: This is a yearly average of the total school taxes taken from the 25-year chart total for 25 years then divided by 25 to create a yearly average; the yearly increase in school taxes starts at approximately $149,838/year increase in annual tax revenue going to the Brighton Central School District with the current estimated increase in school tax revenues in the first year of plaza operations. The number is $438,000, page 274 is an erroneous number. The aggregate increase in property tax revenues is based on the average yearly increase of total property taxes paid by the applicant over a 5-year period as shown in the table below:
Historical Property Tax Increase Schedule (Page 21 of DEIS)
50. Do references to the Whole Foods building as single story take into account the mezzanine area? Response: The mezzanine has been removed from the proposal.
FEIS January 2018 283
51. Please clarify the size of the proposed Starbucks. P.279 statement that it will be 2300 square feet in size is inconsistent with other references in the DEIS and Figures. Response: The Starbucks is currently proposed to be 1,920 sf.
52. Clarify the magnitude of unavoidable traffic impacts and the other changes to the SRF traffic study results if only Phase 1 of the Access Management Plan is completed, consistent with the Developer’s own commitment and consistent with the DEIS recommendation. Response: Refer to Section 1.4 of this FEIS. The AMP now includes all parcels on the south side of Monroe Avenue. The revised TIS includes an updated analysis of the AMP which demonstrates that the resulting northbound queue does not result in a significant internal vehicular conflict.
53. Clarify statements concerning alternative redevelopment plans, including the statement that no traffic signal would be added on Monroe Ave., that tax revenues would decrease, specifically including the implications for a COMIDA application in the event a development is conducted under existing zoning regulations and how conditions imposed under traditional zoning might be imposed on the project. Response: As clarified in the SDEIS and the TIS, any reasonable development alternative, including those studied in the SDEIS, would require the installation of a traffic signal. Also, refer to Section 1.6. Under traditional zoning the ability to require these or other amenities, and to preclude COMIDA benefits would be limited.
FEIS January 2018 284
(3) Jason S. DiPonzio (Councilman) - Comments July 29, 2016 Letter 1. The letter of intent for this incentive zoning application that was received and filed in February 2015 proposed a total of 90,000 +/- square feet and also proposed access points at Allens Creek Road and at Clover Street. The current version of the Project proposes the same amount of square footage, plus a 3,900-square foot mezzanine at the proposed supermarket, and now removes the access points at Allens Creek Road and at Clover Street. Response: The current proposal no longer incudes the 3,900 SF mezzanine as detailed in the SDEIS. Vehicular access points are not proposed to Allens Creek Road or Clover Street.
2. The additional access points were presented as a means of alleviating the anticipated increase in traffic resulting from the Project. However, with these additional access points removed, shouldn’t the Project have been reduced in scope accordingly to reduce potential traffic impacts using Monroe Avenue as the sole means of ingress and egress? It doesn’t seem like changing the use of one of the outbuildings from a bank to a retail use sufficiently mitigates the loss of the traffic relief provided by the alternate access points. Response: As demonstrated in the revised TIS, the proposed traffic mitigation, including the signal and proposed synchronization and establishing signalized left turns at both access points, is designed to reduce the impact of vehicles using the plaza on Monroe Avenue. This is accomplished by synchronizing the system so that people turning left out of the plaza can enter the corridor when there are breaks in the traffic. The primary impact to the corridor is the presence of the light itself which would be required for any of the studied alternatives which have less density than the proposal. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30). As demonstrated by the analysis of Alternative #6, a similar development could be constructed using the maximum allowable density per code that would have similar traffic impacts. That type of project would require similar mitigation in terms of the signal and synchronization; however, it would not include the benefits of the proposed access management plan. (See revised TIS Section VIII.C Pages 12-13).
FEIS January 2018 285
3. The former Wegmans store at East Avenue was 43,000 square feet, roughly similar in size to the proposed Whole Foods grocery store. Are there traffic counts available from the former East Avenue Wegmans that were performed as part of the approval process with the City of Rochester that can be used to analyze actual traffic counts from a similar sized use? Is there actual traffic data available from a similar sized Whole Foods store in a comparable sized market to Rochester? Response: The Traffic Impact Study for the Wegmans Food market & Bank located on East Avenue prepared in June 2004 by FRA Engineering was reviewed for comparison purposes. That study notes on page 8 that “Because of its urban location the trip rates for this store are skewed as many patrons frequent the store several times per week, often on their way home from work, versus completing one large shopping trip on the weekends, which is typical of other store locations. As a result the calculated trip generation rate for the existing store is 2.85 times higher than that of the average Wegmans Food Market (including 15 or more stores greater than 90,000 SF in size).”
The East Avenue Wegmans store is not considered a comparable use based upon its urban location and trip generation characteristics. This also explains why Whole Foods urban locations are inappropriate to use for trip generation estimates for this suburban location on Monroe Avenue. SRF researched available data on Whole Foods stores throughout the country and reviewed more than seven traffic studies. These traffic studies were found to have also utilized ITE data for grocery stores or they were in dense urban areas and used trip generation rates specific to this type of area. None of the data available was appropriate for use at the proposed Monroe Avenue site. Additionally, there was a post development study completed for a Whole Foods store in Darien, CT approximately six months after that store opened. (See revised TIS Section VIII.C Pages 12-13). That study showed that the actual traffic volumes generated by the store were almost 34% lower during the PM peak hour and 27% lower during the Saturday peak hour than the volumes projected, and utilized for mitigation purposes, in the original study.
FEIS January 2018 286
We believe that the traffic volumes projected and utilized for analysis purposes in the SRF study are appropriate.
In September of 2017 a 50,000 SF stand alone Whole Foods store opened outside of Buffalo. As shown in the table below, during the first week the traffic generated was higher than the rates used in the Traffic Impact Study. However, those rates quickly normalized and reduced to levels lower than the rates used for the Monroe Avenue Whole Foods.
LOCAL WHOLE FOODS TRIP COMPARISON
PM Peak Land Use Size Enter Exit Whole Foods Supermarket Used in TIS 50,000 SF 238 228 Buffalo Whole Foods Counts 09/27/17* 50,000 SF 276 400 Buffalo Whole Foods Counts 10/04/17* 50,000 SF 192 188 Difference Between ITE and 10/4 counts: -46 -40 * Note – count data was obtained using 15 min drone footage of the entire site during the peak time of operation. 15 minute counts were multiplied by 4 to obtain hourly values. This likely produces higher hourly counts than actually occurred and is therefore conservative.
4. It has been suggested that this Project may be approved in phases, i.e. "Phase I" would be the Whole Foods supermarket and the Starbucks, with the additional retail buildings being developed subsequently. Traffic would be analyzed after each phase to determine if the site can handle additional traffic flow generated by additional retail space. Can this be done? Would this be considered segmentation under SEQR? Response: Refer to Section 2.5 of this FEIS. The project will be occupied in Phases in order to limit the potential impact associated with opening the entire Plaza at the same time.
5. Several of the amenities proposed appear to be traffic mitigation effects (traffic light and crosswalks on Monroe Avenue; cross-access amongst business on opposite side of Monroe Avenue). One of the other amenities (conservation lot) provides a buffer to nearby residential neighborhoods. These, to me, don't seem like amenities, but rather are mitigation measures that would be vital to any project, whether proceeding under incentive zoning or otherwise.
FEIS January 2018 287
This would leave only the improvements proposed to the Auburn Trail as the sole amenity proposed. Response: Additional detail of the amenities is provided at Section 1.6 of this FEIS. The most significant amenities are the improvements to the Trail which have been expanded off site and the implementation of the AMP. In both cases the applicant has committed to significant expenditure off site on properties. The lots on Clover Street could be developed as single-family homes but rather provides buffering to the commercial properties on Monroe Avenue.
6. In light of the correspondence from David C. Goering, P.E. from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) it appears that the Project, in its current proposed configuration, is too large or that further mitigation measures are necessary. Are there opportunities to engage NYSDOT in developing adequate traffic mitigation measures? Response: When the correspondence from the NYSDOT was issued, the traffic signal at the intersection of Clover Street and Monroe Avenue was not functioning properly. The original Traffic Study submitted as part of the DEIS was prepared using signal timing data provided directly to the applicant by the NYSDOT. That data included signal timing at Monroe and Clover Street which provided an eastbound green time of over 70 seconds. Shortly after the completion of the DEIS, it was determined that the intersection of Monroe and Clover was not functioning as designed and anticipated by the NYSDOT, it was only providing approximately 40 seconds of eastbound green time. The dysfunction of the light led to increased delays in the Monroe Avenue corridor through the spring and summer of 2016. After it was discovered by the applicant that the light was not working as designed, the NYSDOT began to implement incremental increases to the eastbound / westbound green time. As a result, the traffic along Monroe Avenue improved significantly as evidenced by field observations conducted throughout September and October of 2016. The revised TIS includes the final programmed signal timing which now provides over 65 seconds of green time similar to the NYSDOT’s original design. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
FEIS January 2018 288
The noise impact assessment (Appendix 13) addresses various anticipated noise levels arising from activities at the proposed development (i.e. loading dock activities, roof top air handling units, generalized parking lot noise, etc.) What about garbage trucks? Response: The sound study in Appendix 13 includes the use of garbage trucks within the daily operations of the retail development. The study also takes into account the use of a trash compactor for the use of the anchor tenant (See page 10, page; 14 sec. 5.2; page 18; “The garbage truck traffic pattern is included in the traffic noise assessment. Actual recorded trash compactor noise measurements were taken at a similar existing facility to determine the sound level emission used for the point source calculations.”)
Where will garbage facilities be located at the proposed development? Response: There will be three locations for the garbage facilities per the proposed plan; #1 behind the anchor tenant, #2 to the eastern most area behind the main in-line retail building, and #3, behind the drive thru coffee house. The outparcel in front of the main in-line retail building will share the dumpster with the other retail tenants. A dumpster in the middle of the development was not necessary based on the close walking proximity of approximately 250-300 feet.
What about loading docks and garbage facilities at Buildings II (general retail), III (Starbucks) and IV (smaller retail building)? Response: Loading docks are typically necessary for large retail stores receiving most deliveries from tractor trailers such as the anchor tenant which has multiple loading docks. In this case, they expect 2 tractor trailer trips per day occurring between 7am and 1pm. The preponderance of the remaining tenants fall under 5,000 sq. feet with most deliveries delivered via ups, fed ex, and smaller box trucks. Tractor trailer deliveries typically occur during the opening days and weeks of construction.
FEIS January 2018 289
Has adequate attention been given to the closest of the residential parcels to the Project? Response: The closest residential parcel is located directly behind the development (the Caruso family). That parcel was specifically analyzed in the sound study (see noise measurement site point #3 in figure 1-1 and noise receiver site #3 in figure 1-1. The Caruso family who has lived at that location for over 20 years has also sent in numerous letters in support of the development.
I would defer to the comments of Stantec, as the Town's consultant regarding the reliability of the traffic data utilized in the DEIS, as well as what additional information may be necessary to include in the Final EIS. Response: Stantec has reviewed and approved the baseline data which has been included in the revised TIS. (See revised TIS Section IV.B. Pages 2-4; and Section VI Pages 6-9). Stantec has also completed a review of the SDEIS which included the revised TIS and recommended acceptance of that document.
FEIS January 2018 290
(4) Louise Novros (Councilwoman) – Comments Memo: (August 1, 2016) It appears to me that none of the amenities listed in the DEIS are really amenities, but instead mitigations for example:
1. Improving one block of a multi-mile trail does not improve the trail unless the adjoining portions of the trail are scheduled to be improved as well. Response: The project includes connecting to the existing trail near the Pittsford Townline and extending the trail through the site and 1 ½ miles north to Highland Avenue.
2. Installation of a traffic signal with pedestrian controls on Monroe Avenue would be a necessity to aide in accessing to the project. Response: Refer to amenity discussion provided at Section 1.6.
3. The preservation of open space as a buffer to adjacent neighbors are always expected by the Town as a mitigation for new developments. Response: Refer to amenity discussion provided at Section 1.6.
The traffic impact created by this proposal on Monroe Avenue, Allens Creek and Clover Street is very concerning. Consideration should be given to reducing the size and scale of the project as well as the intensity of uses to address this concern. Response: Many of the concerns regarding traffic along the corridor were a result of the dysfunction of the signal light at Clover Street and Monroe Avenue. Please see response to Councilmen DiPonzio’s comments. The alternatives examined and the density study of other retail centers along Monroe Avenue demonstrate that this development is sized consistent with other commercial uses in the area and is actually less dense than most other developments. The SDEIS includes an alternative which compares traffic generated from the allowable density (70,400 sf) to the development proposal (90,000 SF). See SDEIS section 7.0 and TIS section XII.
The potential impact created by having the food delivery trucks traverse the parking lot areas of the project to get to their loading docks is very concerning to me.
FEIS January 2018 291
Consideration should be given for an alternative route by perhaps relocating or redesigning the market building for this purpose.
Response: The internal circulation of the plaza has been redesigned to provide more effective access for the delivery trucks. Additionally, deliveries will be scheduled off peak hours when there is very little traffic within the plaza. There are only two tractor trailer deliveries per day with one occurring prior to the store opening and the other occurring near 1pm. Even though the deliveries are not frequent, the site plan does include internal pedestrian accommodations such as signage, crosswalks and sidewalks to ensure safety for those using the plaza.
Consideration should be given to a phased-in project, starting with a smaller Whole Foods and a drive-through Starbucks. Re-evaluation should be done at definite intervals before additional construction can begin. Response: Refer to Section 2.5 of this FEIS for the proposed Phasing Schedule.
FEIS January 2018 292
(5) James R. Vogel (Councilman) - Comments August 1, 2016 Memo Traffic/Safety The opinion expressed by the NYS Department of Transportation in their letter dated April 4 of this year as well as public input (verbal/written) during the public hearing June 8, traffic congestion and safety impacts along Monroe Avenue is of paramount concern. This is especially true as it relates to this project which is also acknowledged in the application as well.
The Traffic Impact Study should be revised immediately and accurate data derived for public review of what can be done to ensure the traffic issues will not be exacerbated in some manner or means before the FEIS can be completed for review. Accurate data regarding traffic levels and resulting impacts are critical in evaluating the overall potential that this project may have. Response: The traffic impact study process was both begun and completed while Monroe Avenue was under reconstruction by the NYSDOT. Therefore, SRF worked closely with NYSDOT obtaining the Synchro analysis model from NYSDOT to accurately represent the base conditions that would exist once the NYSDOT construction project was completed. Given the on-going construction activities in the corridor, accurate field observations and documentation of “existing” queueing could not be completed.
The base Synchro model utilized signal timings at the intersections along Monroe Avenue from Westfall Road to Clover Street (including a brand new ramp signal that had not previously existed) that were considered to be future design timings that would be implemented upon completion of the NYSDOT construction project. It has since come to the applicants intention that some, and possibly all, of the design signal phasing and timing has not in fact been implemented in the field. This is the reason that current queuing does not match the modeled conditions. This was an error of omission by NYSDOT that was not communicated between the design group and the traffic engineering group.
FEIS January 2018 293
NYSDOT has since implemented a completely revised timing plan for the signals within the corridor. Hence, the existing base conditions have been completely revised and are provided in a new Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (SDEIS).
Density Analysis Consideration should be given to adjusting the size of this project to ensure that the total size/density of buildings will be suitable to the existing land area.
If a foods market is considered to be the anchor for this project and size is key to overall success then a phased plan should be considered by the applicant.
This would allow for accurate and visible results to be documented regarding impacts on traffic on Monroe Avenue and the adjoining neighborhood. Response: The SDEIS and revised TIS examine an alternative which is similar to the proposed project and which meets the allowable density (10,000 sf/acre, 70,400 sf total abuilding area). As shown in the TIS, that project would have a similar impact with respect to transportation, see SDEIS section 7.0 and TIS VII. Also, as demonstrated in the density study provided at appendix 13 of the SDEIS, the density as currently proposed is consistent with the surrounding area. See Section 2.5 of the FEIS concerning Phasing.
Amenities The proposed installation of a traffic light directly in front of the project (Clover Lanes building) would facilitate traffic entering and leaving the project as well as the businesses directly opposite (south side) the Whole Foods Plaza on Monroe Avenue. However, it is not an amenity and should not be identified as such.
FEIS January 2018 294
The elimination of some of the curb cuts on both sides of Monroe Avenue should be considered as part of the focus on traffic safety with this project. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS, also please see response #20 to Brighton Supervisor William Moehle- Comments August 1, 2016 Memo - Pages 3 & 4, page 270 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 295
(6) Christopher K. Werner (Councilman) - Comments July 28, 2016 Letter Amenities/Mitigation The amenities proposed in the DEIS are largely more of the nature of mitigation measures and, moreover, do not provide sufficient public benefit to justify the proposed use, intensity of development and coverage that would result from the requested incentives. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS, also please see response #20 to Brighton Supervisor William Moehle- Comments August 1, 2016 Memo - Pages 3 & 4, page 270 of this FEIS Trail to nowhere. The proposed development of the Auburn Trial on the property is not linked to an existing usable trail into Brighton. To be of value, completion to neighborhoods and as far as Highland Ave. would be of much greater value. Response: The scope of the trial improvements has been increased in response to comments received during the EIS. Refer to Section 1.4 of this FEIS. The trail improvement now extends from Highland Avenue all the way to the Pittsford Townline.
Multimodal access to the site (ES-4 and p. 97) i.e. pedestrian, bicycle, public transport and auto access– already exists along Monroe Avenue but could be enhanced. However, the proposed pedestrian sidewalks and bike racks are common elements required of all such projects. Improvements to the Auburn Trail within the project are welcome but serve little purpose without linkage to established trail connectors that are yet to be developed. I also note that many images in the DEIS depict bicyclists but all seem to be improperly using sidewalks due to the lack of dedicated bike lanes on Monroe Avenue. Response: Comment noted, the developer intends to improve the onsite trail and the adjacent crossings (areas within the developers control) to the maximum extent practicable and hopes other property owners in the Town will do the same as parcels are redeveloped over time so that the Auburn Trail ultimately is a viable pedestrian linkage. The project also includes two new covered bus stops and a covered pedestrian area along the trail.
The installation of a traffic signal with pedestrian controls is not an amenity but must be viewed as a mitigation measure necessary to reduce the traffic impact of a project of this density and proposed use. Safe ingress and egress would not seem possible without this signal but might not be necessary for alternate uses of lower density.
FEIS January 2018 296
Moreover, this additional traffic signal potentially creates its own traffic negative taken in combination with other signals in close proximity. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
The proposed open space area that borders Clover Street should also be considered a mitigation measure necessary to buffer the surrounding residential areas from the impacts of development of this intensity and coverage. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
Amenity value to the Community. Although the cost of construction of the proposed amenities as shown in the DEIS is relevant, this cost does not necessarily establish their relative value to the community.
The Access Management Plan (2.3.4a p. 80 et seq.) proposed for the properties along the south side of Monroe Avenue is also a mitigation measure necessitated by the increased traffic volume generated by the project. Further, the full mitigation benefit is only achieved if connection thru to Clover Street were possible and if curb cuts are eliminated to prevent left hand turns which remain an historic safety hazard. Again, the signal itself exacerbates traffic congestion due to the close proximity of other traffic signals. Response: The applicant has shown that the signal light will not have a significant negative impact on the current traffic on Monroe Avenue. This is accomplished using proper signal timings and signal coordination. The AMP includes significant cost and construction on properties outside the scope of the plaza. The reduction of curb cuts and access to a signal light for multiple properties is not mitigation for the development but rather a safety improvement for the Monroe Avenue Corridor. The property owner at 2425 Clover St. has indicated that they are not willing to participate in the AMP due to concerns of cut through traffic. The construction of the signal light and the execution of an access agreement allows people to utilize the signal light for left hand turns rather than taking a left at the existing curb cuts during busy times.
FEIS January 2018 297
At first, off peak hours it can be expected that people will continue to use the existing curb cuts for left turns. However, as the parcels in the AMP are developed over time, the Town will have the ability to require curb cut limitations or removal.
Needs and Benefits The Bowling Alley structure upgrade (ES-3) is welcome but this does not justify development of this density and replacement with a grocery store, coffee shop with drive- thru and retail stores which appear to greatly increase traffic on this congested thoroughfare and intersection. Response: The table below illustrated the anticipated increase in traffic volumes.
AM Peak PM Peak SAT Peak
Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Total Primary Trips 130 79 200 207 279 284
Even though there is an increase, the resulting levels of service at the studied intersections maintain either acceptable or existing levels.
Providing greater diversity amongst Brighton businesses, per se, is of little benefit where similar retail services are available nearby in Pittsford. This diversity should not be considered only on a local-town basis. Response: While the Whole Foods is a grocery store, they offer a wide variety of products not available at Wegmans or other grocers in the area. The proposed plaza building also offers other opportunities for new uses not currently locally available to Brighton residents.
Lot Coverage The current lot coverage is non-conforming (84%) yet the proposed development (88%) further exceeds the Code limitation of 65%. (2.3.1 p. 70). The DEIS does not establish the need for this continued excess. Response: The lot coverage is driven by the need to provide parking and the proposed trail system. While there is a minor increase compared to existing conditions, the parking areas are improved by adding a significant amount of interior landscaping.
FEIS January 2018 298
The proposal also includes pervious pavement to reduce the impact. There is less lot coverage in the BF-2 zoned portion of the project when compare to existing conditions.
Also, as shown in the density analysis continued within the DEIS and SDEIS, the lot coverage is compatible with adjacent uses within the corridor, refer to Section 2.6.
Traffic Impact The traffic impact posed by this project is of greatest concern as has been expressed to the developer from the outset. The developer proposes to build a one-of-a-kind upmarket grocery, Starbucks with drive-thru and plaza with high lot density. The DEIS and its traffic study do not dispel the conclusion that this project poses a significant negative traffic impact far worse than a project of other uses and density. Response: While there will be an increase in traffic visiting the plaza, it is mitigated through the utilization of a new signal light which will be coordinated with the existing signal lights to the west and east. As shown in the analysis of Alternate #6, a project could be constructed within the current maximum allowable density with different uses (restaurant, bank, etc.) that would result in more traffic than the current proposal (See SDEIS section 7.0). (See revised TIS Section VIII.C Pages 12-13 and Section XI Pages 19-30).
Specialized Grocery store data. Traffic levels used in the DEIS based on grocery stores generally are not the most effective data available. Whole Foods stores have a unique appeal and clientele especially for their prepared foods. Traffic data for Whole Foods itself is likely available for their stores and should be utilized. Further, the Whole Foods stores will likely generate traffic on a regional, and not simply local, scope. Response: The Traffic Impact Study for the Wegmans Food market & Bank located on East Avenue prepared in June 2004 by FRA Engineering was reviewed for comparison purposes. That study notes on page 8 that “Because of its urban location the trip rates for this store are skewed as many patrons frequent the store several times per week, often on their way home from work, versus completing one large shopping trip on the weekends, which is typical of other store locations.
FEIS January 2018 299
As a result, the calculated trip generation rate for the existing store is 2.85 times higher than that of the average Wegmans Food Market (including 15 or more stores greater than 90,000 SF in size).” The East Avenue Wegmans store is not considered a comparable use based upon its urban location and trip generation characteristics. This also explains why Whole Foods urban locations are inappropriate to use for trip generation estimates for this suburban location on Monroe Avenue. SRF researched available data on Whole Foods stores throughout the country and reviewed more than seven traffic studies. These traffic studies were found to have also utilized ITE data for grocery stores or they were in dense urban areas and used trip generation rates specific to this type of area. None of the data available was appropriate for use at the proposed Monroe Avenue site. Additionally, there was a post development study completed for a Whole Foods store in Darien, CT approximately six months after that store opened. That study showed that the actual traffic volumes generated by the store were almost 34% lower during the PM peak hour and 27% lower during the Saturday peak hour than the volumes projected, and utilized for mitigation purposes, in the original study. The applicant is confident that the traffic volumes projected and utilized for analysis purposes in the SRF study are appropriate and likely overestimated. (See revised TIS Section VIII.C).
Store size: Developer bases traffic volume on a 50,000-sq. foot store instead of 53,900 sq. feet store proposed. Response: Site plan has been revised and the store will be 50,000 s.f.
The Operational Volume Summary Table 2.2.1 1-1 (DEIS p. 100) appears to have been lifted from a 2003 chart of “Percent of Americans who are out shopping during indicated times” and is not specific to Whole Foods, Brighton or our Region as it appears to purport. Response: The table is based on data provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Local traffic counts collaborate their data to within a few percentage points verifying that it is an appropriate metric for the study.
FEIS January 2018 300
The DEIS indicates substantial internal exit queue lengths and wait-times within the development and the properties serviced by the Access Management Plan. These may create internal gridlock and extended wait times which may not be well tolerated and may result in dangerous hurried turns and a search for alternate points of ingress and egress. The developer has assured residents that objectionable access points at Clover and Allens Creek would not be utilized yet traffic congestion may make these inevitable. This should not be permitted. Response: The site plan has been revised so that the traffic exiting the development can be accommodated in the primary access road which will not block internal traffic circulation. These items are further addressed in the new TIS and SDEIS. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
It also must be emphasized that the queuing being discussed here is internal to the project site. It occurs only to those who have voluntarily decided to come to the site. As with traffic conditions generally, to the extent that those coming to the project determine that the queuing at the times they come are unacceptable or otherwise undesirable, they would be expected to change their actions so as to avoid those busiest times. Further, project patrons expect that they will encounter delays and queuing internal to a project site such as this. If deciding to go to the project, they accept that this will occur. These internal delays and queuing allows those travelling the exterior roadways to avoid or minimize any impacts to them.
The NYS Department of Transportation letter of April 4, 2016 raises many general and technical objections of great concern which are not satisfactorily overcome in the DEIS. The NYS DOT clearly states that Monroe/Clover already exceeds traffic capacity during peak periods. They conclude that increased traffic from this project and an added traffic signal will exacerbate this condition. DOT further indicates that existing queue lengths are already marginal at peak times and far longer than those indicated in the DEIS. They conclude that increased traffic volume from this project is likely to create gridlock.
FEIS January 2018 301
Accurate background conditions and baseline traffic levels are essential for evaluation of the impact of this project and there appears to be substantial disagreement about these levels amongst the developer’s traffic consultant and those of the DOT and others.
The traffic study provided in the DEIS, though seemingly heavily documented with charts and data, does not take this data and provide understandable conclusions about the impact of this project. To be most meaningful, traffic impact would be more effectively presented by active models in video or other visual format. Response: The traffic impact study process was both begun and completed while Monroe Avenue was under reconstruction by the NYSDOT. Therefore, SRF worked closely with NYSDOT obtaining the Synchro analysis model from NYSDOT to accurately represent the base conditions that would exist once the NYSDOT construction project was completed. Given the on-going construction activities in the corridor, accurate field observations and documentation of “existing” queueing could not be completed.
The base Synchro model utilized signal timings at the intersections along Monroe Avenue from Westfall Road to Clover Street (including a brand new ramp signal that had not previously existed) that were considered to be future design timings that would be implemented upon completion of the NYSDOT construction project. It has since come to our intention that some, and possibly all, of the design signal phasing and timing has not in fact been implemented in the field. This is the reason that current queuing does not match the modeled conditions. This was an error of omission by NYSDOT that was not communicated between the design group and the traffic engineering group.
NYSDOT has since implemented a completely revised timing plan for the signals within the corridor. Hence, the existing base conditions have been completely revised and are provided in a new Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (SDEIS). The TIS is prepared in accordance with National and local standards. (See revised TIS Section VI Pages 6-9).
FEIS January 2018 302
(7) Town of Brighton Planning Board Ramsey Boehner - Comments 8/1/16 Letter Planning Board
Multi Modal Transportation Considerations: 1. It is important that the project address the safety and accessibility for all residents of the Town to and from the site, as well as within the site. The project sponsor should continue to address and include multimodal (transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes) traffic modes and improvements into the project. Consideration must be given to further modification of the project design to better address safety and accessibility along with walking, biking and transit. Response: The project includes a number of improvements associated with multi model transportation including improvements to the Auburn Trail, Monroe Avenue Sidewalk, internal sidewalks, bicycle accommodations and a new bus stop. See sections 2.3.2, 3.4, 3.7, 3.8, 5.1.2, and 5.3 of the SDEIS. The scope of improvements to the Auburn trail has been increased significantly since the acceptance of the SDEIS as outlined in section 1.4 of this FEIS.
2. Pedestrian connections and multimodal access are mentioned repeatedly in the DEIS. Sidewalks on Monroe Ave. to Clover St., Clover St. from Monroe Ave. to Allens Creek Rd. and Allens Creek Rd. from Clover St. to Monroe Ave. should be analyzed and included as part of this project. Response: Currently there are no sidewalks along Allens Creek Road or Clover Street from Monroe Avenue to the Auburn Trail crossings. The benefit and feasibility of installing sidewalks in these areas was considered by the applicant.
There are no sidewalks along Clover Street within two miles of the subject property and therefor, no opportunity to provide a link to an existing pedestrian system along Clover Street. Clover Street is not a route currently used by pedestrians and the possibility of creating one is limited do to the existing development and limited right-of-way in the project area resulting from the five-lane section of southbound Clover Street. A sidewalk between the Auburn Trail and Monroe Avenue would provide almost no benefit to pedestrians as the only two uses fronting Clover Street are the gas station and retail plaza, neither of which have pedestrian connections from the right-of0way to the building.
FEIS January 2018 303
Pedestrians traveling to the Whole Foods Plaza from the east will have the option of using either the Monroe Avenue Sidewalk or the Auburn Trail system. Pedestrians who wish to travel to the Auburn Trail from Monroe Avenue would be able to do so by using the sidewalks provided as part of the development project.
3. A graphic should be provided illustrating ¼ mile and 1/2-mile walking distances (not radii) from Whole Foods Plaza. Pedestrian amenities should be included in the project out to 1/2 mile from the site in all directions. Response: The requested figure has been provided within the SDEIS, see figure 7. Refer to Section 1.4 of this FEIS.
4. The proposed project should include provisions for public transportation. The applicant should contact the Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority to promote the use of public transportation to and within the proposed project. What is the frequency of buses serving the site (Monroe Ave.) currently? Has RGRTA agreed to increase frequency on Monroe Avenue to Whole Foods Plaza? Where is the bus stop on Monroe Avenue opposite Whole Foods Plaza? What is the current frequency and future frequency in the Pittsford bound direction? Response: The project sponsor has worked with the Regional Transit Service (RTS) to incorporate their input for the project. RTS has reviewed the redevelopment plans and has provided input on the relocation of bus stops within the project area and the proposed sidewalk network. RTS bus stops are to be relocated on Monroe Avenue adjacent to the entrance for the Plaza. RTS plans to relocate stop #2654 on the North side of Monroe Avenue from the Intersection of Clover Street to the new signalized intersection. A bus shelter is to be constructed at the new bus stop location shown on Figure 1. The bus shelter is connected to the Monroe Avenue sidewalk network and Plaza’s internal sidewalk network. Pedestrian crosswalks are to be added at the new signalized entrance to the plaza and where the multiuse trail system crosses Allens Creek Road and Clover Street. The project also plans to relocate stop # 2630 on the south side of Monroe, which is currently in front of the Dunkin Donuts facility, to the location of the new signalized intersection as well.
FEIS January 2018 304
5. Has Monroe County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) confirmed their agreement with the gap analysis and crossing improvements for the Auburn Trail? Has MCDOT agreed to maintain the Allens Creek Rd. and Clover Street crosswalks. Response: Yes, the County has agreed with the findings of the gap study, see section 5.1.2 of the SDEIS. It is assumed that the County would maintain the crosswalks as they have jurisdiction of the right-of-way. In the event that the County were unwilling to maintain them, the applicant would at their cost. See SDEIS Appendix 14 for correspondence from the MCDOT.
Transportation: 1. The potential traffic impacts to Monroe Avenue created by this project as proposed, is of great concern to the Board. Response: Comment acknowledged, the SDEIS was specifically prepared to further evaluate potential impacts utilizing updated baseline data.
2. The traffic impact analysis should analyze impacts to level of service with vehicular access to both Allens Creek Rd. and Clover Street. The project sponsor proposes that a deed restriction will be placed on property fronting Clover Street from future subdivision or redevelopment. The traffic analysis with access to Clover Street and Allens Creek should be completed and presented to the Town prior to any commitments to limiting access. Response: This access option is analyzed for the Original Conceptual Site Plan, the Original Conceptual Site without the bank use, and for Alternative 5. The applicant has removed these access points from the Preferred Alternative.
FEIS January 2018 305
3. Based on the potential traffic impacts created by the project, this project should include an access management plan (pedestrian and vehicular) for the north side of Monroe Avenue (contiguous to Whole Foods Plaza) from Allens Creek to Clover Street that addresses cross access and shared parking. Response: The proposal has been updated to provide pedestrian access extending from Clover Street, through the parcel to Allens Creek Road and beyond. The applicant approached the adjacent property owner (VSES) to discuss shared access and parking, however, they chose not to participate.
4. The proposed traffic light is not an amenity. It should be considered a mitigation measure that is necessary to reduce the traffic impacts created by this project. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
Design and Layout: 1. The Planning Board is concerned about the proposed size, scale and configuration of the project as proposed. The plan needs to be revised to reduce impervious surface and include more parking lot landscape and green space. Response: The applicant has designed the proposed development to fit in with a similar scale and density as the surrounding developments along the Monroe Avenue corridor within the Town of Brighton. The Monroe Avenue Corridor Density Analysis study was conducted to analyze the average density of construction and development along the Monroe Avenue Corridor areas within the Town of Brighton, encompassing major retail shopping developments of over 25,000 square feet. Further details of the Density Analysis Study are contained in Appendix 17 of the DEIS. Each of the major developed areas was analyzed separately by calculating the total acreage of land and total constructed square footage within said acres of development. Town and County records available online were used to verify calculations. Included in the exhibits of this study are maps showing each area analyzed with the specific areas outlined in yellow.
FEIS January 2018 306
Each map is labeled on the upper right corner to correspond with the title on the density analysis chart provided within the SDEIS, Figures 3.6.1 – 3.6.1F. This study was conducted using the total property acreages of each parcel per town and county maps. The intent of this study is to compare an understandable and clear analysis of construction density of the major retail developments within the Brighton Monroe Avenue corridor using a standard matrix technique addressing each parcel and property consistently and evenly by dividing the constructed square feet by the area of land. The basic development codes (certain uses may vary) of Brighton allow for construction density of 10,000 square feet (SF) of construction per acre; or a “Density” of approximately 23% of the usable land (1 Acre = 43,560sf /10,000sf = 23%).
The results of the study illustrate that each of the major areas of development analyzed along the Monroe Avenue corridor represent substantially more construction than the current codes of the Town of Brighton allow. The average density for all the large developments studied within the town of Brighton was approximately 11.9% above code. The Whole Foods Plaza subject property falls under the average density as it will be only 5.9% above code. When including the Whole Foods Plaza development calculations property density in these areas of Brighton will have a lowering effect on the overall density calculations of the properties analyzed within the town of Brighton, down from 11.9% to 10.5%. In conclusion, this study finds that the subject property falls well within the average and acceptable density levels when comparing it to neighboring developments. The proposed development will have one of the lowest density calculations compared to other major neighboring developments.
FEIS January 2018 307
Alternatives should be prepared that address the site with the same impervious coverage as existing and the site with less coverage as existing. The plan also needs to be revised to better address safe pedestrian access into the site and to the proposed buildings. Response: Alternative #6 considers development of the parcel meeting the current zoning requirement for lot coverage. The site plan has been revised to improve pedestrian access from the buildings to Monroe Avenue and the Auburn Trail as suggested.
2. The Applicant should provide design alternatives for the proposed plaza to create longer exit queuing to help address the potential backup of traffic trying to exit onto Monroe Avenue. Response: The site plan has been updated to provide longer internal queue’s. As demonstrated by the TIS, the 4-lane section can contain the longest anticipated queue without impacting internal circulation.
3. The Applicant should provide a design alternative which illustrates a truck only entrance/exit to Whole Foods off Allens Creek Road. Response: The project does not consider any vehicular traffic off of Allens Creek Road or Clover Street in response to concerns expressed by the neighbors.
Community Services 1. Was the Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by an economic specialist? The stated approach does not seem appropriate, valid or reliable. What is the basis for the claim that this project is expected to double the property values of surrounding commercial properties by 100%?
FEIS January 2018 308
On Page 18, the projected future per square assessed value of $106.50 is 151% increase over the current $72.25. What is the basis of this claim and who determined it? Response: The projected future assessment value of $106.50 per square foot figures were derived by taking current square foot values associated with nearby plazas including Clover Commons at 2900 Monroe Avenue assessed at an average of $85.25 per square foot and Clover View Plaza at 2920 Monroe Avenue assessed at an average of $70.20 per square foot. The applicant made an opinion based claim that a new project would be assessed at a higher rate compared to other pre-existing properties. The applicant is hoping for a lower assessment, however, based on the assessment valuation of the applicants most recent project in the Town of Brighton located at 2750 Monroe Avenue (Royal Car Wash) at $125.89 psf and the new Dunkin Donuts at 2787 Monroe Avenue at $166.96 psf, the applicant has chosen to use a lower valuation of $106.50 in efforts of not “exaggerating” the potential tax benefits for the community. The Brighton town tax assessor was unable to give any opinions on the potential future assessment of the project siting a lack of information at this time to conceive an estimate.
2. Table 2.2.3-1 Property Tax Calculations do not include tax rates in the calculations. Further detailed explanation is needed for the Future Tax Bill and 230% increase presented. Response: The applicant used current tax rates in the calculations of the future and current taxes. The tax rates can be derived by dividing the total assessed value by the actual tax amount. The existing tax rates which were used in the calculations were as follows; Brighton Town $5.57, County Taxes $7.53, and Brighton School Taxes of $26.52/$1000.
FEIS January 2018 309
(8) Town of Brighton Sustainability Oversight Committee - Comments 7/29/16
1. The traffic analysis does not reflect the actual conditions along Monroe Ave. The traffic model must be calibrated to reflect actual roadway conditions. Response: The traffic impact study process was both begun and completed while Monroe Avenue was under reconstruction by the NYSDOT. Therefore, SRF worked closely with NYSDOT obtaining the Synchro analysis model from NYSDOT to accurately represent the base conditions that would exist once the NYSDOT construction project was completed. Given the on-going construction activities in the corridor, accurate field observations and documentation of “existing” queueing could not be completed.
The base Synchro model utilized signal timings at the intersections along Monroe Avenue from Westfall Road to Clover Street (including a brand new ramp signal that had not previously existed) that were considered to be future design timings that would be implemented upon completion of the NYSDOT construction project. It has since come to our intention that some, and possibly all, of the design signal phasing and timing has not in fact been implemented in the field. This is the reason that current queuing does not match the modeled conditions. This was an error of omission by NYSDOT that was not communicated between the design group and the traffic engineering group.
NYSDOT has since implemented a completely revised timing plan for the signals within the corridor. Hence, the existing base conditions have been completely revised and are provided in a new Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (SDEIS). (See revised TIS Section VI Pages 6-9).
2. The report requires substantial revision to be made understandable to laypersons and experts. The revised report should be understandable to a non-expert and include sub sections explaining objective, method, data sources, results, interpretation and uncertainty. The report should include commentary on assumptions made and confidence in the traffic forecast. The report should also provide details clarifying the analysis to an expert. The reporting should follow standard research conventions such as defining variables, acronyms and providing citations and references.
FEIS January 2018 310
Response: The revised TIS has been prepared in accordance with the NYSDOT’s “Typical Elements that should be included in a Traffic Impact Study”. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportationsystems/repository/Typi cal%20TIS%20requirements%20033115.pdf
3. The information following the executive summary suggests that the "Monroe/Proposed Driveway" intersections are very congested. This should be discussed in the executive summary. Response: The updated TIS provides a detailed discussion of the proposed driveway. The proposed signal is timed and coordinated with the corridor so that it does not have a significant impact on the vehicles traveling on Monroe Avenue. This is accomplished by limiting the amount of green time for people exiting the plaza and taking a left. At the busiest times, people leaving the plaza may have to wait two cycle lengths to exit which creates a perceived internal congestion.
4. There is an opportunity to improve this site, but it appears as though this project will have greater density, more parking and essentially the same lot coverage of 91% as the existing site. There doesn't appear to be significant landscape, greenspace or above ground bio-retention ponds visible from Monroe Ave. With the exception of the Whole Foods store the street view is a parking lot and coffee shop. The project sign will be overwhelming. This is the eastern gateway to the Town of Brighton. As a progressive, "green community" we should be looking at the current "new urbanist" designs for retrofitting suburban malls where buildings are clustered to provide a more walkable environment and lessen vehicular circulation needs. Response: The site is currently vacant with the entire Monroe Avenue frontage comprised of parking, asphalt, and no landscaping. The Whole Foods plaza will include a significant amount of landscaping and street trees internal to the parking area. There will also be above grade stormwater management which is integrated with the landscape design. The Whole Foods Building, Starbucks and pad site on the eastern side of the access road are all justified to the front of the parcel well within the current zoning requirements for the front setback.
FEIS January 2018 311
The definition of new Urbanism is “A movement in city planning that tries to recommit traditional town planning designs to a modern context. It seeks to lessen dependence on automobiles while encouraging a small-world lifestyle where jobs, shops, and homes are located near one another.” The proposal supports the New Urbanism movement as the development will preserve and extend the existing Auburn Lehigh walking trail which links several local neighborhoods to the Brighton Business district, in addition the proposal includes the preservation of an existing sidewalk along NYS Route 31 which will also promote the walkability from the development to other areas of interest within the Brighton business district. It should also be noted the conversation of a single use (existing bowling alley) to a multi-use plaza will also help promote New Urbanism and diminish the reliance on automobiles in the general area.
5. Providing access to the site for pedestrians and bicycles seems to be a major feature and a component listed as an amenity. The emphasis in the proposal seems to be improvements to the Auburn Trail. Will the improved trail for pedestrian use be lit with dark sky fixtures and maintained by the developer during the winter? If the trail is intended for bicycle use, this is a very short section of the proposed Auburn Trail and unto itself provides minimal bicycle access. It should be clear that the proposed trail improvements provide only limited access. There needs to be more detail regarding Monroe Avenue where both the Town's Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan and the Monroe Corridor Plan emphasize the need for a pedestrian safe walkway as well as improvement for pedestrian safety at the Clover-Monroe intersection. This should be designed as a "complete street", more than a five-foot sidewalk. This is critical and both the walkway and intersection should be addressed if this project is intended to be pedestrian friendly. Response: For the areas on the development parcel, the trail will be lit by dark sky fixtures, similar to the parking lots. Where the trail improvements extend off site, they will not be lit. The applicant will maintain the trail for those areas where it is located on their property during all seasons. The proposal also includes a new pedestrian crossing at the proposed signal light, new sidewalks along Monroe Avenue and pedestrian connections through the site.
FEIS January 2018 312
6. The project intends to have pedestrian connections incorporated within the development. Clustering the building versus stand-alone building has become the design approach to plaza development in the 21st century. The sponsor should consider clustering the buildings to promote pedestrian connections and providing a gathering space a real plaza where people could congregate. Response: The applicant considered clustering the buildings. That approach would put all of the buildings at the front of the parcel with all of the parking in the back. That would require the main façade of the Whole Foods to face north away from Monroe Avenue towards the area where the majority of the people enter.
Clustering the buildings together would also result in a single large parking area for the entire plaza rather than containing several smaller parking areas as currently designed. The site is also designed around the anchor tenant which requires a standalone building per Whole Foods Lease Agreement.
7. The DEIS indicates that the Whole Foods building will be constructed to a minimum of LEED Silver criteria. At a minimum as much of the site as possible should be defined as the (LEED) project boundary. With the Town's commitment as a NYS Climate Smart Community we should call attention to Pledge Element 6 which recommends minimizing the greenhouse gas impact of new development, that being for the entire project not only the food store. Response: All buildings contained within the development will be designed to LEED Silver standards, not just the Whole Foods.
8. In the Public Benefit section, my concerns relate to the comments on the diversity of retail offerings benefit. This is questionable when we think in terms of a sustainable community beyond the Town's limits. Each town cannot stand on its own. If each town were to provide the same services, we would see redundant service that would likely not stay in business. Before accepting this as a benefit, consider whether this is truly a community benefit or just the desire to bring a new business to the area. Response: The Whole Foods is a grocery store; however, it offers a diverse variety of products not available in existing stores in the Monroe Avenue Corridor.
FEIS January 2018 313
The proposed Plaza building also offers the opportunity for a variety of new retail options to service Brighton and neighboring Towns.
9. The flooding problems at the Monroe -Clover intersection are well known and significant storm events will become more prevalent. We should protect Allens Creek. Therefore, we should require that storm water is not discharged to the main except in an extraordinary event. The existing drainage conditions of the site should be significantly improved.
Response: The existing drainage conditions of the site will be significantly improved through the implementation of a stormwater management plan. Currently there is no treatment on site. The proposal includes new measures for both water quantity and quality and will reduce the rate of runoff that leaves the site exacerbating local flooding.
10. Density is positive in a sustainable development, but density should be used to promote more public open and green space. This location is the eastern gateway to the Town and should promote additional open space. Response: The project includes the preservation of open space which would otherwise be developed as single-family homes. It also includes the introduction of landscaping and green spaces in the commercially zoned area which is currently almost all pavement. Refer to Section 2.6.
11. Progressive municipalities establish parking maximums, not minimums. The current proposal exceeds the code minimum. With the pedestrian and bicycle friendly features and proximity to the RGRTA route the parking demand could be lessened. In addition, the sponsor should consider reducing the size of parking spaces for compact vehicles and request relief as a project incentive. Response: A compact vehicle parking area is identified on the site plan.
FEIS January 2018 314
12. The project alternatives should include an alternative that considers a two-story retail building in lieu of a single-story building. Response: While the applicant recognizes benefits associated with multi story development, the anchor tenant will not construct a two-story store at this location.
13. The project alternatives should include an option that places building along the Monroe Avenue frontage. The drive through could connect to this building. Response: Three of the four buildings are proposed along the frontage of Monroe Avenue, well within the required 60’ front setback.
14. Details of the proposed bus shelter along Monroe Avenue and bicycle parking should be provided. Response: Final details of the bus shelter and bicycle racks will be provided as part of the construction documents in a form acceptable to RTS and the Town.
15. The plans should show delivery access for the proposed retail buildings. Response: The site plan has been updated to provide 360-degree access around the northern retail building to allow for deliveries in the back.
16. A public green space – plaza should be incorporated into the project layout. Response: Public gathering areas are provided along the trail, north of the Whole Foods and adjacent to Buildings III and IV.
FEIS January 2018 315
(9) David Goehring, P.E. – NYS Dept. of Transportation Comments (April 4, 2016) and 7/25/16 Pages 1 & 2
In regards to existing traffic conditions, our comments are similar to our previous comments. At the Monroe Avenue and Clover Street intersection, this intersection during peak periods exceeds its capacity, with existing delays and queue lengths greater than shown in the SYNCHRO and Simtraffic models. For example, in the PM peak hour the existing eastbound queue lengths on Monroe Avenue at Clover Street extend at least 1500 feet, to the Route 1590 northbound ramps. The queue lengths calculated in SYNCHRO and Simtraffic are approximately 750 feet and 550 feet respectively. The report's queue lengths and delays are much shorter than actual conditions. This will lead to underestimation of background and full development conditions, with shorter delays and queue lengths than what can be expected. Each of the existing condition SYNCHRO and Simtraffic models should be revised to reflect existing delays and queue lengths.
Through our review of site generated trips, we conclude that the number of trips generated in the original plan and each alternative are similar, with the exception of Alternative 5. This alternative has an appreciable reduction in trips generated relative to the other alternatives, and thus will have less of a traffic impact.
We agree that a three-color traffic signal is warranted on Monroe Avenue at the site driveway/Sakura driveway intersection with full development of the proposed project with any of the six alternatives. A sidewalk within the Monroe Avenue frontage of the project is also warranted. We agree that there are benefits with a traffic signal and sidewalks at this location for side street traffic and pedestrians on both sides of Monroe Avenue. However, as we previously pointed out, this traffic signal will further disrupt existing traffic on Monroe Avenue, with increased delays and queue lengths. This is mainly due to its close proximity to other major intersections.
FEIS January 2018 316
In regards to the proposed traffic signal on Monroe Avenue and the full development analysis for each alternative, we noted the following:
• In the SYNCHRO analysis, westbound queue lengths on Monroe Avenue extend from the proposed traffic signal into the Clover Street intersection. This will further disrupt traffic at an intersection that operates at its capacity during the PM and Saturday peak hours.
• At the proposed traffic signal on Monroe Avenue we noted that the westbound left turn movement and the southbound_ left turn movement fails during the PM and Saturday peak periods.
• At the proposed traffic signal on Monroe Avenue, a dedicated eastbound left turn arrow is proposed. The time allotted for the arrow would need to be taken from westbound traffic. This arrow will further disrupt westbound through vehicles on Monroe Avenue, increasing delays and queue lengths for these vehicles. With alternative access for left turners at the westerly drive, and the negative consequences this arrow will create, this arrow should be omitted from plans at this time.
• As we previously stated, eastbound traffic on Monroe Avenue at Clover Street extends into the Route 590 intersection during the PM peak hour.
With a three-color traffic signal at the site driveway/Sakura driveway intersection, eastbound traffic will be queued through this intersection, with no guarantee that there will be sufficient space for side street traffic to enter Monroe Avenue eastbound. This will likely create a gridlock condition during certain peak periods, when vehicles exiting the site driveway block westbound through vehicles.
When intersections such as Monroe Avenue and Clover Street, and Monroe Avenue and site driveway nears or exceeds its capacity, actual delays and queue lengths can be much greater than calculated. In order to alleviate these conditions, geometric improvements and/or alternative access need to be considered.
FEIS January 2018 317
• In regards to geometric improvements, we considered the installation of a westbound right turn lane on Monroe Avenue at the site driveway. However, the benefits of a right turn lane at this location were determined to be minimal. With its close proximity to the Route 1590 on-ramp, motorists destined for Route 1590 northbound may be confused and use the right turn lane. The extra width makes it more difficult for eastbound left turns and for pedestrians. When weighing the benefits against the impacts, we concluded that a right turn lane dis-benefits outweigh the minimal benefits.
• We also reviewed the unsignalized intersection on Clover Street at Towpath Lane and at Warren Avenue. During peak periods, it may be difficult to turn left onto Clover Street, however during the AM and PM peak hours, a delay study documented that acceptable levels of service are attained during these peak hours. It is not anticipated that the subject project will impact these intersections. We agree with the report's findings that the subject project should not add to the existing cut-through traffic.
• As we stated previously, the overall priority on the Route 31 corridor includes the Route 590 ramps (so traffic does not queue onto the mainline of Route 1590) and the operation of the Route 31/Route 65 intersection. Given these priorities, delays on and approaching Route 31 (including the proposed signalized driveway) may further increase. This remains our conclusion in consideration of the report's six alternatives.
We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the referenced project, specifically the April 2016 revised Traffic Impact Study. The revised Traffic Impact Study has not appreciably changed from the previous study and therefore our April 4, 2016 comment letter is still applicable. Of primary concern is that the existing SYNCHRO and Simtraffic conditions of the Monroe Avenue corridor in the vicinity of Clover Street do not match observations made by this department at various times of year. This is turn underestimates delays and queue lengths for the background and full development conditions.
FEIS January 2018 318
There may be plausible reasons that our observations do not match the results used in the study. For example, the seasonality of traffic volumes may be much greater than what we anticipated. It is commonly understood that summer traffic volumes are less than the design condition and the holiday traffic volumes greater than the design conditions. However, there may be greater variance in traffic volumes during average peak periods than what may be expected. Any variations may amplify the differences in queues due to the close proximity of intersections and the magnitude of volumes. Additionally, our observations of greater eastbound queue lengths may be partially attributable to left turn vehicles at the Clover Commons plaza destined for Starbucks, which has been observed to block eastbound through traffic and create downstream friction.
Understanding the impracticality of modeling scenarios for each variation of traffic conditions, we only expect that the range of queues be acknowledged with appropriate perspective.
In conclusion, the project, with the introduction of a traffic signal as proposed, will have a significant impact on traffic. The impact will be noticeable at certain times of year more than others. We will look to minimize impacts through signal timing and optimization of signal progression along the corridor, but it should not be viewed as a panacea. Other mitigation measures should also be considered including providing alternative access and/ or reducing the intensity of the development. Response: NYSDOT comments are addressed in the updated TIS and SDEIS. The comments were primarily a result of the malfunctioning signal light as detailed in section 1.0 of the SDEIS and are no longer applicable. NYSDOT engineers were consulted several times during the TIS update and along with Stantec Engineers and Brighton Town Staff were instrumental in the TIS update and SDEIS.
FEIS January 2018 319
(10) Hodgson Russ, LLP Attorneys Review Comments: August 1, 2016 – Daniel Spitzer
Monroe Avenue Plaza Redevelopment: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Introduction:
The Monroe Avenue Plaza Redevelopment would allow a local-politician developer to exceed existing, sensible zoning limits creating a substantial denser, larger project than the infrastructure can support. Response: The EIS process ensures that environmental impacts are fully evaluated, understood and mitigated. Incentive zoning is permitted by Town Law and requires a balance of amenities for the community in exchange for the incentives sought be an applicant.
Our members (Save Monroe Ave, Inc. “SMA”) have chosen to remain anonymous for the time being due to the potential for political and/or economic backlash that could result from opposing a high-profile project such as this, particularly given its backing by powerful local politicians and a well-connected company. Response: Comment is not relevant to potential environmental impact.
That said, SMA’s members operate within close proximity to the proposed project and have standing to legally oppose the same, should that become necessary. Response: All comments submitted by neighbors as part of the public review period for both the DEIS and SDEIS have been addressed by this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 320
Comments on the DEIS:
The DEIS is incomplete since it fails to comply with SEQRA and 6 NYCRR 617.9. Therefore, the accepted draft DEIS remains inadequate and incomplete under the standards imposed by SEQRA. Response: The DEIS and SDEIS both comply with the applicable SEQRA regulations and both have been accepted as complete and adequate for public review.
A. Traffic – Page 5 Bullets 1 - 2:
• The Traffic Information Study (“TIS”) does not accurately represent existing traffic operating and safety levels. Without establishing an accurate baseline for these critical items, a TIS provides little value. Response: The traffic impact study process was both begun and completed while Monroe Avenue was under reconstruction by the NYSDOT. Therefore, SRF worked closely with NYSDOT obtaining the Synchro analysis model from NYSDOT to accurately represent the base conditions that would exist once the NYSDOT construction project was completed. Given the on-going construction activities in the corridor, accurate field observations and documentation of “existing” queueing could not be completed.
The base Synchro model utilized signal timings at the intersections along Monroe Avenue from Westfall Road to Clover Street (including a brand new ramp signal that had not previously existed) that were considered to be future design timings that would be implemented upon completion of the NYSDOT construction project. It has since come to our intention that some, and possibly all, of the design signal phasing and timing has not in fact been implemented in the field. This is the reason that current queuing does not match the modeled conditions. This was an error of omission by NYSDOT that was not communicated between the design group and the traffic engineering group.
FEIS January 2018 321
NYSDOT has since implemented a completely revised timing plan for the signals within the corridor. Hence, the existing base conditions have been completely revised and are provided in a new Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (SDEIS). (See revised TIS Section IV.B Page 2-4 and Section VI Pages 6-9).
• Although there were 11 proposed alternatives in the DEIS, only 6 proposed alternatives were analyzed in the TIS, and all six exceed Town Zoning Code density requirements and/or land use restrictions. The alternatives in the DEIS should each be analyzed in the TIS. Response: An alternative addressing existing density has been analyzed and provided in the new TIS and SDEIS. (See revised TIS Section VIII.C Pages 12-14 and the Appendix for detailed analysis of the Alternatives).
• There is no baseline, or “as-of-right” alternative analyzed that fully complies with the Town Zoning Code using only those uses/setbacks/density limits permitted without need for variances under the Code. This was specifically required by the DEIS Scoping document. Response: Refer to Alternative 6.
• The TIS should be redone reflecting a compromise, 33,000 sq. ft Whole Foods store, reflecting the typical size of a Whole Foods and reflecting reasonable variances from current limits that would permit a 73,000-sq. ft. plaza. Response: Alternative 6 was prepared based on the allowable density for the parcel.
• The TIS fails to consider a hotel and/or other retail alternatives that would produce less yet fully utilize the potential build out of the Plaza. Response: The TIS does consider alternatives that create less traffic. Due to the existing traffic volume on Monroe Avenue any viable development would warrant the installation of the signal light, thus having a similar impact to traffic as the proposed site plan.
• The Applicant understated the size of the Whole Foods store, thereby deliberately underestimating the new traffic projection for the Whole Foods store. The TIS must be redone using actual projected project size.
FEIS January 2018 322
Response: See updated TIS. The Whole Foods building has been revised and is 50,000 s.f. (See revised TIS Section VII Pages 9-11).
• The TIS used inaccurate and unsupported trip distribution models, requiring that the TIS be redone. Response: The proposed trip distribution was previously reviewed and approved by both Stantec and NYSDOT and has not been altered in the updated TIS or SDEIS.
• The capacity analysis performed shows significant failing operations for various movements and signal approaches. Average delays of 3 minutes and 8 minutes were calculated, and the proposed operating conditions as modeled in the TIS will create significant gridlock conditions on Monroe Avenue in front of the plaza on a daily basis. Response: See updated TIS and SDEIS for revised capacity analyses. There is no evidence that shows that the operating model will create a gridlock condition. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
• No highway safety analysis was completed for the project despite this area of Monroe Avenue having had 384 accidents in the past 3 years (almost 3 times the statewide average). An analysis must be prepared. The only way to adequately mitigate the traffic impacts would be a reduction in the development size and a potential combination of additional improvements to the Monroe Avenue corridor. The extent of reduced development and the amount of additional improvements required to mitigate traffic impacts is still unknown; primarily because there is no accurate existing conditions model from which to establish a base analysis, and because of the other missing information/material deficiencies set forth above. Response: The corridor was under construction for two years by NYSDOT while they were implementing a plan to improve safety in the corridor. As a result, the applicant was instructed by NYSDOT not to evaluate corridor safety for this project. However, the Town of Brighton Police Department did provide a letter indicating that the accident rate at the Clover Street - Monroe Avenue intersection has decreased approximately 25% since 2012. This is largely a result of recent improvements made to the corridor by NYSDOT. Refer to Community Service Response #2 – Page 74 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 323
• The DEIS relies on mitigation using land not currently owned or controlled by the Applicant. The TIS must be redone to reflect the unavailability of those lands. Response: Documentation has been provided by the applicant which demonstrates their ability to construct the proposed improvements.
Project Alternatives (Page 7)
Notably, the Developer treats the possibility that the site could be developed under existing zoning laws in an extraordinarily dismissive fashion. The Developer claims that developing the site under existing zoning regulations would reduce the property tax and sales tax revenue increases from the redevelopment, would not be financially viable and would result in a negative return on investment, and would not “reflect the goals of the Project Sponsor or future tenants.” DEIS at 297. There is no evidence to support this conclusion.
The Developer should indicate the calculations for such a conclusion – as would be required if this proceeding was following the required course and a request was being made for a rezoning.
It appears that what has occurred is the Developer has overpaid for the property. This cannot provide a legitimate basis for the proposal. The alternatives must be redone to consider viable as of right and a reasonable 5% oversized property alternatives. Response: The applicant has provided an alternatives analysis which complies with the adopted scope of the EIS.
FEIS January 2018 324
(11) Nixon Peabody – Letter from Robert Burgdorf – 10/24/16 (Ref. McFarland Johnson 10/19/16)
McFarland Johnson Letter end of 3rd Paragraph Page 2
The base traffic analysis model should replicate the current, improved operating conditions observed in the field and serve as the starting point with which to develop the No-Build and Build scenarios. The Whole Foods Development is expected to provide appropriate mitigation to allow the surrounding roadway network to operate at the same levels of service for the Build scenario in comparison to the No-Build scenario, which is the requirement of all private development projects. Response: The base traffic model has been updated to reflect current 2016 traffic conditions and mitigation is provided as appropriate. (See revised TIS Section VI Pages 6- 9 and Section XI Pages 26-27).
FEIS January 2018 325
(12) McFarland Johnson Comments July 18, 2016 Letter Traffic Review
Page 2 – II. Summary of Critical Material Deficiencies Item #1.
1. Existing Conditions. The “existing conditions” model traffic operations do not accurately portray current field observed traffic. This is a critical first step when performing a traffic impact study as all the results are based on manipulations to that existing model. The existing model needs to be properly calibrated before any results and recommendations can be determined. The NYSDOT specifically expressed this same concern as the actual traffic backups (queue lengths) which occur on a daily basis were significantly understated in the TIS. A meaningful review of the TIS cannot be conducted until the TIS utilizes an accurate base traffic model. (Response below).
Page 4 – III. Further Review of Material Deficiencies Item #1.
1. Existing Conditions: The base (existing) traffic models were not calibrated to reflect actual traffic conditions that exist on a daily basis along the Monroe Avenue corridor. The NYSDOT also recognized this material deficiency in its April 4, 2016 letter in which it pointed out that the actual queue lengths are significantly longer than those shown in the Synchro model for existing conditions. We have the same concerns recognized by the NYSDOT as it has been observed that the daily queue from Monroe Avenue eastbound extends back from the Clover Street intersection to roughly the I-590 interchange intersection, which is roughly 1300’. It should be noted that our November 3, 2015 comment letter to the scoping documents specifically stated:
“Existing queue lengths along Monroe Avenue should be documented in the field as part of the field observations when establishing existing conditions. This will also be vital to ensure the required queuing analysis has an accuracy base point that represents actual conditions in the field”.
FEIS January 2018 326
Even though this is an essential element of a properly prepared TIS, it was not done. The base file submitted in the TIS incorrectly shows a maximum queue length of 915’and an average queue length of 676’ during the evening peak hours; while the Saturday existing queue lengths were not even provided in the model printouts set forth in Appendix A4 of the TIS. Calibration of the base file to accurately show the existing conditions is necessary for the TIS to have any value. These corrections will impact all of the subsequent proposed model runs and alternatives due to the fact that the existing model is used as the basis upon with which to add the traffic generated by the proposed development and any alternative considered. Response: The traffic impact study process was both begun and completed while Monroe Avenue was under reconstruction by the NYSDOT. Therefore, SRF worked closely with NYSDOT obtaining the Synchro analysis model from NYSDOT to accurately represent the base conditions that would exist once the NYSDOT construction project was completed. Given the on-going construction activities in the corridor, accurate field observations and documentation of “existing” queueing could not be completed. The updated TIS and SDEIS reflect a coordinated base condition establishment with Stantec and NYSDOT. (See revised TIS Section VI Pages 6-9).
2. Development Alternatives. Although there were 11 proposed alternatives listed, only six proposed alternatives were analyzed in the TIS, and all six exceed the Town Zoning Code density requirements and/or land use restrictions. There is no baseline alternative that fully complies with the Town Zoning Code using only those uses/sizes permitted as of right under the Code. Determining the amount and appropriateness of incentives is not possible when a baseline alternative is not established. Indeed, the DEIS Scope required “The Analysis shall include development scenarios that are in conformance with the existing zoning;” however, the DEIS did not fulfill this requirement. Response: An alternative addressing existing density has been analyzed and provided in the new TIS and SDEIS. (See revised TIS Section VIII.C Pages 12-14 and Appendix).
FEIS January 2018 327
There are still no alternatives that show how the site/traffic would operate with a development utilizing a layout density and land uses permitted “as of right” under the current town zoning code. All the alternatives analyzed to date have either increased density, land uses that would require conditional use permits and/or use variances and/or area variances from the zoning/planning boards. Therefore, all the alternatives result in similar very poor levels of operations with significant adverse impacts to traffic, when in fact the baseline alternative may not.
When reviewing alternatives, a baseline traffic analysis should be prepared showing what can be developed in accordance with existing zoning, which would involve only the 7.3 acres currently in the BF-2 zone, and would include only those uses permitted as of right. The current proposed grocery store, restaurants, drive thru, are all not permitted by current code without a conditional use permit and a number of other discretionary permits/approvals/variances. We also note that this analysis was required in the Scope, but the TIS did not address it. The suggested baseline analysis required in the Scope is especially useful here, where the applicant is requesting incentive zoning. Without being able to compare to an established baseline, one cannot accurately quantify the extent of the incentives being requested.
The intent of having multiple alternatives is to determine the appropriate amount of development on the site and associated mitigation that can maintain acceptable levels of traffic operations and have negligible impacts to the off-site traffic. A baseline alternative is critical and necessary as a starting point for this task.
We note that this contributes to the fact that no alternative has been proposed that adequately mitigates the proposed traffic generated by the site. Response: An alternative addressing existing density has been analyzed and provided in the new TIS and SDEIS. (See revised TIS Section VIII.C Pages 12-14 and Appendix).
FEIS January 2018 328
3. Traffic Generation by the Development (Page 3). The amount of new traffic projected for proposed Alternative #1 is underestimated. The trip generation rate was based on a typical grocery store with no comparison to other existing Whole Foods stores’ traffic generation. This could have a major impact on the analysis and the conclusions on impacts. Also, the proposed Whole Food Store is 53,900 SF, but was only analyzed as a 50,000-square foot store. (Response below)
3. Trip Generation: Trip generation volumes for the proposed development were calculated using trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition, which is generally considered an industry wide accepted practice. The TIS notes that the ITE trip generation rates used are greater than a typical Tops store but less than a typical Wegmans store. However, this is not thorough enough. The last paragraph on page 11 states that this will be the only Whole Foods store in the Rochester area, meaning not only will there be more traffic at the initial opening, but also customers who want to shop at Whole Foods need to come to this particular store regardless of their location in the Rochester area. This will have increased impact on the trips generated by the store for the long term, as there are Wegmans/Tops scattered within the suburbs around the city, which will not be the case for Wholes Foods. Because of this, the trips generated by a current Whole Foods store in a unique market area should be reviewed and used when determining the trip generation rate for the proposed project store.
The TIS also uses a 50,000-square foot grocery store when it fact a 53,900 square feet store is being proposed. We realize that the 53,900 square feet includes office/employee space. However, the statistical analysis provided by the ITE trip generation manual is calculated using overall gross square footage which includes the office/employee areas when developing their trip generation rates. The 3,900 square feet should not be omitted from the trip generation calculations. Response: SRF researched available data on Whole Foods stores throughout the country and reviewed more than seven traffic studies. These traffic studies were found to have also utilized ITE data for grocery stores or they were in dense urban areas and used trip generation rates specific to this type of area.
FEIS January 2018 329
None of the data available was appropriate for use at the proposed Monroe Avenue site. Additionally, there was a post development study completed for a Whole Foods store in Darien, CT approximately six months after that store opened. That study showed that the actual traffic volumes generated by the store were almost 34% lower during the PM peak hour and 27% lower during the Saturday peak hour than the volumes projected, and utilized for mitigation purposes, in the original study. (See revised TIS Section VIII.C Pages 12-14).
We are confident that the traffic volumes projected and utilized for analysis purposes in the SRF study are appropriate.
The proposed Whole Foods Store has been reduced in size to 50,000 square feet and analyzed accordingly in the TIS.
4. Trip Distribution (Page 3). The project’s traffic patterns entering the site have more vehicles placed on the secondary access than the main signalized entrance, in some instances passing the main entrance in order to enter the secondary entrance. This distribution of traffic is not what is typically observed for retail plazas where customers habitually enter the site’s first drive regardless of internal designation. Modification or additional explanation is needed. (Response below).
4. Trip Distribution (Page 5): The site-generated peak hour traffic distributions for Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) are listed as being included on Figure 5B. However, this critical information is, in fact, not correctly shown for this alternative as we were unable to find a correct distribution figure for Alternative 1 showing no access points onto Clover Street and Allens Creek Road.
There are other trip distribution discrepancies as well. Figure 6C correctly shows the trips distributed on the two proposed Monroe Avenue driveways; however, distribution between the two driveways does not seem appropriate because:
FEIS January 2018 330
a. Northbound traffic on Monroe Avenue during the evening and Saturday peaks are shown with more cars going through the proposed signalized entrance in order to enter at the unsignalized entrance further downstream. Based on experience with retail plazas, a larger number of customers will enter at the first driveway as opposed to waiting for the second driveway, especially if the first driveway is signalized. This alters the actual proposed traffic impacts.
b. Southbound traffic on Monroe Avenue during the evening and Saturday peaks are shown with more cars making left turns at the unsignalized entrance as opposed to making a left turn at the signalized entrance. Given the amount of traffic on Monroe Avenue during the evening and Saturday peak hours, we do not feel more vehicles will not be able to make a left turn at the unsignalized intersection safely in comparison to the signalized intersection. This alters the actual proposed traffic impacts. Response: The project has been revised to include an eastbound left turn signal at the western entrance and a westbound left turn signal at the eastern entrance to provide protected turning movements into the project. The updated TIS reflects this condition (See appendix 7).
5. Access Modification Plan (South Side). There are several issues with the proposed Access Modification Plan: a. The existing driveway curb cuts on the south side of Monroe Avenue are not proposed to be modified or removed; therefore, it does not physically restrict vehicles to right-in and right-out movements for the existing driveways as the Developer originally proposed. This access restriction is critical to properly manage the vehicles entering/exiting the Monroe Avenue Corridor and require utilization of the proposed signal to safely provide left turn movements.
FEIS January 2018 331
b. Significant safety and congestion concerns are presented with the close proximity of the existing driveways to the proposed signal. Additionally, the internal circulation has parking along the main exit queue lane.
c. Despite the Scope requirements, no binding agreements were presented in the DEIS with the property owners of the south side parcels to ensure that the Access Modification Plan will be constructed. (Response below).
5. Access Modification Plan (South Side): The Access Modification Plan for the south side of Monroe Avenue continues to be incomplete, and continues to have design flaws. The TIS assumes “that all nine south side properties may connect to the signal at the time of full development of the Whole Foods site and that right-in, right-out are permitted at most existing driveways with left-turns entering and exiting allowed only at the new signal”.
We concur that this would improve the safety and efficiency of the corridor. However, as shown in Figure 2.3.1E of the DEIS, no modifications are proposed/accepted by the existing properties to restrict the left turn movements into/out of their existing driveways. This is a concern, as the figure depicts there will be full access commercial driveways as close as 50’ and 100’ to the north and south of the proposed signalized intersection and three full access commercial driveways within 250’ to the north and three full access driveways within 300’ to the south. These six existing full access driveways so close to the new signal present a safety concern with additional conflict points for a corridor that is already has an exceedingly high number of conflict points and an accident rate 2.7 times the statewide average. This is a dangerous situation that would need to be addressed in the corrected TIS.
Additionally, the queue for the light has been placed in a parking lane, which unnecessarily poses accident risks, as well as risk of “trapping” parked cars from exiting. Additionally, despite the Scope requirements, the DEIS fails to provide any legal proof of consent by landowners on the south side of Monroe Avenue to agree to this plan.
FEIS January 2018 332
Response: SRF has provided a proposed Access Management Plan. This plan must first be adopted by the Town and then implemented over time as properties on the south side of Monroe Avenue re-develop. The Whole Foods project and the Town do not have the authority to restrict or close driveways at this time.
The site immediately to the west of the traffic signal is currently under review by the Town for re-development and changes to the existing driveway will be implemented through the site plan review process. Driveways at the other properties will be physically restricted through the site plan review process as they re-develop. In the meantime, left turns into and out of these driveways will be self-limiting as a result of heavy peak hour volumes on Monroe Avenue. Motorists will choose to utilize the available traffic signal as a means of ingress and egress. The property owners have entered into an agreement for cross access and shared parking which will be memorialized as a deeded right upon approval of the AMP by the Town. (See section 1.4 of this FEIS).
6. Capacity Analysis. The capacity analysis performed shows significant failing operations for various movements and signal approaches. Average delays of 3 minutes and 8 minutes are not acceptable anywhere, let alone in our region where the maintaining agencies pride themselves on efficient traffic operations. The proposed operating conditions, as modeled in the applicant’s traffic analysis, will create significant gridlock conditions on Monroe Avenue in front of the proposed plaza on a daily basis, especially during the evening and Saturday peak hours. Response: The capacity analysis was performed using Synchro 9.1, which is the latest software available. The revised TIS and SDEIS provide all capacity analysis results from SimTraffic as directed by both Stantec and NYSDOT. There is no evidence that the operations will create gridlock on Monroe Avenue. This potential is mitigated through coordination of the traffic signals at the new signal and the Monroe-Clover signal light. The Capacity Analysis has been updated in the TIS and is discussed in the SDEIS. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
FEIS January 2018 333
6. Capacity Analysis: The capacity analysis performed within the study used Synchro 8.0 traffic modeling software. This was reviewed and completed in accordance with the Transportation Research Board’s 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and industry standards. MJ has not performed a detailed review of the traffic data that was inputted into the various alternatives models for reasons explained in the Section I. However, we offer the following observations and comments associated with the traffic capacity analysis results provided within the body of the study for the Proposed Alternative:
Congestion within the Monroe Avenue Corridor Between I-590 and Clover Street:
a. Regardless of the modifications from the calibration of the base model, the Synchro results show proposed conditions have failing and near failing levels of operations on multiple intersection movements at multiple intersections. When the volume of traffic (‘V’) is greater than the capacity of the infrastructure (‘C’) then that operation is considered failing to the degree that is not typically acceptable by municipalities in upstate New York, commonly referred to as the v/c ratio. Under significantly failing operations (v/c > 1.0) Synchro calculates the queue/delay based on two signal cycles and then states the delay/queue is unknown with the following footnotes:
i. “Volume exceeds capacity, queue length is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycle lengths” ii. “95th Percentile volume exceeds capacity; queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.” iii. “Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal”
This is the case for several movement operations associated with the proposed alternative traffic operations per the un-calibrated traffic model analysis listed below, where the queue lengths are unknown and average delays are shown but it is unknown if they last longer than two cycle lengths:
FEIS January 2018 334
1. Monroe Avenue @ Clover Street a. Eastbound Through (PM – 96 Sec. Delay) b. Westbound Left Turns (PM – 81 Sec. Delay)
2. Monroe Avenue @ Proposed Driveway a. Eastbound Left Turns (PM – 2:55 minutes & Sat – 2:07 minutes) b. Westbound Left Turns (PM –2:45 minutes) c. Southbound Left Turns (PM – 2:42 minutes & Sat – 7:45 minutes)
As a result of this inability for Synchro to correctly analyze the proposed traffic conditions, it is recommended that an alternative modeling software be used which can accurately project the proposed conditions utilizing traffic simulation. There are a number of software programs available to analyze failing operation; however, the SimTraffic application within Synchro, for proposed conditions at a 60-minute duration, may be the most practical option for this project if it can be calibrated to reflect the field observations.
This will provide results in both numerical and visual/video form that the public and Town Board can review allowing them to fully understand the extent of the proposed impacts to the traveling public from this project.
Simulation software such as VISSIM or SimTraffic create an actual simulation of the traffic operations and multiple runs can be performed to create an average results scenario which can be fine-tuned to match existing conditions. Synchro is utilizing iterations of formulas and does not produce a simulation model; therefore, it may not be possible to mimic the current and proposed conditions for the Monroe Avenue corridor during the peak timeframes when significant operational failures occur. In summary, when proposing such failing levels of operation, a higher power software is needed to analyze the corridor accurately to determine accurate results.
FEIS January 2018 335
Synchro results are consistent, typically very accurate, and generally the standard for most municipalities in western New York for non-failing corridor conditions; however, for this project, simulation software will allow both a visual and more accurate model results for both the existing and proposed conditions. Therefore, we strongly recommend if the study area contains major movements with V/C ratios greater than 1.0 in the revised TIS, then as previously stated a high-power traffic software model is required.
b. Impacts resulting from the development will degrade the traffic operations within the study area. The following operations will see significantly longer delays/queues under the full build conditions, serious enough to drop a level of service, which typically requires mitigation to ensure that the proposed development will not adversely affect the traveling public.
i. Monroe Avenue at Existing/Proposed Site Access (Un-signalized) a. Eastbound Left (AM, PM, SAT) b. Southbound Right (AM, PM, SAT) ii. Monroe Avenue at Clover Street a. Eastbound Through (PM) b. Eastbound Right (PM) c. Westbound Left (PM) d. Overall Intersection (PM) iii. Monroe Avenue at Proposed Main Site Entrance* a. Eastbound Left (PM, SAT) b. Westbound Left (PM, SAT) c. Northbound Left (AM, SAT) d. Southbound Left (PM, SAT)
* Note, this is a new intersection; however, LOS ‘E’ and ‘F’ are not typically acceptable by municipalities for any intersection, let alone a new proposed intersection.
FEIS January 2018 336
iv. Monroe Avenue at Westfall/Allen’s Creek a. Eastbound Through/Right (AM) b. Westbound Through/Right (AM, PM) c. Northbound (AM) v. Clover Street at Allen’s Creek a. Eastbound Thru/Right (PM) b. Westbound Left (PM) c. Northbound Through/Right (SAT) d. Southbound Through/Right (SAT) e. Overall Intersection (SAT)
No mitigation is being proposed in the traffic impact study to address impacts to these 16 individual movements and 2 overall intersection operations. This is a critical oversight that should be addressed in the next TIS.
c. In several areas, the TIS notes that there will be long queue/delays and failing operations during weekday evening peaks for roughly a 45-minute period; however, it should be noted that these conditions currently occur on a daily basis during the afternoon peak on weekdays and will also occur on Saturday afternoon peak as well. The TIS inaccurately represents the length and extent of the backups that currently occur on a daily basis and subsequently the conditions that are projected as a result of the proposed project are inaccurate.
Capacity Restrictions of the Proposed Development Access:
a. The proposed analysis shows traffic exiting the plaza will experience an average delay of around a two and a half minutes waiting at the signal during the weekday evening peak times and around 8 minutes during the Saturday peak. These types of average delays are not acceptable or even practical as the plaza parking lot will become gridlocked with customers being unable to leave for unreasonably extended lengths of time. This raises serious concerns that drivers will become frustrated with this lengthy delay and perform unsafe maneuvers and/or traffic will utilize alternate routes to avoid waiting extended lengths of time.
FEIS January 2018 337
b. The NYSDOT has stated that no protected left turn phase (a green arrow) will be allowed at the proposed intersection as this would significantly affect Monroe Avenue corridor through traffic. With a development of this magnitude, and the current through traffic volumes on Monroe Avenue, there are major concerns that this will cause significant backup for left turn vehicles and drivers will shoot gaps that are not sufficient to complete the turn movement creating an unsafe condition at the intersection.
c. Regular patrons may also attempt to enter the site at the first unsignalized driveway as it is perceived to be “easier” to enter the site than at the signalized intersection if there is no protected phase, resulting in an extended left turn queue and potentially queuing into the through lanes. The traffic study acknowledges this as previously discussed in the trip distributions comments.
Due to the significantly failing levels of operation at the signalized main entrance, the study is assuming more customers from the north will be forced to make unsafe left turn maneuvers while waiting in the left turn queue from the signal than will actually perform safe movements at the signal.
These three above situations are typically considered unacceptable and are denied/avoided in any final plan. Response: These comments are addressed in the updated TIS and SDEIS. The capacity analysis was performed using Synchro 9.1, which is the latest software available. Que lengths are reported using Simtraffic. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 27-30).
FEIS January 2018 338
7. Accident Analysis. No highway safety analysis was completed for this project, despite the fact that the corridor has seen 384 accidents in the past 3 years. This represents almost 3 times the statewide average for similar roadways. The study area is classified as a Priority Investigation Location and a High Accident Location, and industry standards would typically require a highway safety analysis, especially for a project of this magnitude. Response: The corridor was under construction for two years by NYSDOT while they were implementing a plan to improve safety in the corridor. As a result, the applicant was specifically instructed by NYSDOT NOT to evaluate corridor safety for this project. However, the Town of Brighton Police Department did provide a letter indicating that the accident rate at the Clover Street - Monroe Avenue intersection has decreased approximately 25% since 2012. Refer to Community Service Response #2 – Page 74 of this FEIS.
7. Highway Safety/Accident History Analysis (Page 9): To our knowledge, no highway safety analysis was performed for the project as part of the DEIS. Based on 3-years of accident data obtained from the NYSDOT for the period extending from January 2013 to December 2015, 384 accidents occurred on Monroe Avenue from Clover Street to Westfall Road. This results in an accident rate of 14.1 accidents per million vehicle miles (ACC/MVM) which is approximately 2.7 times the statewide average for similar corridors across the state. Monroe Avenue in this area is a HAL (High Accident Location) and a PIL (Priority Investigation Location), which typically requires a highway safety analysis be conducted and included in any traffic studies of the area. We recommend a detailed safety/accident history analysis be performed as part of the TIS given the magnitude of the development and the nature/accident statistics of the Monroe Avenue corridor. Response: The corridor was under construction for two years by NYSDOT while they were implementing a plan to improve safety in the corridor. As a result, the applicant was specifically instructed by NYSDOT NOT to evaluate corridor safety for this project. Any recent crash data is skewed and irrelevant for purposes of this traffic impact study. However, the Town of Brighton Police Department did provide the applicant correspondence demonstrating that the accident rate at the intersection of Clover Street and Monroe Avenue as decreased approximately 25% since 2012. The decrease is likely a result of the recent improvements made to the corridor by the NYSDOT.
FEIS January 2018 339
(13) Rick DiStefano (Conservation Board Town of Brighton) – Comments July 13, 2016
1. Reduction of project density could provide greater greenspace mitigation throughout the project site, limit encroachment into the residentially zoned portion of the project and provide greater buffering of the buildings to Clover Street residents. Response: A significant reduction in density would be required to achieve the goals mentioned above. A reduction of that magnitude would not result in a financially viable project.
2. Greater emphasis should be given to improving the Monroe Avenue streetscape. A larger pavement setback along Monroe Avenue, allowing for more green space and area for plantings, would provide a more robust and desirable streetscape. Response: The current streetscape at the site is pavement for the entire frontage of the parcel with little to no landscaping. The proposal includes three buildings that are justified to the front of the project, new landscaping and an outdoor seating area associated with Building IV. The project also includes a new bus stop and sidewalks along Monroe. A
3. Native plant material should be used throughout the project site, the use of invasive species, especially those that are on the NYS list of Invasive Species to Avoid should be prohibited. Response: None of the proposed plantings are invasive species, they will all be native.
4. A comprehensive Monroe Avenue streetscape design plan should be incorporated for the properties that are part of the Access Management Area. Response: The properties on the South side of Monroe Avenue have agreed to participate in the access management plan but have not committed to any further site improvements.
FEIS January 2018 340
(14) Brent Penwarden III, PE. - MC Dept. of Transportation– Comments July 11, 2016
1. The proposed development, as currently proposed, will only impact County roads by creating improvements for pedestrians and multi-use trail users. Response: Comment noted, the project will provide pedestrian improvement as noted.
2. Since no vehicular access is currently proposed on County Roads, we have no traffic concerns. Response: Comment noted.
3. Should access to County roads be proposed, we request to be allowed to review the revised proposal and subsequent traffic data. Response: Access to County Roads is not proposed nor anticipated at any point.
FEIS January 2018 341
(15) Renee Casler, (MC Dept. of Planning & Development – Comments July 8, 2016
Note: The Monroe County Department of Planning and Development has reviewed this application and does not have any comment. Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 342
(16) Monroe County Development Review Committee – Comments July 7, 2016
1. Regarding the Incentive Zoning proposal for the Whole Foods Project (formerly known as Palazzo Plaza). MCDOT has no comments. (B) Response: Comment noted.
2. MCDOT requests to review any site plans that propose work within the highway right of way on Allens Creek Road (west of Clover Street) and on Clover Street (north of Monroe Avenue). Any such work requires the developer to obtain appropriate County highway work permits. (B) Response: Comment noted. ' \ ' 3. We have recently received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project and will provide comments once our review is complete. All proposed work within the Route 31 right-of-way including driveways and utility work. will require a NYSDOT highway work permit. (D) Response: Comment noted, the applicant intends to comply with all applicable permit requirements and procedures.
4. The following agencies reviewed this project and have no comments. (A) Response: Comment noted.
5. This project was not sent the following agencies for review. Applicants should verify with these agencies that they do not have jurisdictional requirements for this project. (C). Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 343
Summary Chart of Public Comments
FEIS January 2018 344
FEIS January 2018 345
FEIS January 2018 346
FEIS January 2018 347
FEIS January 2018 348
FEIS January 2018 349
FEIS January 2018 350
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 1 – MONROE AVENUE TRAFFIC 1.01 – There is already a problem with existing congestion on Monroe Avenue, and traveling around that area has become increasingly difficult. Response: Based on field observations and the results of the TIS during typical peak hours, there is not significant prolonged congestion on Monroe Avenue. There are times when queue lengths at that intersection reach the Mario’s entrance, however, that only happens a handful of times within a 15-30-minute span of the peak hour. Traffic volumes along this corridor have remained relatively flat over the past decade.
1.02 – Monroe Avenue cannot handle the potential increase in congestion that could result from the high density use of the proposed project. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.03 – Will the increase in traffic from the project impact how long it will take for an ambulance, fire truck, or police officer to respond to the Monroe Ave area? If so, what will that impact be/what are the numbers before and after? Response: It is not anticipated that emergency response times will be impacted by the project, as long as vehicles clear to the side of the roadway under emergency response situations. (See SDEIS Section 2.3.3 and 5.2). The Fire Department has indicated that the proposal will not impact their ability to service the parcel.
FEIS January 2018 351
1.04 – The traffic on this corridor has only gotten worse over the years..."on one occasion it took me a half hour to get from the 590 expressway to Wegmans." Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.05 – Synchronization should be in place for all of the lights in this section of the Monroe Avenue Corridor Response: Coordination is proposed between the new light in front of the project, the intersection of Monroe and Clover and the 590 Interchange. Additional synchronization may be considered by NYSDOT as they maintain jurisdiction over the roadway. The applicant and Town of Brighton support a coordinated or “synchronized” corridor.
1.06 – There are already too many lights on Monroe Avenue; what is the potential impact of adding an additional light? Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
FEIS January 2018 352
1.07 – The current traffic on Monroe Avenue is already too much for the intersection of Monroe and Westfall to handle. During rush hour, you can't even get across the road to Allen's Creek, and frustrated drivers on Monroe Avenue clog the intersection trying to get across. Response: During field observations made by the applicant, Passero Associates and SRF, the applicant noticed congestion resulting from drivers attempting to make movements and “getting stuck”. The proposed access management plan (AMP)) on the south side of Monroe Avenue will help to improve this condition. This condition described is a result of the signals, specifically the left turn added in 2016 at the Monroe I-590 interchange. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.08 – Will the proposed project cause an increase in the number of accidents on Monroe Avenue? Response: It is anticipated that the proposed access management plan will reduce the number of accidents on Monroe Avenue by directing people along the south side of Monroe along the proposed cross access to the traffic signal. The result is a reduction in the number of conflicting left turns against oncoming traffic.
1.09 – Concerns mentioned regarding the safety of pedestrians and especially school children on Monroe Avenue. Response: The project includes significant pedestrian upgrades including approximately 2 miles of improvements to the Auburn Trail as well as improvements to the sidewalks along Monroe which will improve safety and motorist awareness of pedestrians. An additional signalized cross walk is also proposed at the new signal. The closest school is approximately .7 miles from the proposed site.
FEIS January 2018 353
1.10 – This is the wrong project for this Monroe Avenue location. Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
1.11 – Adding another traffic light on Monroe Avenue solves nothing. Response: The addition of the signal light reduces unprotected left turn conflicts for people exiting the existing Mario’s / Clover Lanes complex and properties to the south utilizing the access management plan. It also minimizes the chances that motorists could “get stuck” trying to make a left turn exiting those properties. By coordinating the green signal exiting the Whole Foods Plaza with the green for Clover Street southbound traffic at the Monroe / Clover intersection, there are sufficient gaps to allow traffic exiting to enter onto Monroe without creating a gridlock condition as demonstrated in the computer modeling and consultation with NYSDOT and the town’s traffic consultant, Stantec.
1.12 – Traffic on Monroe Avenue already backs up getting on I-590; this project and especially an additional traffic light will just make the problem worse. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.13 – Monroe Avenue has already reached its saturation point. Response: At peak times certain intersections within the corridor do reach capacity. Through the implementation of the access management plan, closing of curb cuts and new signal light conditions along the corridor are expected to improve. The project does not result in significantly longer delays. See Section 2.2.
FEIS January 2018 354
1.14 – The DOT disagrees with the numbers the DEIS uses for Monroe Avenue. Response: The applicant has worked closely with the New York State of Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and Town’s engineering consultant to ensure that the revised TIS, contained within the SDEIS, accurately reflects existing conditions. While it is true that NYSDOT commented that its field observations did not concur with the applicant’s TIS results, NYSDOT ultimately accepted that this was in part due to the Monroe Clover signal not being configured correctly and its own interpretation of the definition of a queue which differed from the computer model’s industry standard definition of a queue length and how it is measured.
1.15 – The traffic problem already exists on Monroe Avenue, therefore any increase in traffic will have a negative impact. Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.16 – Monroe Avenue has a traffic congestion problem all the way down to the twelve corners. The Whole Foods development project, with not just a store but a plaza of stores, will make this section impassable. Response: As outlined in the revised TIS, the project will not result in a significant negative impact on the corridor. While congestion does occur from Westfall Rd. to Clover St during very specific timeframes, vehicles move efficiently during most the day.
FEIS January 2018 355
Historical traffic volume counts show very little variation in vehicle counts along Monroe Avenue pre-and post-significant commercial developments like Cheesecake Factory or Trader Joes. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
1.17 – The high volume of traffic on Monroe Avenue discourages people from visiting the businesses on this street. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.18 – The worst stretch of Monroe Avenue is between Clover and Westfall. Response: Refer to Section 2.2.
1.19 – Subjectively, it seems that recent NYS DOT changes in and around the I-590 interchange have made the traffic flow worse. What are the official statistics on congestion before and after those changes were made? Response: The “improvements” to the I-590 interchange were designed and constructed by the NYSDOT as a traffic safety project and do not involve the applicant of the Whole Foods project. The NYSDOT has not provided statistics comparing before and after traffic conditions. However, the Brighton Police Department has provided data indicating that accident rates have dropped approximately 25% since the improvements were installed.
1.20 – The traffic has become so bad on Monroe Avenue, that some people no longer consider shopping at the little stores opposite the Wegmans Plaza. It's just too difficult to turn in or onto Monroe Avenue.
FEIS January 2018 356
Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.21 – Much of the traffic will be limited to a short distance between I-590 and the proposed project. Response: The TIS includes trip distribution patterns which illustrate the anticipated travel patterns of the future patrons of the project. See section VII-E of the TIS. A significant portion of the traffic will use the 590 ramps and not travel a long distance throught he corridor.
1.22 – As a Monroe Avenue daily commuter, I do not feel the traffic would be any different than it was when Mario's Restaurant and the other stores in Clover Lanes Plaza were operating. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.23 – The redevelopment will make this section of the Monroe Ave. corridor much safer. Response: The combination of the signal lights, access management plan, new lighting and pedestrian improvements will be an improvement for this section of the corridor. Comment noted
FEIS January 2018 357
1.24 – The overwhelming gridlock on Monroe Avenue makes this a bad location for this project on this scale, with these tenants. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.25 – The lights on Monroe Avenue are not currently, but need to be properly synched. Response: The applicant agrees that the corridor should be coordinated. The cooridation effort is under the discretion of the NYSDOT.
1.26 – The gridlock on Monroe Avenue is insurmountable. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.27 – Most accidents that occur on Monroe Avenue involve people who were trying to turn left...that needs to be addressed by this project. Response: The implementation of the traffic signal and access management plan will greatly reduce the number of “unprotected” left hand turns thus improving safety.
1.28 – "...in a brochure advertising the proposal on its website, the Developer brags that this Monroe Avenue Whole Foods anchored center all but guarantees record breaking sales and traffic."
FEIS January 2018 358
Response: See Section 2.2 for the anticipated increase in traffic volumes resulting from the project.
1.29 – "Other claimed 'mitigation' measures are in fact actions that facilitate access to the Developer's plaza, and do nothing to alleviate the problems on Monroe Avenue." Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.30 – "Despite the obvious negative effects this proposal would have on local traffic, the Developer completely failed to propose adequate traffic mitigation measures for SEQRA purposes." Response: The project includes many mitigation measures including the access management plan, traffic signal and multiple pedestrian improvements to sidewalks and the Auburn Trail. See section 1.6.
1.31 – "In all, the DEIS devotes over thirty pages to discussing “transportation mitigation”. DEIS at 202-237. Incredibly, the Developer completes this lengthy discussion without proposing that it be required to take a single action to mitigate the effect of traffic." Response: The applicant proposes several measures to improve traffic conditions. Please see response to comment 1.23 and 1.30.
FEIS January 2018 359
1.32 – "You [the Town] and the DOT will need to sort out the problems that will be caused on that section of Monroe Avenue." Response: The Town will continue to work with NYSDOT to facilitate further traffic improvements to Monroe Avenue.
1.33 – "The recent State directed traffic changes which included additional lights for safety purposes have exacerbated the situation significantly." Response: See responses to comments 1.15 and 1.19.
1.34 – "Currently, without any businesses right there, my family experiences traffic delays on a daily basis - with traffic backing up so far up Monroe and Westfall that I cannot even get out of my street (Willowbend)." Response: The site has contained business for decades, including Mario’s restaurant, Clover Lanes and Mamasans Restaurant. Please see responses to comments 1.22, 1.23 and 1.29.
1.35 – This project will result in a significant increase in the number of cars traveling along Monroe Avenue; Moreover, a great percentage of those cars will not just be passing by, but will stop, enter, and exit the proposed plaza and therefore create even more congestion. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.36 – There are already six traffic signals within this one mile stretch of Monroe Avenue, with I-590 on/off ramps where at least 40,000+ cars travel. Adding an additional light on this part of Monroe Avenue for the plaza will increase the gridlock and back-up even more.
FEIS January 2018 360
There is no space for more cars or more traffic signals…. An increase in traffic in an already overly congested area is concerning. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.37 – Monroe Avenue, including and between the intersections with Clover Street and the I- 590 entrances is a nightmare and one of the most dangerous traffic zones in Monroe County. It is like a war zone with traffic and there are already numerous accidents in that area...a left turn in that area is a death wish! No additional traffic should be added until something can be done to fix the mess that already exists...why make a dangerous area even more hazardous? Congestion and higher traffic volumes are irreversible.[u1] Response: Since the lane improvements performed by the NYSDOT, an error in the signal timing at Clover and Monroe avenue caused additional congestion along the corridor. The DOT has recently corrected those signal timings to significantly improve flow along Monroe Avenue. This has been verified both by the revised traffic model as well as field observations. The proposed traffic signal is designed to mitigate the potential impact of the plaza without resulting in a significant negative impact on the corridor. This is accomplished by coordinating the signal with other signals to the west and east. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30). Refer to Community Service Response #2 – Page 74 of this FEIS.
Accident data provided by the Brighton Police Department shows a decrease in accidents at the Monroe Avenue Clover Street intersection from 2012 to 2016.
FEIS January 2018 361
Through the implementation of the access management plan more left turns into and from the properties south of Monroe Ave. will be made from a single signalized location, which will further decrease the likelihood of an accident in the project area. The benefit of the access management plan combined with the new traffic signal will help to offset the potential impact of the additional traffic.
1.38 – This area is already congested, unsafe for motorists and pedestrians, and designated an "F" by the DOT; I do not want it to get even worse...As it stands, the project will cause more harm than do good due to the traffic congestion. We must ensure infrastructure improvements and proper traffic levels and design along this Monroe Avenue corridor to preserve and protect the community.[u2] Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.39 – "I don't want this section of Monroe Avenue to turn into a commercial hell hole like Jefferson Road or Ridge Road, and this project would pretty much seal that deal. Just say no."[u3] Response: See response to comment 1.38.
1.40 – A poorly designed road, such as Monroe Avenue, needs less traffic, not more.[u4] Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in moderate increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15- 30 minute timeframe within the peak hour.
FEIS January 2018 362
During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. In most cases vehicles will pass through the intersections in a single light cycle. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and more importantly, traffic safety.
1.41 – Right now, Monroe Avenue is only heavily congested at certain times of the day. We do not want that kind of congestion all the time.[u5] Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
1.42 – This project at this location on Monroe Avenue will make traffic worse. The Daniele’s should consider empty space on Monroe Avenue in Twelve Corners or closer to Cobbs Hill on Monroe, or a different area all-together.[u6] Response: See response to comment 1.41.
1.43 – The Whole Foods Project is suitable for this location, as long as it does not negatively impact the overall traffic flow on Monroe Avenue.[u7] Response: Comment noted.
1.44 – Eliminating curb cuts isn't the only thing that's important.[u8] Response: Comment noted, the proposal provides other amenities important to the community including improvements to the pedestrian system, new landscaping, preservation of open space and healthy food options not currently available in the region.
FEIS January 2018 363
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 2 – CLOVER STREET TRAFFIC
2.01 – Clover Street is strictly residential, not a commercial highway or commuter way. Response: Comment noted; Clover Street contains residential driveways. For this reason, access to the project is not proposed off Clover Street. Clover Street is a County Road and does not have a designation as “strictly residential”.
2.02 – Traffic is already so high that it is often difficult to get out of driveways or side streets onto Clover. Response: The driveway to Clover Street has been eliminated from the proposal. A significant amount of additional traffic is not anticipated on Clover Street as demonstrated in the TIS. (See revised TIS Figure 6C).
2.03 – Will the increase in traffic from the project impact how long it will take for an ambulance, fire truck, or police officer to respond to the Clover Street area? If so, what will that impact be/what are the numbers before and after? Response: The applicant does not anticipate that the project will have an impact to emergency response times since it will not result in a significant increase to the segment volume or delays at the studied intersections. The Fire Department has indicated that the proposal will not impact their ability to service the parcel.
2.04 – During rush hours, it can take several minutes to exit onto Clover from Warren going North, since heavy traffic is going both North and South. Response: See section 2.2. A delay study was performed at the intersection of Warren and Clover Street and shows ample gaps for vehicles turning onto Clover. It is acknowledged that during peak times vehicles may have to wait longer than average and up to a minute.
2.05 – As a feeder street to Monroe Avenue, Clover Street is not zoned for this type of traffic.
FEIS January 2018 364
Response: The subject parcel is zoned BF-2 which permits a variety of uses which generate similar traffic as shown in the alternatives analysis. See section 7.0 of the SDEIS.
2.06 – More people will avoid this stretch of Monroe Avenue, thereby increasing traffic on both Allen's Creek and Clover, whether or not there is an exit from this plaza onto those two roads. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
2.07 – Increased traffic will destroy the residential nature of the Clover neighborhood. Response: See response to comment 2.06.
2.08 – Increased traffic on Clover Street is dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians. Response: See response to comment 2.06. The Auburn Trail will provide a safer route for both cyclists and pedestrians.
2.09 – To get out of the Royal Car Wash, motorists are making U-Turns on Clover or cutting through Mann's parking lot. Response: Comment is not applicable to the current proposal.
2.10 – A more thorough traffic study should be done on Clover Street. Response: The TIS has been prepared in accordance with all applicable standards and requirements, including those of the NYSDOT and the approved scoping document.
FEIS January 2018 365
Furthermore, the updated TIS contained within the SDEIS addresses all comments from the Town’s Engineering Consultants and NYSDOT.
2.11 – North bound traffic on Clover needs a left-hand turn arrow onto Allen's Creek. Response: The intersection of Clover Street and Allens Creek-Westfall road currently operates at an acceptable level of service and does not warrant a northbound left turn lane.
2.12 – "The project and resulting traffic will have a negative impact on the 950 children attending the Harley School and Allendale Columbia." Response: Clover St. and Allens Creek Rd. are County highways. While any decision concerning a signal at that intersection would be by the County. However, based on the TIS, the intersection of Clover Street and Allens Creek-Westfall road currently operates at an acceptable level of service and does not warrant a northbound left turn lane.
2.13 - I expect that Monroe, Clover and Westfall traffic will be significantly affected by the Whole Foods development. People already use Clover and Allen’s Creek to avoid traffic on Monroe Avenue. I’m not sure how we will accomplish this after the project increases traffic on those streets too. This concern is not addressed adequately by the DEIS. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
FEIS January 2018 366
2.14 – It is already too congested and dangerous on Clover Street between Allen's Creek and French Road.[u9] Response: The project was revised to remove entrances to Allens Creek Road and Clover Street thus limiting the potential for additional traffic or congestion on those roadways. See response to comment 2.13.
2.15 – The intersection of Clover and Monroe does not function properly as it is, and cannot handle an influx of even more traffic.[u10] Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
2.16 – They did not look at Clover Street traffic flow based on the meeting that was held in February.[u11] Response: An analysis of Clover Street traffic is provided within the revised TIS. (See revised TIS Section IV.B Page 2-4).
FEIS January 2018 367
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 3 – ALLEN’S CREEK TRAFFIC 3.01 – Allen's Creek is strictly residential, not a commercial highway or commuter way. Response: Comment noted without exception, the applicant removed the previously proposed entrance to Allen’s Creek Road. Allens Creek Road is a Monroe County highway.
3.02 – Allen’s Creek was not intended and is not zoned for high density traffic. Response: The Allens Creek driveway has been removed from the proposal thus reducing potential impact on the roadway.
3.03 – What measures will be taken to ensure that pedestrians may cross over Allen’s Creek safely, despite the increase in traffic? Response: As a result of the elimination of the Allens Creek Road entrance, a significant increase to traffic along Allens Creek is not anticipated. A cross walk and associated signage at the Auburn Trail Crossing has been proposed as an amenity and part of the improvement to pedestrian and bicycle safety along the Auburn Trail. Refer to Section 2.2 for a gap study illustrating ample time for pedestrians to cross.
3.04 – What effect will increased traffic on Allen’s Creek have on the ability to turn in or out of connected residential streets? Response: Refer to the gap study provided at Section 2.2.
3.05 – More people will avoid this stretch of Monroe Avenue, thereby increasing traffic on both Allen's Creek and Clover, whether or not there is an exit from this plaza onto those two roads. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during
FEIS January 2018 368
the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and more importantly, traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
3.06 – Increased traffic will destroy the residential nature of the Allen's Creek neighborhood. Response: See response to comment 3.03 and 3.05.
3.07 – North bound traffic on Clover needs a left-hand turn arrow onto Allen's Creek. Response: See response to comment 2.11.
3.08 – "The project and resulting traffic will have a negative impact on the 950 children attending the Harley School and Allendale Columbia." Response: Project entrances from Allens Creek and Clover have been removed to reduce potential impact to the Harley School and Allendale Columbia. See response to comment 2.12.
3.09 Traffic is already so high that it is often difficult to get out of driveways or side streets onto Allens Creek. Response: As a result of the revised proposal which eliminates access points to Allens Creek and Clover Street, it is not anticipated that driveways on Allens Creek road will be significantly impacted. Refer to gap study provided at Section 2.2.
3.10 – The residential character of the Allens Creek area should be protected from unacceptable commercial development.[u12] Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be
FEIS January 2018 369
added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
FEIS January 2018 370
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL
4.01 – What is the projected increase in ground water and air pollution? What effects will that have on the health of neighboring residents? Response: The project includes the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to treat stormwater and groundwater. The project also includes a significant amount of new landscaping to improve air quality.
4.02 – The increased trash created by this project will have a negative impact on neighbors. Response: Trash will be collected and disposed of in accordance with all applicable local ordinances.
4.03 – Regular zoning will allow our community to gain a right-sized redevelopment for this site without the negative impacts on light, noise and air pollution. Response: As demonstrated by the alternatives analysis contained within the SDEIS, the project has currently produced (90,000 sf) does not have significantly more impact on light, noise or air pollution than a project meeting the zoning districts density requirements (70,400 sf). All potential environmental impacts have been considered as part of the EIS process.
4.04 – "SEQRA requires an approving agency to act affirmatively upon the adverse environmental impacts revealed in an EIS, so that the EIS is not a mere disclosure statement but rather...an aid in an agency's decision-making process to evaluate and balance the competing factors.' Town of Henrietta v. department of Environmental Conservation, 76 A.D.2d 215 (4th Dept 1980) ...'the lead agency may not ignore evidence that an applicant's preferred alternative could produce unacceptable environmental consequences.'" Response: The Town as Lead Agency has considered all potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal and has requested that applicant make changes to mitigate those impacts as part of the public review. The current proposal has been modified to reduce the potential impacts and provide the highest possible benefit to the community.
FEIS January 2018 371
4.05 - “A DEIS should be rejected where it fails to adequately discuss mitigation measures, which is a required element of the DEIS”. Response: The DEIS and SDEIS include a discussion on mitigation measures. Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
4.06 – "Despite the obvious negative effects this proposal would have on local traffic, the Developer completely failed to propose adequate traffic mitigation measures for SEQRA purposes." Response: See response to comment 4.05.
4.07 – "In all, the DEIS devotes over thirty pages to discussing “transportation mitigation”. DEIS at 202-237. Incredibly, the Developer completes this lengthy discussion without proposing that it be required to take a single action to mitigate the effect of traffic." Response: See response to comment 4.05.
4.08 – "SEQRA requires reviewing agencies to act upon adverse environmental impacts revealed in an EIS – particularly where the developer fails to propose any real mitigation measures where it is shown that adverse environmental effects are likely to occur." Response: The DEIS and SDEIS do not identify any adverse environmental impacts that will not be mitigated as part of the development proposal or that have not been considered by the Lead Agency as part of their review and findings.
4.09 – "The enormous traffic impacts (volume, noise, pollution) will cause other negative impacts as well. In particular, it is well established that property values in neighborhoods are linked to perceptions of traffic concerns." Response: The TIS demonstrates that there is not a significant increase in trip generation from existing conditions or when compared to other development alternatives; therefore, there will not be a significant adverse impact relating to noise and pollution. See Section 7.0 of the SDEIS.
FEIS January 2018 372
4.10 – "The Applicant must revise the DEIS to identify pollution impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods and within the Monroe Avenue corridor." Response: The project will not result in a significant number of increased trips when compared to the uses which have existed in the plaza for years and therefore will not have a significant negative impact on air pollution related to traffic. Additionally, general trend of automobiles becoming more environmentally friendly and specifically reduced emissions, results in an overall reduction in air pollution related to traffic even with a negligible increase in traffic. The FEIS includes the identification and mitigation efforts related to traffic, as well as noise and stormwater.
4.11 – Almost 3 acres of residential acreage will be turned into a commercial parking lot with consequences to the green space buffer to Clover Street...the project is almost 100% impervious materials. Response: The project proposes maintaining and preserving the open space along Clover Street which could otherwise be developed as single-family homes. Refer to Section 2.6 of the FEIS.
4.12 – The DEIS does not address the many potential negative impacts from animal vectors associated with the development of a supermarket, such as insects, rodents, feral cats, raccoons, and other pests. Response: The site is currently vacant and abandoned. The active development of a new project will be a significant improvement in terms of pests.
4.13 - The DEIS does not address the many potential negative impacts from restaurants with drive-thru windows producing blowing liter. The DEIS must review the potential negative impacts of increased litter on the residential neighborhoods surrounding the project site. Response: Litter will be controlled by onsite management. The drive thru is also located at the opposite end of the site as the residential property.
4.14 - What is the plan for snow removal and storage. Will parking be modified in the wintertime to accommodate large piles of snow in the parking area?
FEIS January 2018 373
Response: Similar to other commercial developments in the corridor, excess snow that is not able to be accommodated by the snow storage areas will be removed from site. 4.15 - The project that is currently proposed does not include enough green space. Response: The lack of greenspace has been mitigated thought the implementation of landscaping and pervious pavement materials. Refer to Section 2.6 of this FEIS.
4.16 – Please - no more pollution.[u13] Response: Comment noted.
4.17 – The Daniele Family studies of the environmental impact are detailed and sound. We have a real opportunity to significantly better our community, as I believe this will have a positive effect on the surrounding area.[u14] Response: Comment noted.
4.18 – Reports from biologist James Haynes also include a shrub area on the church property…why would a biologist have been paid to look at this piece of land, if not to research the land to support an alternate access route? Or possibly to support a plan to whittle away the residential portions of this land and develop the entire area as commercial?[u15] Response: Habitat is included as part of the EIS scope, the applicant was seeking to provide a comprehensive study of the existing conditions.
4.19 – Appendix 12 specifies that almost half of the trees on the property will be cut down, including most of the mature evergreen border…just because the Town did not designate it a woodlot under EPOD does not mean that we should allow half a forest being cut down. There is no way that this could not affect the habitat that has been there for years.[u16] Response: The application includes the permanent preservation of a large portion of the existing woodlot. It also provides for replacement of many of the trees planned to be cut.
FEIS January 2018 374
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 5 – AESTHETICS AND LIGHTING
5.01 – Nearby residents will be impacted by the lighting that is incorporated in this project. Response: A lighting plan has been provided by the applicant which demonstrates that lighting will not spill onto adjacent properties and that the lighting will be dark sky compliant.
5.02 – Saving the neighbors from light pollution is probably best for all. Response: See response to 5.01.
5.03 – Regular zoning will allow our community to gain a right-sized redevelopment for this site without the negative impacts on light, noise and air pollution. Response: See response to 5.01.
5.04 – Not opposed to the plan, as it could be a wonderful improvement to what is now not a very attractive-looking plaza. Response: Comment noted.
5.05 – Hearing the complaints with the Whole Foods Project is disappointing - this project will rejuvenate this area of Monroe Avenue! What an eye sore it could become for the Brighton community if it sits vacant! Response: Comment noted.
5.06 – The project will significantly improve the aesthetic presence of this part of Monroe Avenue with beautiful landscaping, architecture, green space and foliage. Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 375
5.07 – "In proposing single development alternative that complies with existing zoning laws, the Developer designed a project with only one large strip-mall style building in the most unattractive manner possible." Response: Alternative 6 was revised as part of the SDEIS to include a site layout similar to the current proposal but meeting the allowable density of the zoning district.
5.08 – "Please apply the best national standards and practices for all lighting. Not just for safety, but with regard to the light pollution, aesthetics and perpetual costs." Response: The lighting plan has been designed to national lighting standards and utilizes energy conserving fixtures. Lighting will be dark sky compliant.
5.09 – The look or aesthetic of a Strip Mall is not in keeping with the character of Brighton, and will make is less desirable to live here. Response: The proposal does not include a strip mall.
5.10 – How will the developer manage the project’s visual impact during construction, and where will construction equipment be stored? Response: The staging area is shown on the Grading Plan, see figure 6.
5.11 – "The added lighting from the proposed parking lots and the other retail shops will have a dramatic impact to the light and noise pollution for the residents." Response: See response to comment 5.01.
5.12 – "The parking lot and the retail shops expand to within 90 feet of Shoreham Drive; therefore the light pollution is something that needs to be considered." Response: See response to comment 5.01.
FEIS January 2018 376
5.13 - “The Developer has not presented an eye appealing design. In fact, their drawing presents a shopping area that looks very similar to the Staples Plaza on Jefferson Road. The minimal greenery does not offset the large amount of pavement for parking. They could beautify the site by presenting a total green area in the front with trees and flowers that hide the commercial development in the back”. Response: The parcel is not large enough to provide a green space capable of blocking a commercially viable site. Should the project move forward, the aesthetics are subject to review by the Architectural Advisory Committee and Planning Board.
5.14 - The Project’s lighting should be such that the height of the parking lot and building lights are in accordance with the Town’s requirements and they are aimed towards the ground to prevent light glare in the sky that could affect neighbors. Response: The lighting will comply with the Town’s ordinance and it will be dark sky compliant.
5.15 – Redevelopment of the Clover Lanes Plaza could be a great improvement to the area, as it is currently not the prettiest of malls, so long as those aspects are mitigated which could prove detrimental to the Town. Response: Mitigation measures are explained in the DEIS, SDEIS and FEIS.
5.16 – This huge plaza will deface the area and result in unacceptable traffic.[u17] Response: The area of land within the BF-2 zoning district is 7.04 acres which allows a density of 70,400 sf (7.04 acres * 10,000 sf/acre). The applicant’s proposal includes 90,000 sf or 19,600 sf more than what’s permitted by the underlying zoning. The applicant has chosen to pursue Incentive Zoning to permit the additional building area rather than pursue an area variance with the Town Zoning Board of Appeals. In addition to the building area, there are other “incentives” required to allow the project to move forward including setbacks, parking in the residential zone and the allowance of a 50,000-sf building without the need for a conditional use permit. The BF-2 zoning district permits a maximum building size of 20,000 sf without the need for a conditional use permit; however, under normal circumstances, if an applicant can comply with the - conditional use permit standards and requirements of the Town of Brighton Comprehensive
FEIS January 2018 377
Development Regulations, the Planning Board can grant a larger footprint without Incentive Zoning approval. In accordance with the Town’s incentive zoning ordinance and NYS SEQRA Title 6 NYCRR Part 617, the applicant must demonstrate that the project will not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties and that any potential impact has been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, the applicant must provide amenities for the benefit of the public in return for the requested invectives. The Town Board as Lead Agency for the SEQRA review is charged with weighing the potential environmental impacts, requested incentives and amenities, and then issuing a findings statement to conclude the SEQRA process. As part of that process, the Town Board will consider the potential impact of additional square footage above the density permitted by the Town of Brighton Comprehensive Development Regulations and may make environmental findings concerning the project density. If development on the site were to proceed without the use of incentive zoning, the Town could not require the applicant to provide offsite amenities like construction of the Auburn trail and the Access Management Plan. In addition, the Town could not prevent the applicant from seeking COMIDA tax abatements. Reducing the density of the project may have the potential benefit of improving internal traffic flow, enhancing the aesthetics of the project, preserving more green space, reducing impervious coverage and reducing delays on Monroe Avenue. The Town will have the discretion to visit the issue of density in its substantive consideration of the Incentive Zoning application.
5.17 – Who approved the addition of a large light on a high pole at the edge of the parking lot on residential land? Response: Any lighting that is not in compliance with the Town’s ordinance should be reported to the Towns code enforcement officer.
FEIS January 2018 378
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 6 – CONSIDERATION OF RESIDENTS 6.01 – The developers are just pushing their problem onto their neighbors. Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
6.02 – The concerns and opinions of those residents who will be directly impacted should carry the most weight in the decision-making process. Response: The Town Board as lead agency has considered all relevant comments.
6.03 – At the end of the day will it be the voices of the folks in Brighton who are heard or the family with money and power? Response: Comment noted. Refer to response to comment 6.02.
6.04 – Are the neighbors who are impacted by the project being taken into consideration when making decisions? Response: Yes, the Town Board considers potential impact to the neighbors which may result from the project. As part of the EIS process, the Town Board ensures that the project mitigates potential environmental impact to the maximum extent practicable. Refer to response to comment 6.02.
6.05 – It is deeply disturbing that an anonymous party or parties acting under the name "SaveMonroeAve.org" are purporting to speak for Brighton residents without any disclosure of their real interests or who they really are. "This anonymous campaign does not speak for me." Is this in fact an "astroturf" (fake grassroots) campaign from competitors worried about the effect a new Whole Foods would have on their business, and not a true representation of Brighton residents? Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
FEIS January 2018 379
6.06 – "I have spent years hearing development opponents present themselves as speaking for all of Brighton. Those voices may be loud and persistent, but they no longer speak for me. I hope you'll listen to my very real voice as a resident and a taxpayer, and I hope you'll treat the "SaveMonroeAve.org" anonymous operation with a reasonable amount of skepticism." Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
6.07 – Are there records of the conversations the developers claim to have had with the neighbors?" They clearly didn't talk to everyone, because no one ever approached me about it." “I would appreciate the names and dates of the people contacted. Also, what modifications were made based on what information?” Response: See Section 1.4 of this FEIS.
6.08 – "The redevelopment of the parcel can and should be a net-net-net positive for the Town, the near neighbors, and the developer." Response: Comment noted.
6.09 – "The Save Monroe Avenue Project, under the guise of concerned neighbors and business owners who apparently hired a lawyer of their own, is actually Wegmans, hiding behind neighbors. Don't let Wegmans do this to our community because they are afraid for their own profits! Competition is healthy!" Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
6.10 - “Vote yes on this project for the people who want and need these options for food! I ask people ‘are you in favor of a Whole Foods on Monroe Ave.?” And they say yes. The people I have talked to all want a Whole Foods, they are the people that are working right now, that are working hard and don’t have the time or man power to spend hiring lawyers and robo callers.” Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
FEIS January 2018 380
6.11 - “The Developer has not proven that they are actually listening to resident concerns. There has been no actual dialogue, contrary to what they are telling the press (or you). Rather than let the Developer dictate the redesign, we need you to step up and give them reasonable guidelines to work within.” Response: The SDEIS and FEIS include responses to all comments provided during the public review period. The applicant has made multiple changes to the project because of public input. See response to comment 6.03
6.12 - “I am not aware if there are ANY guidelines to weigh our concerns which are mostly EMOTIONAL.” Response: Comment is not a substantial environmental concern.
6.13 – The Care for Clover Association organized a meeting for neighbors to discuss our concerns in April 2015. The Daniele Group appeared on the premise of being a "neighbor" and told us for almost 45 minutes what THEY wanted to do with their property, drawing and all. Then left. If they had really been interested in being a good neighbor, they would have sat and really LISTENED to what the concerns of the residential neighbors were. Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
6.14 – I hope that this project will eventually be crafted and implemented to meet the needs of neighbors and the Brighton Community, and that it will be a great success. Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern.
6.15 - The Daniele’s clearly are not concerned with the impact their proposal will have on the surrounding neighborhoods. Response: The applicant has made changes to the proposal during the EIS process because of concerns expressed by the neighbors including the removal of access points on Allen’s Creek Road and Clover Street. See response to comment 6.03.
FEIS January 2018 381
6.16 – Whole Foods announced on May 6, 2015, that they will be opening a 55,000-square foot market in Brighton, NY. This seems premature and gives the impression that residents' concerns are being ignored and that the developer is receiving special treatment or back-door deals...did Whole Foods actually make a real commitment to this site?[u18] Response: Whole Foods entered an agreement with the applicant which is contingent on the completion of this environmental review and all required municipal approvals. Without those approvals, the project cannot proceed.
6.17 – I am opposed to special interests dictating what my local community will become. The town should ask the community to vote on this rather than having the zoning/planning boards decide.[u19] Response: The proposal is entitled to review under Town Law. The Town Board will weigh all concerns expressed by neighbors in making their decision.
6.18 – It is frightening to think that other people are making decisions about our community without living here.[u20] Response: Comment is not a substantive environmental concern. See response to comment 6.03.
6.19 – If the Town Board approves this application with incentive zoning, that means that neighbors and residents basically have no say in what happens on this property.[u21] Response: See response to comment 6.03.
6.20 – None of the renderings of the project show any sensitivity to the surrounding residential neighbors and neighborhoods. Response: Please refer to the site plan at Figure 1 which includes landscape buffering, the conservation of existing woodlot and berming. Comments from the Town Board, Staff, Engineer and residents have required responses form the applicant to address noise, lighting, construction impact, traffic, etc.
FEIS January 2018 382
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 7 – ACCESS ROADS 7.01 – Under no circumstances should commercial access be allowed to the proposed development from Allen's Creek or Clover Street. Response: The access drives to Clover Street and Allens Creek Road have been removed from the project.
7.02 - Allen’s Creek and Clover Street is no place for an access road to commercial property; streets where there are only homes, two schools, and two churches. Doing so would intensify the risk for pedestrians and in our nearby school zones. Response: See response to comment 7.01.
7.04 – Even if the developers say they won't use the access roads as an entrance/egress for their plaza, how do we know that won't change in the future? Can a permanent agreement be put in place? What if the redevelopment proves the single exit onto Monroe Avenue to be insufficient? Response: Any change in access which is not consistent with an approved site plan is subject to review and approval by the Town Planning Board. The applicant is not permitted to make changes in the future without additional Town review. The applicant has indicated that they have no plans now or in the future to access Allens Creek Road or Clover Street.
7.05 – That road should be immediately torn up and the asphalt removed. Then a gravel pathway for only bikers, joggers and pedestrians to be put in. Response: The revised proposal includes a proposed trail in place of the road as suggested. The trail will be constructed or modified to conform with ASHTO standards as described in the DEIS and SDEIS. See SDEIS section 3.7.
FEIS January 2018 383
7.06 – What rights do the developers have to close both ends (Allen's Creek and Clover Street) of the access road to motorists? Response: The applicant does not have direct access to Clover Street though the Plaza, access could only be granted by the adjoining property owner. By replacing the access road with an improved trail, the applicant is able to eliminate vehicular access to Allens Creek.
7.07 – Will construction equipment use this road during the development of this parcel? Allowing that would be extremely detrimental to the neighborhood. Response: No, construction traffic would enter the site off Monroe Avenue.
7.08 – More people will avoid this stretch of Monroe Avenue, thereby increasing traffic on both Allen's Creek and Clover, whether or not there is an exit from this plaza onto those two roads. Response: See response to comment 2.06.
7.09 – Even if the access road is foregone by the developer, could the DOT overturn that decision and require the project to include public access roads? If so, this could be very detrimental to residents who live nearby. Response: The DOT does not have the authority to require additional access roads.
7.10 – A rear access road for this project would degrade the nature of this residential area and destroy the buffer between the commercial district and residential neighborhoods[u22]. Response: See response to comment 7.01.
7.11 – One issue that needs to be resolved is the developer's on-again, off-again promises to seal off the Clover Street and Allen's Creek road exists. Response: See response to comment 7.01.
FEIS January 2018 384
7.12 – The only way to ensure the rear access points remain closed is through a Restrictive Covenant/Negative Easement. Response: See response to comment 7.01.
7.13 – Most of the Alternate Plans proposed by the developer include rear access. Response: See response to comment 7.01. The alternates are included for a basis of comparison as required as part of the SEQRA evaluation; the applicant does not plan to pursue a project that includes access to Clover Street or Allen’s Creek Road.
7.14 – According to the DEIS, the report on woodlots east of the parcel are not subject to any town requirements. Therefore, it is possible that one day they could just be mowed down to make room for an access road. Response: All properties within the Town of Brighton are subject to local Zoning Law. Any modification to the woodlots, or any other property, would require review, and likely site plan approval, by the Town.
7.15 – "I don't understand why the Daniele’s have not been taken to task by the Town for paving what is supposed to be public land." What is being done to address this illegal act?[u23] Response: The Town is not aware and has no evidence that the applicant has paved public land.
7.16 – "Although I understand that business development on the Monroe Avenue corridor is appropriate and to be expected, having automobile overflow spill into surrounding residential neighborhoods is not in line with the development goals of the Town of Brighton. I am unaware of any business areas along Monroe Avenue that count on neighborhood residential streets for access, and I strongly oppose this aspect of the development"...I believe that traffic lights and other flow control strategies can effectively keep business traffic on Monroe Avenue and off of residential streets like Allen's Creek and Clover Street.[u24] Response: See response to comment 7.01.
FEIS January 2018 385
7.17 – If a rear inlet and exit were to be added by the Auburn Trail, there could be a very significant impact to Clover Street, Allens Creek, and other surrounding streets...what are all of the inlets and exits being proposed? How much will they increase traffic volume and traffic accidents?[u25] Response: See response to comment 7.01. The revised proposal consists of a signalized entrance on Monroe Avenue as depicted in the site plan and a “right-in, right- out” on Monroe Avenue, just west of the proposed traffic signal. No vehicular access is proposed on Clover Street or Allens Creek Road.
7.18 – We would very much like to see an upgrade to the Plaza (Whole Foods [Daniele]) property but not with any excess traffic flow onto Clover Street or Allens Creek; the access road should be returned to a biking and hiking trail, and all traffic from the project should enter/exit from Monroe Avenue.[u26] Response: See response to comment 7.01. All traffic is proposed to enter and exit via Monroe Avenue. The Auburn Trail will be constructed, including all necessary crosswalks by the applicant from Highland Ave to the Pittsford Town line.
7.19 – The proposed project would only be safer and succeed if access and egress to the property was allowed through residential neighborhoods. This would be a huge negative and burden to the surrounding neighborhood residents. Moreover, this type of access-use- planning is not allowed by the Town Code.[u27] Response: See response to comment 7.01.
7.20 – If a rear inlet and exit were to be added by the Auburn Trail, a hazardous situation will be created given the close proximity of the trail/access point to the intersection of Clover Street and Shoreham Drive, and could possibly cause accidents. There are already times when it is difficult to exit Shoreham onto Clover.[u28] Response: See response to comment 7.01.
FEIS January 2018 386
7.21 – I urge the Town Board to preserve the character of residential Brighton by upholding zoning code so that any and all vehicular access to the proposed project from Clover Street and Allens Creek Road is denied and prohibited, while scaling size back as to not degrade the traffic situation on Monroe Ave.[u29] Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.01(1). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
7.22 – If rear access is not allowed and the trail returned entirely to its intended purpose, and only its intended purpose, it would not only provide safe access for pedestrians, cyclists, and children to schools and to the Twelve Corners, but also have the added benefit of reducing traffic density overall during peak times.[u30] Response: See response to comment 7.01. The project includes the construction of the Auburn Trail from Highland Ave. to the Pittsford Town line, at the applicant’s expense. See SDEIS section 3.7 and Section 1.4 of this FEIS.
7.23 – Residential access will impact market value of nearby homes.[u31] Response: See response to comment 7.01.
7.24 – Please make sure the Auburn Trail, an asset to many pedestrians and bikers, is not sacrificed to this access road or other part of this ill-conceived project.[u32] Response: See response to comments 7.01 and 7.22.
FEIS January 2018 387
7.25 – With reduced development, there would be no need for vehicular access onto Allens Creek or Clover Street, and therefore increased traffic would not impact the children and schools.[u33] Response: See response to comment 7.01.
FEIS January 2018 388
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 8 – NEED FOR/TYPE OF RETAIL
8.01 – There is no need for additional retail space in the area. Response: The parcel is proposed to be developed with uses allowed in the BF-2 zoning district which permits retail. It is the applicants opinion that recent activity in the corridor has indicated that there is a desire for retail space in this area.
8.02 – There is no need for another grocery store in the area. We have enough food stores to select from - Wegmans, Tops, Trader Joe's and small Mom and Pop stores. Response: Whole Foods offers a variety of products not provided in the existing grocery stores.
8.03 – No justifications for another bank, another Starbucks, or another grocery store have been given...without this need, why the current proposal? Response: Comment represents the opinion of the commenter.
8.04 – This corridor has far too many banks as it is. Response: Comment represents the opinion of the commenter.
8.05 – We already have the flagship store of the #1 chain in America approximately 1 mile from the Proposed site. What is the justification for another grocery store of this magnitude on Monroe Avenue? Hasn't Wegmans always been responsive to the customers' needs? Response: See response to comment 8.02.
8.06 – The residents of Brighton don't need another grocery store, coffee shop, bank or novelty store. The proposed project merely duplicates services that are already abundantly available, and will create a traffic nightmare.
FEIS January 2018 389
Response: See response to comment 8.02. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
8.07 – Will another supermarket serving affluent residents of Brighton and Pittsford enhance local stature and satisfy an unfelt need? Response: The Whole Foods Store will offer a variety of products not currently available in the Monroe Avenue corridor, some of which are likely desired by residents of the Town.
8.08 – This project is not in the best interest of the community, partially because it duplicates services that are already abundantly available. Response: Comment represents the opinion of the commenter. See response to comment 8.02.
8.09 – This is an appropriate location for a commercial venture of this size and it will give us more options for shopping. Response: Comment noted.
8.10 – Bringing Starbucks to the proposed plaza is not just a lateral move down the street like the Developer suggests, because they intend to add a drive-thru which will result in higher traffic volumes (which we do not need). (According to the Starbucks CEO, that is why they plan to add drive-thrus to their locations - to increase the amount of traffic and revenue they get.)
FEIS January 2018 390
Response: While the moving of Starbucks from approx. 1000’ east of the proposed development is not an additional traffic generator on the corridor, for consistency, the TIS considers this Coffee Retail a new use for the purposes of trip generation, essentially over- estimating corridor traffic post development.
8.11 – "The one thing I've found lacking in Rochester is a Whole Foods! Yes, Wegmans is a great store but it is not Whole Foods and it does not offer what a person like myself wants and needs (I have been a natural/organic food enthusiast for around 40 years) ...it's beginning to seem like Wegmans has a desired monopoly...This is America and there is plenty of room for this business. There are many people who feel this way and I am hopeful that your board will support the feelings of all of us...Please bring Whole Foods to this area."[u34] Response: Comment represents the opinion of the commenter.
8.12 – "The world is ever changing and developing at a rate, which we can never truly go back to yesterday. Population is increasing, meaning more traffic along with the development of more buildings and facilities to accommodate to our needs. One thing we cannot compromise on is our family and providing them with the highest level of nutrition along with knowledge and education."[u35] Response: Whole Foods does offer organic, nutritional options not currently provided in existing grocery stores in the corridor. Comment noted.
8.13 – The types of retailers proposed are not all appropriate for the parcel in question. There is a reason that parcel is not currently zoned for drive through retail, drive through banking, or a 50,000-sq. ft. grocery store. It is because each of these creates a high volume of traffic - traffic that this section of Monroe Avenue cannot handle.[u36] Response: Drive thru retail and grocery stores are permitted uses in the BF-2 district. The need for a conditional use permit does not constitute a non-conforming use.
8.14 – I question the need for this and the possible vacancy rate of this mall; right now alone there is the Friendly's building and Rumi's restaurant which are vacant at this time on the south side of Monroe Avenue. We don't need another overbuilt plaza with nothing but empty stores...witness the egress of businesses from College Town.[u37]
FEIS January 2018 391
Response: The Friendly’s parcel was recently redeveloped. Approval has been received for the redevelopment of the former Rumi/ Pizza Hut building. There are very few vacancies in the Monroe Avenue Corridor.
8.15 – We do not need another specialty coffee shop or spa...at the very least the 1,920 SF and 6,500 SF out parcel building should be removed to allow for more green space along Monroe Avenue (green space we do need).[u38] Response: The coffee shop would be a relocation of an existing use. The other uses within the plaza have not yet been defined. Refer to Section 2.6 for discussion on Green Space.
8.16 – We do not need or want more stores bringing more gridlock to this area.[u39] Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.01(1). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30-minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour, a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay of 22.0 seconds from Westfall to Clover Street during the PM peak hour.. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30). The parcel is zoned BF-2 which permits retail uses.
FEIS January 2018 392
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 9 – PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
9.01 – The project should not encroach on residential property. Response: The applicant has offered several amenities in return for the encroachment onto the residential property as outlined in Section 1.6.
9.02 – The proximity to commercial shopping is a positive thing for neighbors; walkability to local shops is one of the great characteristics of Brighton. Response: The project includes improvements to enhance the existing pedestrian network in the corridor including upgrades to the trail system, sidewalks along Monroe Avenue and internal sidewalks.
9.03 – The proposed project is too large for how close it is to residential property. This is a bad location for this project. Response: The project is 19,600 SF larger than the density allowed by the existing zoning. In return, the developer has offered several amenities to improve the surrounding area for the residents of the Town. See Section 2.3 of this FEIS.
9.04 – It is nice to have a suburban community that offers proximity to all the opportunities of a larger city. Response: Comment represents the opinion of the commenter.
FEIS January 2018 393
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 10– QUALITY OF LIFE AND/OR CHARACTER 10.01 – The project will allow the private developer and out of town business tenants to profit, while Brighton residents are stuck with the traffic, diminished safety, and detriment to the character and value of our neighborhood and our quality of life. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.01(1). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds from Westfall to Clover Street during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
The applicant has also offered the construction of an Access Management Plan and other offsite pedestrian improvements to improve safety along the corridor and benefit the current residents of the Town. The Whole Foods Plaza is the redevelopment of a currently vacant parcel that introduces sustainable features to the site including landscaping, buffering, an improved Auburn Trail, pedestrian and bicycle accommodations as well as unique shopping options not currently found in the corridor.
The purpose of the EIS process is to ensure that all potential impacts to the community are examined and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable and to confirm that there will not be a substantial negative impact on the community. The Town Board as lead agency has considered all of the comments made during the public review period and will weigh them against the developer’s proposal as they prepare findings.
FEIS January 2018 394
10.02 – Brighton needs to remain a community where people want to live. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.03 – The proposed plan, as it currently stands, will degrade the quality of life for Brighton residents. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.04 – The project will negatively affect neighbors’ quality of life, because it will have a negative impact on the ease and safety of mobility on neighboring side streets for residents, families, walkers, bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.05 – The project will degrade residents' sense of safety in nearby neighborhoods, therefore negatively impacting their quality of life. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.06 – There is no value added for residents with this project; it is not in the best interest of the community. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.07 – The project and the traffic that will result from it will ruin the quiet neighborhood feel on surrounding streets. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project.
FEIS January 2018 395
Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
10.08 – Increased traffic negatively impacts the character of Brighton and quality of life for its residents, and increases safety concerns for children. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
10.09 – Increased traffic will destroy the residential nature of the Clover, Shoreham, and Allen's Creek neighborhoods and will diminish the quality of life in Brighton. Response: See response to comment 10.08. The project will not have ingress or egress to Clover St. or Allens Creek Rd.
10.10 – The redevelopment could revitalize this part of Brighton. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.11 – The Town of Brighton has vibe and culture all its own. "An environment that many people enjoy, love, and even worship." The Town cannot allow the developers to destroy the fabric of the Brighton community. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
FEIS January 2018 396
10.12 – If the project causes a significant increase in traffic on nearby residential streets, it will degrade the quiet neighborhood feel of the streets and thereby negatively affect residents’ quality of life. Response: See response 10.09.
10.13 – The project, as it is currently presented, is not responsible development and will have a major impact on quality of life. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.14 – There is a strong sense of community here, that could be threatened by this project. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.15 – Our way of life stands to suffer if this project goes through. We cannot and should not have to deal with an influx of cars cutting through our streets. Response: It is anticipated that the majority of vehicles entering and exiting the project will use the arterial streets (Monroe, Clover) to reach their destination points without any significant impact on the neighborhood streets. The project was redesigned to remove access points to Allens Creek Road and Clover Street thus reducing the potential of non- local vehicles utilizing these roadways. Additionally, as part of the EIS process, it was determined that the traffic signal at Clover and Monroe was not functioning as designed by the NYSDOT as part of their recent lane improvement project along Monroe Avenue.
The traffic on the Avenue was only getting approximately 40 seconds of green time which lead to lengthy backups in the east-west direction and subsequently led to people using the local streets as cut through to avoid the congestion. Since this discovery the NYSDOT has increased green time to over 65 seconds which has greatly improved congestion on Monroe Avenue as evidenced by field observations over a two-month timeframe in September and October of 2016. The improvement to traffic conditions reduces congestion and the likelihood of cut through traffic. As shown in the revised TIS, the project is not projected to have a significant negative impact on the traffic along Monroe Avenue and therefor, will not cause additional cut through traffic. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
FEIS January 2018 397
10.16 – The importance of the quality of life of our current and future Brighton residents should be considered over the constant expansion of financially-motivated developers. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.17 – We are concerned that the Whole Foods Project will change our area of Brighton, and our Neighborhood will become more commercial-like and make the area worse not better. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.18 – The project will adversely affect the safety, health, welfare and quality of life of the public and resident of Brighton. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.19 – "We live in a world where there are food allergies, autoimmune deficiencies and diseases only to name a few, which require a strict diet and I too am on a very tough anti- inflammatory diet. Unfortunately, I cannot find many of the items which I am allowed to consume, further limiting an already restrictive diet. Whole Foods, with their vast array and abundant supply of products has items for most anyone on a strict diet or one who is dealing with a health situation. Unfortunately, many of the local grocery stores are not equipped to handle these situations nor are they taking steps to move forward with the needs of the public." Response: Whole Foods offers a variety of healthy food choices which are not currently available in the area.
10.20 – Please look to the future of your family and making sure that we are providing our families with the highest quality and choice of foods for a better quality of life. Response: See response to comment 10.19.
10.21 – This development is the tipping point that could ruin quality of life for the residents of Brighton. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
FEIS January 2018 398
10.22 – "My quality of life on Shoreham Drive for the past 35 years should not be taken away from me...I don't want to be that house next to CVS!" Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.23 – "As stated by the Court of Appeals, 'in considering the secondary and long-term effects of this project on population patterns and neighborhood character, respondents must look to more than the potential effects of this one parcel and must consider the potential impacts on the surrounding community.' Chinese staff & workers Ass'n v. New York, 68 N.Y.2d 359, 367-68 (1986). Since the Developer has failed to do this here, the DEIS is patently deficient, so the Town Board should require the Developer to fix those deficiencies." Response: The Town Board has carefully examined both the DEIS and SDEIS and determined the documents to be complete in accordance with the approved EIS scope. The FEIS raises and addresses environmental concerns as they relate to surrounding neighborhoods throughout.
10.24 – "For people with dietary restrictions and preferences for organic, non-GMO foods, it gives more options. Right now, shopping in Wegmans, you can only shop in Nature's Marketplace and produce. Nothing else meets the needs of people with dietary restrictions. Whole Foods gives more options! Whole Foods has a larger selection, different, more diverse brands to accommodate the consumer choice." Response: See response to comment 10.19.
10.25 – "This type of development would undoubtedly affect the Town’s “community character” (i.e., “existing patterns of population concentration, distribution or growth, and existing community or neighborhood character”). SEQR Handbook at p. 87. The Developer boasts about the benefits this proposal will bring to the community and how it will improve and “transform this section of Monroe Avenue.” DEIS at ES-3. However, these changes, which by the Developer’s own admissions will occur, are either given lip service (such as the traffic analysis), or are otherwise ignored (population growth, commercialization of surrounding residential neighborhoods, etc.)." Response: See response to comment 10.15.
FEIS January 2018 399
10.26 – "Studies have shown that once congestion hits a certain level, the quality of life of people making those commutes starts to decline, as does area job growth." Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
10.27 – The adjoining residential neighborhoods will be impacted by the increased traffic volume, noise and light pollution, and possibly break-in crimes.[u40] Response: It is anticipated that the majority of vehicles entering and exiting the project will use the arterial streets (Monroe, Clover) to reach their destination points without any significant impact on the neighborhood streets. The project was redesigned to remove access points to Allens Creek Road and Clover Street thus reducing the potential of non- local vehicles utilizing these roadways. Additionally, as part of the EIS process, it was determined that the traffic signal at Clover and Monroe was not functioning as designed by the NYSDOT as part of their recent lane improvement project along Monroe Avenue. The traffic on the Avenue was only getting approximately 40 seconds of green time which lead to lengthy backups in the east-west direction and subsequently led to people using the local streets as cut through to avoid the congestion. Since this discovery the NYSDOT has increased green time to over 65 seconds which has greatly improved congestion on Monroe Avenue as evidenced by field observations over a two-month timeframe in September and October of 2016. The improvement to traffic conditions reduces congestion and the likelihood of cut through traffic.
FEIS January 2018 400
For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
10.28 – Brighton is already a great place to raise a family as it is, with an exceptional school system, an important sense of community, safe, friendly neighborhoods, and it offers a large number of amenities to enjoy.[u41] Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.29 – Our residential neighborhood (Shoreham Drive) is peaceful, safe and quiet, while at the same time located within a convenient distance from all the commercial amenities that the Monroe Avenue corridor in Brighton and Pittsford has to offer. Despite its proximity to local commerce our neighborhood has been buffered from the commercial district that is so close by; we hope it will stay that way and that the developer is not allowed to change the character of Brighton or our way of life.[u42] Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.30 – This project will have a significant impact on the children attending the Harley and Allendale Columbia Schools. If there is increased traffic on Clover Street and Allen's Creek, it will force children to sit longer in their busses or waiting for their parents to pick them up, as well as increase the risk of accidents. I hope that the profit and business will not be increased at the cost of these children's needs and rights.[u43]
Response: It is anticipated that most vehicles entering and exiting the project will use Monroe Avenue to reach their destination points without any significant impact on the
FEIS January 2018 401
neighborhood streets. The project was redesigned to remove access points to Allens Creek Road and Clover Street thus reducing the potential of non-local vehicles utilizing these roadways. Additionally, as part of the EIS process, it was determined that the traffic signal at Clover and Monroe was not functioning as designed by the NYSDOT as part of their recent lane improvement project along Monroe Avenue. The traffic on the Avenue was only getting approximately 40 seconds of green time which lead to lengthy backups in the east-west direction and subsequently led to people using the local streets as cut through to avoid the congestion. Since this discovery, the NYSDOT has increased green time to over 65 seconds which has greatly improved congestion on Monroe Avenue as evidenced by field observations over a two-month timeframe in September and October of 2016. The improvement to traffic conditions reduces congestion and the likelihood of cut through traffic. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.01(1). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in moderate increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30-minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour, a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with maximum eastbound delay increases of 22.0 seconds from Westfall Road to Clover Street. In most cases vehicles will pass through the intersections in a single light cycle. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and more importantly, traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
10.31 – Having access to a food selection like what Whole Foods offers is crucial to my daily life, as I suffer from severe health issues. Rochester is lacking options for those who need to follow strict diets for health reasons. This need could be fulfilled by Whole Foods and improve the quality of life for many residents.[u44] Response: See response to comment 10.19.
FEIS January 2018 402
10.32 – Brighton will be "Brighterton" when we finally get a beautiful, glorious Whole Foods.[u45] Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.33 – Whole Foods affirmative, additional shops negative...Whole Foods would be an asset to the community and bring a positive contribution to the quality of life for many who buy from Whole Foods; however the inclusion of additional shops will decrease the quality of life for a multitude of other individuals in the area.[u46] Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.34 – This is a quality of life issue for our town and the Board needs to understand that.[u47] Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.35 – I am concerned that this project could change the character of Monroe Avenue and Brighton. Brighton residents believe in keeping a small town quality of life here.[u48] Response: See response to comment 10.01.
10.36 – It is embarrassing that this discussion even has to occur - to decide whether or not to allow an unnecessary development that will benefit just a few, while severely jeopardizing pedestrian safety, leading to increased accidents and shattered and lost lives on an already overburdened and dangerous road. There is no doubt that if this project is approved it will lead to an increase in pedestrian/vehicular accidents that would not have occurred if the project was not allowed to proceed.[u49] Response: The project includes improvements to the section of Monroe Avenue from Route 590 to Clover street as envisioned in the Town of Brighton’s 2011 Community Vision Plan. Those improvements include the implementation of the access management plan, construction of the Auburn Trail and increased property tax revenue to fund educational and municipal services essential to maintain and enhance Brighton’s quality of life.
FEIS January 2018 403
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 11– TAXES 11.01 – With the increase in traffic generated by the project, more tax dollars will end up going towards the cost of maintaining roads. Response: The increase in tax revenue generated by the redevelopment of these parcels and the addition of a currently tax-exempt piece of Church property will contribute to any potential impact on potential increase in road maintenance costs. Monroe Ave. is a State highway, Clover St. and Allens Creek Road are County highways. None are maintained by the Town of Brighton.
11.02 – Does the potential gain in sales tax outweigh citizen concerns about increased congestion, accidents, and general dissent and dissent with our town government? Response: The potential increase in sales and property tax revenue is only one portion of the project that the Town will consider during the review. The Town Board acting as Lead Agent will weigh the potential increase in tax revenue against all other potential environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures, incentives and amenities that are presented as part of the developer’s proposal. This includes the potential impact of the proposal to existing properties in the project area. Refer to Community Service Response #2 – Page 74 of this FEIS.
The Town recognizes that there are other grocery stores in the area and a percentage of the current sales tax at those facilities could be diverted to the Whole Foods. That possibility is part of the Town’s analysis in determining the appropriate findings for the project.
11.03 – If stores like Starbucks move into the plaza, taxes will just stay the same, not increase, because they are not new to the area. Response: Correct, however, a new retail use will likely occupy the former Starbucks Space.
FEIS January 2018 404
11.04 – A significant increase in tax base should not be the Town’s only concern. Response: See response to comment 11.02.
11.05 – Please spend "our tax money" by hiring an independent firm to conduct traffic analysis that is not local or associated with the developer. Response: The Town has hired an independent traffic consultant, Stantec, to assist the Town in their traffic review.
11.06 – There has already been a noticeable increase in "Home for Sale" signs in this vicinity. That's not exactly good news for the tax base. Response: See response to comment 10.01.
11.07 – The project will result in lost revenue for other local businesses, and therefore tax revenue as more people start to avoid Monroe Avenue for their shopping and dining needs. Response: See response to comment 11.02.
11.08 – The Town may see higher tax revenue with this project, but there is too much congestion there already. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
11.09 – "I want Whole Foods and other national businesses to find Brighton an attractive location to develop. I want the tax base that they can bring."
FEIS January 2018 405
Response: Comment noted.
11.10 – "The Developer claims that developing the site under existing zoning regulations would reduce the property tax and sales tax revenue increases from the redevelopment, would not be financially viable and would result in a negative return on investment, and would not "reflect the goals of the Project Sponsor or future tenants...There is no evidence to support this conclusion." Response: As part of their current contract with Whole Foods, which is contingent on all local approvals, the developer is not able to disclose the terms of the potential lease and therefor, cannot provide definitive numbers regarding the project pro forma. In exchange for the project incentives, including an additional 19,600 sf of density, the applicant has agreed to provide amenities to ensure that the project is a benefit to the Town. Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
11.11 – "This project will bring tax dollars to support our schools and community." Response: As presented in the DEIS, the project would result in an increase in the Town’s tax base.
11.12 – What tax benefits will this bring to the community? "As a resident, the only benefit of having this development would be a tax, yet someone told me that they were receiving a special tax consideration and reduction. That is totally unacceptable and I hope that is not true. The proposal is not worth considering unless the additional tax from the property will enable Brighton to make significant improvements such as the necessary school renovations that have been proposed. Will the additional tax revenue offset the additional tax burden that residents incur for these renovations? The Town should do all it can to maximize taxes on the property" if the project is approved. The Town's evaluation should not be made at the expense of the safety and quality of life of its residents.[u50] Response: Any project that is completed on the subject parcel will be subject to a fair assessment for determining the taxable value. The developer has agreed not to seek abatements, PILOT’s, or COMIDA programs and will pay the full tax rate should the project move forward.
FEIS January 2018 406
11.13 – Who owns/has owned the property that the illegal parking lot is on behind Mario's? I assume the church would typically be tax exempt, but have the Daniele’s (or the church) been paying property taxes for commercial use of this property after it was paved? If not, why not? What right was there to pave it?[u51] Response: The Church owns the land in question.
11.14 – Brighton needs the tax revenue for the town and more importantly for the school district.[u52] Response: See response to comment 11.11.
11.15 – We should not have to subsidize terrible traffic... Brighton residents pay high taxes in this town, and Town Board members are elected by the tax payers. If the Board does not adequately safeguard these tax payers' neighborhoods, then the members are not fulfilling their major obligation to adopt protections for residents and their property.[u53] Response: See response to comment 10.15.
11.16 – Any increase in taxes that results from this project will be offset by the decrease in taxes yielded by the reduced value of the surrounding residential properties.[u54] Response: See response to comment 11.02.
FEIS January 2018 407
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 12– USAGE/WHOLE FOODS AS ANCHOR TENANT 12.01 – Because of the size differential between Wegmans and Whole Foods, it would be senseless for Whole Foods to take on Wegmans in any other department apart from prepared foods. Response: Whole Foods has conducted their own internal market study and has determined that a store in this location will be economically viable.
12.02 – Including a drive-up bank, a drive-in Starbucks, and a prepared foods department will generate higher numbers of patrons than a general grocery store. Response: See Section 2.2 of this FEIS for projected traffic. They include traffic generated by the Whole Foods, plus traffic generated by other proposed uses identified on the plan including the Starbucks. The Starbucks does have a higher “rate” of traffic generation when comparing the uses in terms of square footage.
12.03 – We already have the flagship store of the #1 chain in America approximately 1 mile from the proposed site. What is the justification for another grocery store of this magnitude on Monroe Avenue? Response: Whole Foods offers a variety of healthy and sustainable foods options, many of which are not available at existing local grocers. See response to comment 12.01.
12.04 – The usage being proposed for the lots coincides with higher traffic volumes than some other retailers. Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS for specific traffic generation estimates Grocery Stores generate more traffic than some retail uses and less than others.
12.05 – Having multiple drive-thru tenants would create too much traffic for the property and location. Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS for specific traffic generation estimates. A single drive thru is considered as part of the proposal.
FEIS January 2018 408
12.06 – Whole Foods will generate too much traffic as a tenant for this site. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
12.07 – What major benefit does establishing a Whole Foods at that location bring to the Town of Brighton? Response: See response to comment 12.03. Additionally, the redevelopment of the currently vacant plaza provides the opportunity to include sustainable building practices, landscaping and a variety of pedestrian and bicycle improvements.
12.08 – The use of that land for this project is inappropriate. Response: Comment noted.
12.09 – Does Whole Foods financial problem - slowing sales and discontent with high prices present possible future issues for this project? What if it closes and leaves a huge empty building on a highly visible parcel of Brighton property? Response: Whole Foods signed a 20-year lease as part of this project with up to an additional 20 years of extensions. According to its web page, Whole Foods has 473 stores in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. In 2017, Whole Foods was purchased by Amazon Corporation.
FEIS January 2018 409
12.10 – Why is the Whole Foods in this proposal double the size of an average Whole Foods? Is this being driven by Whole Foods or by the Developer looking to maximize ROI?[u55] Response: The average Whole Foods store is 39,000 square feet. The proposed store is 28% larger than the average Whole Food store and 37% smaller than the largest Whole Foods store. For comparison, the Pittsford Wegmans store is 124,000 sf in size. The size of the store is based on Whole Foods’. Whole Foods has conducted on analysis based on the area demographics to determine the necessary “basket size” per visitor and the corresponding inventory needed to achieve that number.
12.11 – Not opposed to a Whole Foods store, but placement of it where it can better handle the traffic seems rather logical. Why is it so important to have it built right in that spot? Why not put it out by City Gate or U of R? Response: Comment acknowledged but does not pertain to the application.
12.12 – Would love to have a Whole Foods grocery store in our community. They will bring nice options for our community. Response: Comment noted.
12.13 – The desire to redesign the land use in question is understandable, but a lower traffic option would be preferable. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. As demonstrated by the Alternatives analysis other potential uses within the plaza result in similar impact.
12.14 – Whole Foods is overpriced. Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 410
12.15 – A use more like Mario's restaurant, with most of its customers coming after peak hours would be more appropriate and create less traffic than a Whole Foods and retail plaza. Response: Refer to response to comment 12.13.
12.16 – There is no need for another grocery store in the area. We have enough food stores to select from - Wegmans, Tops, Trader Joe's and small Mom and Pop stores. Response: Comment noted.
12.17 – Would love to have a Whole Foods grocery store in the area, but it just doesn't fit the space. Response: Comment noted.
12.18 – Not opposed to having a Whole Foods in our area. It is a wonderful store and there is confidence that the town will do whatever it takes to make this a smooth and safe transition for our community. Response: Comment noted.
12.19 – Franchises come and go leaving vacancies. Response: Whole Foods is not owner as a franchise, it will be a company owned store. The applicant has indicated that Whole Foods has agreed to a 20-year lease with up to 20 more years of extensions.
12.20 – The pursuit of Whole Foods as a tenant for this property was unwise and an example of pure greed. Response: Comment noted.
12.21 – If this area was undeveloped, then it might be of concern. That is not the case. This will only replace existing businesses. Response: The redevelopment of an existing vacant space is preferred when compared to a “green field” site.
FEIS January 2018 411
12.22 – While there are valid traffic concerns that deserve answers, "I find myself increasingly in favor of the proposed Whole Foods development, even at the scale the Daniele’s are proposing." Response: Comment noted.
12.23 – Whole Foods is a welcome grocery store in California and you will not hear of a "push back" to having them come in to any community which they are trying to bring in the highest quality of organic staples including nutrients and dietary supplements as well. Response: Comment noted.
12.24 – The mom and pop local grocery stores or natural food centers or corporate grocery stores which state they serve the community with organic are more about promoting their own line of food with their labels and the quantity of organic food available to purchase is at such a minimal and at exuberant prices. Additionally, and unlike Whole Foods, the quality of organic fresh fruit and vegetables at local grocery stores is below par and not to the level of the quality that the public should be receiving. Response: Comment noted.
12.25 – Whole Foods gives back to the communities in which they are located and provides an arena in which Whole Foods as well as the customer can be a part of a community outreach by way of donations to areas of the world which are in need of clean water and food to feed less fortunate families. Response: Comment noted.
12.26 – "We live in a world where there are food allergies, autoimmune deficiencies and diseases only to name a few, which require a strict diet and I too am on a very tough anti- inflammatory diet. Unfortunately, I cannot find many of the items which I am allowed to consume, further limiting an already restrictive diet. Whole Foods, with their vast array and abundant supply of products has items for most anyone on a strict diet or one who is dealing with a health situation.
FEIS January 2018 412
Unfortunately, many of the local grocery stores are not equipped to handle these situations nor are they taking steps to move forward with the needs of the public." Response: Whole Foods does offer a variety of healthy dietary options not currently available in the area.
12.27 – For those who are opposed to Whole Foods, they have the right to continue to shop at the grocery store of their choice. Response: Comment noted.
12.28 – Starbucks should not move or add a drive-thru. Response: Comment noted.
12.29 – Many Whole Foods also include a Tap Room or restaurant, in addition to offering classes to the community. On one hand this is good; on the other hand that could mean more traffic than is currently being calculated. It is hard to make an informed decision when we don’t know exactly what is planned...we need more information. Response: A restaurant is not proposed within the Whole Foods buildings. See section VII-C of the TIS for an explanation on the methods for determining the projected volume of traffic generated by the proposal.
12.30 – Whole Foods is not a run of the mill grocery store, and it will be the only WF store between Albany any Toronto - it will be a destination. Therefore, traffic will increase more than they say or think it will. Response: The Traffic Impact Study for the Wegmans Food market & Bank located on East Avenue prepared in June 2004 by FRA Engineering was reviewed for comparison purposes. That study notes on page 8 that “Because of its urban location the trip rates for this store are skewed as many patrons frequent the store several times per week, often on their way home from work, versus completing one large shopping trip on the weekends, which is typical of other store locations. As a result, the calculated trip generation rate for the existing store is 2.85 times higher than that of the average Wegmans Food Market (including 15 or more stores greater than 90,000 SF in size).”
FEIS January 2018 413
The East Avenue Wegmans store is not considered a comparable use based upon its urban location and trip generation characteristics. This also explains why Whole Foods urban locations are inappropriate to use for trip generation estimates for this suburban location on Monroe Avenue. The closest Whole Foods store is in Amherst, NY, near Buffalo. SRF researched available data on Whole Foods stores throughout the country and reviewed more than seven traffic studies. These traffic studies were found to have also utilized ITE data for grocery stores or they were in dense urban areas and used trip generation rates specific to this type of area. None of the data available was appropriate for use at the proposed Monroe Avenue site. Additionally, there was a post development study completed for a Whole Foods store in Darien, CT approximately six months after that store opened. That study showed that the actual traffic volumes generated by the store were almost 34% lower during the PM peak hour and 27% lower during the Saturday peak hour than the volumes projected, and utilized for mitigation purposes, in the original study. The applicant is confident that the traffic volumes projected and utilized for analysis purposes in the SRF study are appropriate and likely overestimated.
12.31 – "Whole Foods merely offers a very expensive version of groceries already available at R’s Market, Wegmans, and Trader Joe's." Response: See response to comment 12.26.
12.32 – "For people with dietary restrictions and preferences for organic, non-GMO foods, it gives more options. Right now, shopping in Wegmans, you can only shop in Nature's Marketplace and produce. Nothing else meets the needs of people with dietary restrictions. Whole Foods gives more options! Whole Foods has a larger selection, different, more diverse brands to accommodate the consumer choice." Response: See response to comment 12.26.
12.33 – "Why a 34,000 sq.-ft. multiple-tenant retail plaza in addition to a 50,000 sq.-ft. (vs. 20,000 Code) Whole Foods? There are plenty of empty storefronts already." Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 414
12.34 – "They want to bring in a grocer which can't even seem to keep its production facility up to Federal standards for cleanliness." Response: Comment noted.
12.35 – "What protection do residents have if the supersized retail store is approved but Whole Foods pulls out? There is no protection that this retail will remain 'luxury.'" Response: Any significant change in use is subject to Town Zoning Law and an Environmental review.
12.36 – "The Monroe Avenue area offers a wide variety of shopping and restaurants and is understandably a desirable location for new businesses...Whole Foods clearly would be an asset to this area." Response: Comment noted.
12.37 – "I do not understand the desire to redesign the land use in question, but a lower traffic option would be preferable." Response: Other development alternatives studied as part of the SDEIS generate comparable traffic rates and resulting impact. See section 7.0 of the SDEIS.
12.38 – "Build up the community for the younger generation...we want options." Response: Comment noted.
12.39 – The Whole Foods Project would be an asset to the Town of Brighton. There are a lot of people out there, including many people in our neighborhood near Twelve Corners, who support this project, are looking forward to the arrival of Whole Foods, and hope that this project moves forward, despite the very vocal opposition by a few.[u56] Response: Comment noted.
12.40 – "My suggestion is that this land parcel would best be developed for apartments, such as the style of the Renaissance, Georgian Court-Westminster or Pittsford Village-Carriage Hill.
FEIS January 2018 415
The Renaissance is situated atop the 490 expressway and the East Avenue-Penfield Road intersection. So it appears that living atop and expressway can be A-OK. An apartment complex would have minimal impact on Monroe Avenue traffic."[u57] Response: A Multi-Unit residential development is not a permitted use by zoning code and not the desired development of the applicant at this time.
12.41 – "I like the availability of local businesses in Brighton. These individual businesses contribute to the unique character, diversity and identity of Brighton in a way that branches of national chains cannot. Although I would rather the Town spend its efforts encouraging development by local businesses rather than national chains such as Whole Foods, I do not oppose any corporate chains coming to Brighton, nor do I oppose Whole Foods in particular. I do oppose this particular Whole Foods project as proposed."[u58] Response: Comment noted.
12.42 – Completely opposed to the proposed development of a Whole Foods on Monroe Avenue...that location cannot support such a high volume business that, as it is proposed, would cause major traffic flow problems.[u59] Response: See response to comment 1.02.
12.43 – Not opposed to having a Whole Foods, but it needs to be scaled back to accommodate the needs of the community and minimize the traffic impact.[u60] Response: See response to comment 1.02.
12.44 – The Town of Brighton and its residents do not benefit from this usage in this specific case.[u61] Response: The Town Board will consider all potential impacts to neighboring properties, both negative and positive, when preparing the SEQRA findings.
FEIS January 2018 416
12.45 – Perhaps a different usage would be more appropriate, such as keeping two popular restaurant sites open and updating the bowling alley as a family entertainment center, with a freshly paved parking lot with wonderful landscaping...this would be more in keeping with the community Vision Plan.[u62] Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 417
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 13– SCALE AND DENSITY 13.01 – The scale of the proposed plan is too large; the project is oversized for the parcel of land in question. Response: The area of land within the BF-2 zoning district is 7.04 acres which allows a density of 70,400 sf (7.04 acres * 10,000 sf/acre). The applicant’s proposal includes 90,000 sf or 19,600 sf more than what’s permitted by the underlying zoning. The applicant has chosen to pursue Incentive Zoning to permit the additional building area rather than pursue an area variance with the Town Zoning Board of Appeals. In addition to the building area, there are other “incentives” required to allow the project to move forward including setbacks, parking in the residential zone and the allowance of a 50,000-sf building without the need for a conditional use permit. The BF-2 zoning district permits a maximum building size of 20,000 sf without the need for a conditional use permit; however, under normal circumstances, if an applicant can comply with the - conditional use permit standards and requirements of the Town of Brighton Comprehensive Development Regulations, the Planning Board can grant a larger footprint without Incentive Zoning approval.
In accordance with the Town’s incentive zoning ordinance and NYS SEQRA Title 6 NYCRR Part 617, the applicant must demonstrate that the project will not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties and that any potential impact has been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, the applicant must provide amenities for the benefit of the public in return for the requested invectives. The Town Board as Lead Agency for the SEQRA review is charged with weighing the potential environmental impacts, requested incentives and amenities, and then issuing a findings statement to conclude the SEQRA process. As part of that process, the Town Board will consider the potential impact of additional square footage above the density permitted by the Town of Brighton Comprehensive Development Regulations and may make environmental findings concerning the project density. If development on the site were to proceed without the use of incentive zoning, the Town could not require the applicant to provide offsite amenities like construction of the Auburn trail and the Access Management
FEIS January 2018 418
Plan. In addition, the Town could not prevent the applicant from seeking COMIDA tax abatements.
Reducing the density of the project may have the potential benefit of improving internal traffic flow, enhancing the aesthetics of the project, preserving more green space, reducing impervious coverage and reducing delays on Monroe Avenue. The Town will also have the discretion to visit the issue of density in its substantive consideration of the Incentive Zoning application.
13.02 – Why not scale back the plan and allow for human interaction and enjoyment, instead of just maximizing the ROI? Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.03 – The project's scale and density is not in keeping with responsible development. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.04 – Not opposed to redevelopment of the property so long as it is done on a responsible scale. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.05 – What are the required number of parking spaces for the project? It is likely that a project of this scale will not have enough parking and people will probably use Shoreham Drive as overflow parking for the plaza. Response: The proposed parking is compliant with Town zoning requirements. See Table 3.1 of the SDEIS for a parking summary by land use.
13.06 – The density of the proposed project is not desirable and will create a level of traffic that will overwhelm the space. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be
FEIS January 2018 419
added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
As demonstrated by the Alternatives analysis other potential uses within the plaza result in similar impact. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
13.07 – The private developer must mitigate the density of use on his own property, and if he is unable to meet established standards for traffic and safety, then it is his burden to decrease the project's density. Response: See response to comments 13.01 and 13.06. The project proposes several safety improvements to the corridor including the access management plan, traffic signal and construction of the Auburn Trail.
13.08 – Do not let this developer exceed the existing code requirements on size and density. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.09 – "Whole Foods is zoned for 20,000 square feet, not 53,000 square feet." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.10 – Square footage of use space within the proposed plaza is not related to the vehicular activity. Number of individual sales is the driver that determines the level of congestion. Response: See response to comment 12.30.
FEIS January 2018 420
13.11 – The proposed variance would allow the property to accommodate a grocery store whose proposed size is 250% of the zoning regulation. Response: See response to comment 13.01. For clarification, the applicant is not seeking a variance. The building size is examined as part of the incentive zoning process.
13.12 – It is clear that the developer will continue to maximize the size of the development at the expense of the resident requests and justify it with inaccurate, misleading traffic numbers. Response: See response to comment 12.30.
13.13 – A larger development could be damaging to the special environment of the surrounding neighborhoods and is not in the best interests of the residents. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.14 – A smaller, suitably-sized, pleasantly designed plaza could be a great compromise to Brighton, without destroying the wonderful neighborhood that we love. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.15 – The Whole Foods Plaza plan is too large, too aggressive and too ambitious in design, scale and proposed use - it is an example of poor planning. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.16 – The scale of the proposed project surpasses the capacity of the infrastructure. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
FEIS January 2018 421
13.17 – The Board should only allow conditional approval, starting with a smaller Whole Foods only. If it goes well, then maybe permit incremental approval for some part of the larger project. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.18 – 91% blacktop instead of 60% is unacceptable. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.19 – 150% over what the lot is zoned for is unacceptable. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.20 – The project needs right use density; "and we can't tell what that is until we have the proper traffic numbers." Response: See response to comment 12.30.
13.21 – Several courts have struck down EISs for failing to consider reasonable smaller-sized projects. (Environmental Quality Review in New York § 5.14[2][f] at FNs 89-91). Response: The applicant has provided an alternatives analysis in accordance with the adopted EIS Scope which includes a 70,400 SF Alterative #6 which complies with the parcel’s density limitations.
13.22 – "We...are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to bring Whole Foods to Monroe Avenue to be developed in full size." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.23 – "The Developer has repeatedly stated that it is asking for less than other developers have already received in other parts of the Monroe Avenue Corridor. The actual question is what is the capacity of the infrastructure to handle this proposal? The Applicant should instead provide evidence of any major development like this – adding 20,000 ft plus in building space and a major change in use being approved in Brighton where the intersections were, prior to approval, already at failing (“F”) levels."
FEIS January 2018 422
Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. As demonstrated by the Alternatives analysis other potential uses within the plaza result in similar impact.
A development plan which complies with the maximum density requirements of the commercial zoning code would have similar impacts, including the need for a traffic signal. Marios’s Restaurant, Clover Lanes and Mamasans restaurant have historically produced traffic at comparable levels without any mitigation. The proposed light has been designed so that it will allow vehicles to exit the site at times when there isn’t a heavy queue on Monroe Avenue. This is accomplished with the coordination of the Monroe Avenue / Clover Street light. Please reference the revised TIS included in the SDEIS for additional details. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
13.24 – "Why a 34,000 sq.-ft. multiple-tenant retail plaza in addition to a 50,000 sq.-ft. (vs. 20,000 Code) Whole Foods? There are plenty of empty storefronts already." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.25 – "Open space within the residential area should be very large with respect to the amount of commercial activity planned in the residential area, without tax relief for the commercial owner." Response: The project includes the permeant preservation of open space fronting on Clover Street. The applicant has agreed not to seek COMIDA or other tax abatements for this project.
13.26 – "Zoning variances are excessive. The most egregious being the fact that the retail space exceeds zoning/density by 150% This should be scaled back to the restricted levels for grocery stores (20k vs. the proposed 55k)."
FEIS January 2018 423
Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.27 – "I feel that there has been a dishonest presentation of the project to the public. Most discussions have discussed the Whole Foods building and Starbucks. However, their proposal includes another building in back with 5 or 6 additional stores. This is a massive development!"[u63]. Response: The EIS examines the impact of all buildings and uses presented in the Site Plan.
13.28 – "The plan is to put 94,000 SF where 60,000 is allowed."[u64] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.29 – Development on a smaller scale would be much more appropriate for this area. It would also have less impact on Monroe Avenue traffic, as well as protect the quality of the neighborhoods with preserved tree lines, landscaping, and safe pedestrian access and walkability on the trails and in the neighborhoods.[u65] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
13.30 – Residents should be provided with legal protections against overbuilding of this site.[u66] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
FEIS January 2018 424
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 14– SURFACE WATER AND DRAINAGE 14.01 – The project will have a negative impact on ground water pollution. Response: Currently the vacant parcel does not contain stormwater management which would treat runoff for quantity or quality. The untreated runoff enters the storm sewer system and then is discharged to surface water.
The project would be required to comply with the NYSDEC General Permit for stormwater discharges as well as the Town of Brighton’s stormwater regulations. In both cases, the applicant is required to provide measures for Water Quality Treatment, Runoff reduction and Green Infrastructure. Prior to construction, the applicant must demonstrate that the project meets or exceeds all applicable stormwater requirements to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and NYSDEC. Only then could the project proceed.
The current proposal includes several stormwater practices including biofiltration areas, underground storage and pervious pavement. The performance of the practices in comparison to the State and Town Requirements is contained with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). See appendix 6. The bioretention area is designed to filter out pollutants included suspended solids (i.e. salt), nitrogen and phosphorus. The underground storage is designed to detain the stormwater on site and release it slowly over time to reduce the potential for downstream flooding.
The proposal does include an increase in impervious surface when compared to existing conditions. The project is required to treat the additional surface area, as well as existing pavement areas to reduce the amount of water leaving the site compared to current conditions. The SWPPP includes a table demonstrating that under developed conditions, there will be less runoff exiting the site because of the installed stormwater practices.
FEIS January 2018 425
14.02 – The project is just one huge parking lot, featuring too high of a ratio of impervious surface. Response: See response to comment 14.01.
14.03 – The current plan includes too much impermeable surface area, which will increase runoff and therefore increase the risk of flooding surrounding properties...The Town should require that a study be done on flooding. Response: See response to comment 14.01.
14.04 – The project should consider National Best Practices to eliminate run-off of solvent waste, cleaning waste, and pesticides. Response: See response to comment 14.01.
14.05 – The proposed project should include a comprehensive review of Irondequoit Creek with regard to current run-off and contribution to the Great Lakes. Response: The Town of Brighton has specific regulations for parcels within the Irondequoit Bay watershed. The applicant is required to comply with those requirements.
14.06 – With regard to surface water - please consider more than 24 hour / 100-year storm events for the baseline models. Response: The SWPPP includes an analysis of the 2 yr, 10 yr and 100 yr storm events.
14.07 – With regard to surface water - please consider snow removal and salt migration. Response: See response to comment 14.01.
14.08 – With regard to surface water - please consider the benefit and model the performance of a run-off collector basin. Response: See response to comment 14.01.
FEIS January 2018 426
14.09 – With regard to sanitary sewer service - the occurrence of past sewer overflows and the co-mingling of sewer and storm run-off, including up-stream and downstream system elements should be discussed. Additionally, vehicles which haul solid waste often leak liquid waste which fouls surface water and on-site roadways.[u67] Response: See response to comment 14.01. Additionally, the project would include the removal of old sewers which contribute to inflow and infiltration (I&I) into the Towns sanitary sewers. The project would also eliminate the potential for any cross connection between sanitary and storm sewers.
14.10 – Given the large paved area that is being proposed, please discuss the project's affect on drainage and runoff...will an increase in impervious surfaces increase problems, and how do they propose to fix them? If there is increased runoff from the project, how will it affect the nearby creeks that neighborhood children and dogs play in? The DEIS should address the potential for negative impacts to surface water quality, local ecology, and human health as a result of development on the parcel.[u68] Response: See response to comment 14.01.
14.11 – The drainage plans do not discuss the current problems or mitigation for the Clover/Monroe intersections or for the creek that runs through Pickwick Circle. Both of these have issues with flooding, directly connected to storm drainage and run-off. Storm water run- off in this area does affect residential properties. Any storm water run-off should be contained on the BF2 zoned property.[u69] Response: The project will reduce the peak rate of runoff to the receiving waters thus reducing potential flooding. See response to comment 14.01.
FEIS January 2018 427
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 15– BUFFER 15.01 – One of the great things about the Shoreham neighborhood is its accessibility to everything while still maintaining a private buffer; the residents want to know that that is going to be maintained. Response: The open space along Clover Street will be preserved by some legasl means acceptable to the Town so that it remains forever wild providing a buffer between the project and homes east of Clover Street. The project also includes the installation of fencing and screening along the northern edge of the development to enhance the buffering. There are three homes between Monroe Avenue and Allens Creek Road on the west side of Clover Street. The single-family home closest to the parcel and the one which would be most impacted by the removal of vegetation for the installation of the parking lot has expressed their support for the project as currently proposed.
The other two homes are east of the parking area and will not be directly impacted by the construction. The existing vegetation and buffering behind their homes will be maintained.
15.02 – According to the DEIS, the report on woodlots east of the parcel are not subject to any town requirements. Therefore, it is possible that one day they could just be mowed down to make room for an access road. Response: The project would be bound by the approved site plan which will clearly depict trees to remain and trees to be removed.
15.03 – Almost 3 acres of residential acreage will be turned into a commercial parking lot with consequences to the green space buffer to Clover Street...the project is almost 100% impervious materials. Response: See response to comment 15.01.
FEIS January 2018 428
15.04 – Preserve the natural border between the commercial and residential zones. Response: See response to comment 15.01.
15.05 – "I do not object to further development of commercial property on Monroe Avenue - in fact I fully support it. However, I strongly object to any development that will destroy the buffer between the commercial zone on Monroe Avenue and the residential neighborhoods just off Monroe Avenue." Response: See response to comment 15.01.
15.06 – The project should include a larger buffer between residential and commercial property. Response: See response to comment 15.01.
15.07 – The proposed plans for a buffer or screening between plaza and the residential neighborhoods is woefully inadequate and not properly addressed.[u70] Response: See response to comment 15.01.
15.08 – As nearby neighbors, we are all wedded to the area and its accessibility to everything while still maintaining a private buffer.[u71] Response: See response to comment 15.01.
15.09 – Fences should be installed, defining and separating BF2 and RLA land, as well as a more substantial buffer, such as a tall, wide, evergreen border. Renderings of these proposed buffers should be included.[u72] Response: See response to comment 15.01.
FEIS January 2018 429
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 16– AMENITIES 16.01 – The proposed traffic light may make the crossing safer, but it will clearly make the traffic flow and backups significantly worse. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. See response to comment 13.23.
16.02 – None of the amenities proposed by the developer are real amenities to the Town and do not make the project add value to the Town. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.03 – The traffic signal is not a real amenity, solves nothing, and not enough to make up for what is being requested. Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS. The traffic signal is no longer claimed as an amenity by the applicant.
16.04 – Other similar towns include small park-like areas in these kinds of developments that allow for community concerts, sidewalks for strollers and patrons who would like to walk to Whole Foods, Starbucks, etc. Response: Comment noted.
16.05 – Will the proposed traffic light include turning arrows? Without them it won't help the current problem. Response: Refer to Sections 1.4 and 2.2 of the FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 430
16.06 – The proposed traffic light will cause more congestion and will affect traffic on Allen's Creek and Clover (as people try to avoid Monroe Avenue). Response: See responses to comments 2.06 and 13.23.
16.07 – The incentives offered by the Daniele’s are an insult and inadequate, as they only address the problems created by the project. Response: Refer to Section 1.06 of the FEIS.
16.08 – The developer is claiming that mandatory mitigation measures are amenities. It is a misuse of the incentive zoning statute. Response: Refer to Section 1.06 of the FEIS.
16.09 – Do the developers really think that another new light on Monroe Avenue will help, especially on a road that the NYSDOT already classifies as "4F"? Response: The project proposal, as well as the studied alternatives, warrant a traffic signal. See response to comment 13.23. Additionally, a traffic signal in the project area with a pedestrian crossing is part of the Town of Brighton’s 2011 Community Vision Plan.
16.10 – With the proposed traffic light, customers can safely make a left hand turn out of the plaza rather than making the extremely hazardous turn as it was in the past and still stands now. Response: Comment noted, the intent of the traffic signal is to provide safe lefts turns for people using the plaza as well as properties south of Monroe Avenue.
16.11 – Re: 2.2.4 of the DEIS...What type of traffic light will be added? It should be a "smart system" that is synched. Response: The traffic light at the east entrance will be a three-phase signal that is coordinated with the traffic signal at Clover Street and Monroe Avenue. There will also be a signal with a left arrow at the west entrance. The applicant and the Town have requested that the NYSDOT coordinate the proposed traffic lights with others in the corridor.
FEIS January 2018 431
16.12 – The Auburn Trail should be resurfaced all the way to Highland Avenue, and ensure that students can safely walk across Allen's Creek at the Auburn Trail. Response: The project includes construction of the Auburn Trail including a new paved trail through the project that is separated from vehicular traffic as well as offsite improvements as detailed at Section 1.6. The project also includes proposed crosswalks at Allens Creek Road, Elmwood Ave and Clover Street with pedestrian markings and signage.
16.13 – "An “amenity” can only be those things that the Board has no legal right to impose on the developer to mitigate impacts." Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.14 – "If the Board has the legal authority to impose the condition, it cannot be considered an amenity. The Town is supposed to get something in return to which it is otherwise not lawfully entitled to already." Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.15 – "The Developer’s proposal offers no real amenities to the community. The first “amenity” proposed is a pedestrian and bicycle access path. The proposed cash value of this “amenity” was $65,000, plus annual maintenance costs of $1,200. The Applicant noted that this will involve “improvement and slight relocation of the existing trail across the development site.” In other words, this trail already exists. To the extent it needs improvement, it because the Applicant was responsible for paving over and ruining it during prior development activities. The real value of this amenity is therefore zero, since the Applicant should be required to fix the damaged trail regardless of whether the proposed development is eventually approved." Response: The improvements to the trail include construction of the Auburn Trail, separated from vehicular traffic, a new guide rail and crossings at Allens Creek Road, Elmwood Ave. and Clover Street. Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 432
16.16 – " The second proposed “amenity” is a traffic light. The construction of this light could and should be imposed as a condition of the development by the Town under the zoning code (i.e. a “mandated requirement”), and is therefore not an “amenity”, meaning the Town is not getting any benefit here either. Moreover, this light actually serves to benefit the Applicant, not the community, since it is servicing the development and facilitating the flow of traffic into the plaza. In reality, the installation of the traffic light is impact mitigation for this facility, not an “amenity” offered to the Town. The proposed “amenity” was given a cash value of $100,000 to $125,000, with annual costs of $1,800. However, for the foregoing reasons, the real value of this “amenity” to the community is also zero dollars." Response: The light would be required as mitigation for any reasonably sized development within the project area. The light and the pedestrian improvements proposed are no longer considered amenities. Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.17 – " The proposed “access management plan” amenity is similarly self-serving in that it facilitates access to the plaza and, while it purports to be a SEQRA mitigation measure, actually does almost nothing to reduce the traffic that the proposal would cause. Regardless of its effectiveness as a mitigation measure, which SMA strongly disputes, this plan is not a public benefit or amenity. Traffic mitigation is a necessary component of this Project as the Board must find that the significant adverse impacts have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable." Response: The AMP is not a traffic mitigation measure. The AMP is a safety improvement that, together with the proposed left turn signal will limit conflicts for people leaving and entering the properties on the south side of Monroe Avenue thereby making the corridor safer. Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.18 – "Regarding the “comprehensive access management plan study”: this “amenity” proposes to develop a plan to aid the Town in the future as growth continues and further access points are added and removed for safety and traffic mitigation purposes. In other words, this “amenity” is nothing more than the Developer creating a contingency plan for when traffic caused by its oversize development becomes so problematic that the streetscape surrounding the area must be modified to accommodate it. The estimated value of this “amenity” is $29,250. Since the benefit from this “amenity” actually flows to the Developer,
FEIS January 2018 433
and could easily be required as a mitigation measure and condition of the development under Zoning Code Chapter 217, this also provides no benefit to the Town." Response: The access management plan study will assist in achieving the goals of the Town of Brighton’s 2011 Community Vision Plan by making the properties along Monroe Avenue safer with fewer conflicts points and dangerous traffic movements. Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.19 – "Another proposed “amenity” is the “preservation of passive & active open space.” The Developer is not creating or preserving anything from development. Nor it “preventing” the property from being used for residential development a significant benefit. The open space already exists, and is not being used. And in reality, this parcel has significant development challenges due to drainage concerns.
To the extent it is being touted as providing a forested buffer between the development and the residential community – the placement of buffers/landscaping is already required under the zoning code. Zoning Code § 217-4 (noting that conditions of a development that may be added by the Planning Board include “fencing, screening, or other facilities and/or preservation and/or planting of trees and landscaping to protect adjacent or nearby property”). So while the value of this “amenity” is listed at $100,000, it has no real value to the Town either." Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.20 – "The Board has the obligation to evaluate the proposed incentives and amenities and judge whether, pursuant to Zoning Code § 209-5(B), the Application is worthy of further consideration." Response: Comment noted. The Town conducted a public hearing on the incentive zoning to consider public input on that issue. The hearing will be continued following completion of the SEQR environmental review process
FEIS January 2018 434
16.21 – "We would like the Auburn Trail to be reinstated back to the way it was intended with proper buffering from any proposed projects at this site." Response: The Auburn Trail improvements include a complete separation from vehicular traffic associated with the site. It will be constructed from Highland Ave to the Pittsford Town line.
16.22 – In this instance, the safety component of the additional traffic light that is being proposed does not outweigh the inconvenience factors involved. Response: See response to comment 13.23
16.23 – "Regarding the Auburn Trail, please cover to the fullest extent; not just site improvements, but safety and access, including traffic, crossings, and trail improvements to the Town boarders especially if any zoning incentives are conceded." Response: Improvements to the trail include safety accessibility, separation from traffic and new crossings. See section 1.6 of this FEIS for a comprehensive explanation of the trail improvements.
16.24 – "Regarding the Auburn Trail, please consider road bike lanes for all trail access points, cross walks with bike access for all road crossings within 1 mile of the site, on-site bike parking, trail snow removal for winter running, and maintenance within the project area." Response: Crossings at Allen’s Creek Road and Clover Street are proposed as part of the project. On site bike parking is proposed in several locations. See section 3.4 of the SDEIS.
16.25 – "Please identify which of these purported amenities would not routinely be required for any project under existing zoning...any such items ought not to be credited as amenities." Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of the FEIS.
16.26 – The "greenspace" is a swamp, and will become more of a swamp when the parking lot creates more runoff.
FEIS January 2018 435
Response: The proposal includes the implementation of stormwater management practices which will improve runoff conditions and reduce the rate of stormwater runoff. Refer to Section 1.6 of the FEIS.
16.27 – "It is my opinion that another traffic light would be necessary to accommodate the volume of entering and exiting traffic related to this plaza. Response: Comment noted.
16.28 – "The presence of a light should help calm through traffic by conditioning drivers of the potential need to stop." Response: Comment noted, traffic calming is a typical benefit of a new traffic signal.
16.29 – Markers should be put in place on the Auburn Trail to advise drivers to be on the lookout for bicyclists and walkers. Response: Signage is proposed at the proposed trail crossing of Allen’s Creek Road and Clover Street.
16.30 – The Auburn Trail should be restored and preserved in its existing place - at a level that is consistent with the guidelines for a Brighton Trail. Doing so would benefit the entire community and especially recreational bikers, walkers, and joggers.[u73] Response: See response to comment 16.23.
16.31 – The Town should require Mr. Daniele to offer more tangible incentives than currently proposed, incentives that follow true to both the letter and spirit of incentive zoning law and benefit the neighborhoods and residents that his development will affect the most, as well as the community of Brighton at large, and not just minimal amenities or ones that merely correct the problems they themselves created. Otherwise, it will not offset the detrimental impact on the town, at which point the Town should require adherence to standard zoning.[u74] Response: See response to comment 16.02.
FEIS January 2018 436
16.32 – According to the real estate entity and the Daniele Family website, the project is being rented with rates ranging from $30-$45 per sq. ft. Based on the mid-range rate of $35 per sq. ft., the Developer stands to make $3,000,000 per year. On the other hand, the Town and neighbors will receive some improvements to the trail (part of which the developer already willfully paved over), another traffic light on Monroe Avenue, increased traffic, and destruction of the mature tree line that buffers the project site from the neighbors. The inequity is stark. Response: See response to comment 16.02 and Section 1.06 of the FEIS.
16.33 – In order to preserve Brighton, it is imperative that we help ensure the project and its amenities enhance the town. Currently, the "amenities" offered by the Developer will not offset the likely traffic nightmare.[u75] Response: See response to comment 1.02 and comment 16.02. The access management plan and traffic signal will improve safety along the corridor and are consistent with the Town of Brighton’s 2011 Community Vision Plan.
16.34 – If they go through with installing the proposed traffic light and the congestion gets even worse, I guess I would just have to stop using Monroe Avenue.[u76] Response: The installation of the traffic signal will be coordinated with the other lights within the corridor. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in some increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour from Westfall to Clover Street. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
16.35 – If they go through with installing the proposed traffic light and the congestion gets even worse, I guess I would just have to stop using Monroe Avenue.[u77] Response: See response to comment 16.34.
FEIS January 2018 437
16.36 – The access management plan that is being proposed as an amenity along the south side of Monroe Avenue will likely produce major traffic concerns, as it will convert a private driveway into a public access point with two-way traffic and parking along both sides. It seems that this will create safety concerns by increasing the likelihood for collisions. Furthermore, there would be additional safety concerns from the large delivery and trash trucks that would have to use this access as well; not to mention, they would increase the risk of collisions and add to traffic backups.[u78] Response: The access management plan improves safety be reducing dangerous unsignalized turning movements onto and from Monroe Avenue, see SDEIS section 3.6 and refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.37 – A sidewalk should be added along Monroe Ave, from Clover to Allens Creek; this should also incorporate a customer-friendly bus shelter and planned RTS bus stop, as well as planned snow removal.[u79] Response: The project includes a new sidewalk along the north side of Monroe Avenue along the project frontage as well as a new trail from Highland Ave to the Pittsford Town line.
16.38 – An increase in real estate tax and the fact that they are not requesting COMIDA funding is not an amenity.[u80] Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
16.39 – The Town of Brighton should specify real, significant amenities.[u81] Response: Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 438
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 17– NOISE 17.01 – Regular zoning will allow our community to gain a right-sized redevelopment for this site without the negative impacts on light, noise and air pollution. Response: See response to comment 13.01 and Section 1.6 of the FEIS.
17.02 – "The enormous traffic impacts (volume, noise, pollution) will cause other negative impacts as well. In particular, it is well established that property values in neighborhoods are linked to perceptions of traffic concerns." Response: See response to comment 13.23.
17.03 – "The Applicant must revise the DEIS to identify noise impacts on those residential neighborhoods and the corridor." Response: The noise study contained within the DEIS considers the potential impact of noise on the residential properties.
17.04 – "The added lighting from the proposed parking lots and the other retail shops will have a dramatic impact to the light and noise pollution for the residents." Response: Lighting pollution is controlled and mitigation using LED lighting. Exterior lighting will be dark sky compliant. Refer to lighting plan at Figure 8 of this FEIS. Refer to the Noise Study provided as part of the DEIS and Section 2.4 of this FEIS.
17.05 – Section 8 of Brighton's Noise Ordinance is being violated...Refuse truckers are emptying trash containers as early as 4:00 a.m.; nearby residents should not have to endure this noise pollution during normal sleeping hours.[u82] Response: The project would be required to comply with the Town’s noise ordinance. The Town Board considers the results of the noise study in their environmental determination.
17.06 – The Developer is attempting to circumvent sound zoning principals.[u83] Response: See response to comment 17.05. See Section 1.6 of the FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 439
17.07 – Don't sacrifice residential neighborhoods and increase traffic beyond sound traffic engineering studies.[u84] Response: The updated TIS included as part of the SDEIS has been prepared in accordance with all applicable transportation guidelines. Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
17.08 – Concerns regarding how much the noise level in the area will be affected by increased traffic and by the plaza in general.[u85] Response: The noise levels resulting from the traffic will not be increased when compared to the former uses on site.
FEIS January 2018 440
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 18– RESIDENTIAL STREET TRAFFIC & SAFETY 18.01 – The traffic study should include data for traffic and safety impacts on the following residential streets: Westfall Road Elmwood Avenue Willowbend Edgewood Avenue Roosevelt Road Brooklawn Drive Troy Road Commonwealth Modelane Winton Road Edgemoor Road Whitestone Lane Warren Avenue French Road Orchard Drive Irving Road Virginia Colony Neighborhood Stonybrook Drive Response: Westfall Road and Edgewood Avenue are included as part of the TIS. The other roads referenced in the comment are local roads which are residential in nature. The scope of the study, including which roads would be studied, was reviewed and approved by the Town’s engineering consultant and NYSDOT.
FEIS January 2018 441
18.02 – During rush hours, it can take several minutes to exit onto Clover from Warren going North, since heavy traffic is going both North and South. Response: Comment noted, this situation is an existing condition and largely a result of the proximity of Warren Avenue to the Monroe Avenue Traffic Signal.
18.03 – The project will cause drivers to use residential side streets as "cut-throughs" to avoid the growing traffic problem. This would make these small, already overused streets even more dangerous. Response: See response to comment 13.23.
18.04 – These neighborhood streets are not zoned for this type of traffic. Response: The subject parcel is zoned commercial. The access points to Allens Creek Road and Clover Street have been removed to reduce potential impact to neighborhood streets.
18.05 – What impact will the project have on the walkability and pedestrian safety on near- by residential streets? Response: The project has been redesigned to eliminate access to Clover Street and Allen’s Creek Road thereby minimizing potential impact to the neighborhood streets. It is not anticipated that the project will have a significant negative impact on walkability and pedestrian safety on the neighborhood streets. The project also includes construction of the Auburn Trail from Highland Ave to Highland Ave. to the Pittsford Town line. Also, see response to comment 10.15.
18.06 – The health of the surrounding neighborhoods is essential to the prosperity of the entire corridor. Response: Comment noted.
18.07 – Redirecting traffic to surrounding neighborhoods will create a safety hazard for our children, who walk, play, and ride bicycles in those areas. Response: See response to comment 10.15.
FEIS January 2018 442
18.08 – We cannot and should not have to deal with an influx of cars cutting through our streets. Response: See response to comment 10.15.
18.09 –The project will force cars to use side streets to get around the bottle neck created on Monroe Avenue. Adding more traffic to streets where there is a high population of children will not be good. Response: See response to comment 10.15.
18.10 –If insufficient parking is provided for the project then parking may overflow into nearby residential streets, which would be a safety hazard to residents. Response: The applicant has indicated that the project provides sufficient parking per their lease agreement and is compliant with Town parking requirements.
18.11 –In the Virginia Colony neighborhood, "Brighton has been responsibly overseen in the best interests of the residents - who have not had to deal with issues of excessive traffic congestion." Response: Comment noted.
18.12 – East bound traffic on Westfall is already gridlocked as it is. Response: See Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The additional traffic generated by the project will result in minor delay increases at Westfall Road with a maximum increase of 19 seconds. Most approaches will continue to operate at a level of service of “C” or better.
18.13 – This is irresponsible development that will redirect high volumes of traffic to surrounding neighborhoods which will create a safety hazard for our children. Response: See response to comment 10.15.
18.14 – Drivers cutting through side streets to avoid Monroe Ave. traffic often buzz right through stop signs. Response: See response to comment 10.15.
FEIS January 2018 443
18.15 – Neighboring residents have been able to enjoy a sense of calmness and serenity for the past 30 years. This project will change that atmosphere tremendously. Response: See response to comment 10.15.
18.16 – Many of those using surrounding streets to avoid traffic are overly concerned with saving time, and do not pay close attention to speed limits and/or safety. This may be an unintended consequence of supersizing the development but the safety concern must be addressed by the Town.[u86] Response: See response to comment 10.15.
18.17 – How much will the proposed project increase traffic and decrease safety on surrounding residential streets? How do these numbers change as the magnitude/scale of the project is increased and decreased?[u87] Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. See response to comment 10.15.
18.18 – We don't want this portion of Brighton and its wonderful residential neighborhoods off Clover to turn into a commercial traffic mess like Jefferson Road in Henrietta. Don't sacrifice residential neighborhoods and increase traffic for unnecessary commercialization.[u88] Response: See response to comment 10.15.
FEIS January 2018 444
18.19 – Monroe Avenue is already congested and the proposed Whole Foods location would create substantial negative impacts, not only for Monroe, Allens Creek, and Clover Street traffic, but also for the surrounding side streets that will be affected by the overflow.[u89] Response: See response to comment 10.15.
FEIS January 2018 445
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 19– SHOREHAM DRIVE TRAFFIC & SAFETY 19.01 – The traffic study should be expanded to include a more in depth study of the project’s impact on Shoreham Drive traffic, as well as impacts to vehicle and pedestrian safety. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.01(1). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30-minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour, a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay of 22.0 seconds from Westfall to Clover Street during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
Therefore, a significant impact to vehicles and pedestrians on Shoreham Drive is not anticipated. (See revised TIS Sections IV.B Page 2-4, XI Pages 19-30, and Figure 6C).
19.02 – What impact will the project have on residents’ ability to turn in to or out of Shoreham Drive onto Clover Street? Response: The previously proposed access point to Clover Street has been removed from the project, therefore, the increase in traffic on Clover Street adjacent to Shoreham Drive is minimized. The project is not projected to significantly impact the ability and time it takes to make a left out of Shoreham Drive as demonstrated in the Gap Study provided at Section 2.2 of this FEIS. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30 and Section XIV Pages 36-38).
FEIS January 2018 446
19.03 – What measures will be taken to ensure that Shoreham Drive is not used as an “overflow parking lot”? Can parking on Shoreham Drive be restricted to residents and guests only? Response: See response to comment 18.10. The project provides ample parking and is compliant with Town zoning requirements. Parking on public streets is not permitted and is enforceable by the police department.
19.04 – What measures will be taken to ensure that residents may cross over Clover Street to Shoreham Drive safely, despite the increase in traffic? Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 19-30).
There are no sidewalks on the west side of Clover Street which would promote pedestrian activity and pedestrian crossings at Shoreham Drive. Pedestrians traveling on Clover from Shoreham should travel south to the designated pedestrian crossing at the Monroe Avenue intersection. The developer is proposing to develop a cross walk at Clover Street at the Auburn trail crossing which will assist in safer pedestrian and bike crossings on Clover Street.
19.05 – If the project causes a significant increase in traffic on Shoreham Drive, it will damage the quiet neighborhood feel of the street. Response: See response to comment 19.01.
FEIS January 2018 447
19.06 – How will motorists be discouraged from using Shoreham Drive as a cut-through? Response: See response to comment 10.15.
19.07 – Increased traffic will destroy the residential nature of the Shoreham neighborhood. Response: See response to comment 19.01.
19.08 – Moved to the Shoreham neighborhood over a decade ago because of the quiet neighborhood that is so centrally located, providing convenience and close proximity to local shopping. Response: Comment noted.
19.09 – The Shoreham neighborhood has always had a great atmosphere, where everyone is always happy and doing outdoor activities, riding bikes, running lemonade stands, and hosting outdoor gatherings. Residents do not want the proposed project to change that which they value so much. Response: See response to comments 10.15 and 19.01.
19.10 – One of the great things about the Shoreham neighborhood is its accessibility to everything while still maintaining a private buffer; the residents want to know that that is going to be maintained. Response: See response to comment 19.01.
19.11 – This oversized project will ruin Shoreham Drive; currently a beautiful, narrow, no street light, no outlet, tranquil tree-lined street teeming with children. There are currently no glaring lights - just house lights and crickets...For over 35 years we have peacefully coexisted with the retail across the street because #1. It is an appropriate size with appropriate usage. And #2. buffers are in place to make our pretty place feel safe and protected from high volume anything.[u90] Response: See response to comment 19.01.
FEIS January 2018 448
19.12 – At one point there was discussion of a traffic light being placed at the top of Shoreham. This would require demolition of a residence, which in turn suggests the developer has some sort of a contract for that property.[u91] Response: The applicant has not proposed a light at Shoreham Drive.
FEIS January 2018 449
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 20– SCHOOLHOUSE LANE TRAFFIC & SAFETY 20.01 – The traffic study should be expanded to include a more in-depth study of the project’s impact on Schoolhouse Lane traffic, as well as impacts to vehicle and pedestrian safety. Response: An analysis of the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane and Allens Creek Road is included in the TIS. The current project proposal is not expected to generate significantly more traffic than Mario’s restaurant, Clover Lanes and Mamasans restaurant. The proposal does not include ingress or egress from Allens Creek.
FEIS January 2018 450
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 21– PICKWICK DRIVE TRAFFIC & SAFETY 21.01 – The traffic study should be expanded to include a more in depth study of the project’s impact on Pickwick Drive traffic, as well as its impact on vehicle and pedestrian safety. Response: Pickwick Drive does not have a second outlet and therefor the clear majority of traffic traveling on Pickwick are residents. No increase to traffic on Pickwick Drive is anticipated because of the project. Also, please see response to comment 19.01 concerning potential cut through traffic on Shoreham Drive and Whitestone Lane.
21.02 – Will the project cause a significant increase in traffic on Pickwick Drive? If it does, it will degrade the quiet neighborhood feel of the street. Response: See response to comment 21.01
21.03 – How will motorists be discouraged from using Pickwick Drive as a cut-through to avoid Clover Street traffic? Response: See response to comment 21.01.
FEIS January 2018 451
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 22– PROPERTY VALUES 22.01 – The project will allow the private developer and out of town business tenants to profit, while Brighton residents are stuck with a detriment to the value of our neighborhood. Response: See response to comment 13.01. The project includes the redevelopment of a currently vacant, former commercial plaza and will include new landscaping, lighting, buffering, the preservation of open space and trail improvements. Collectively these redevelopment efforts will be an improvement to the site.
There is no evidence that supports the claim that property values will decrease.
22.02 – The property values for nearby residents stands to suffer if this project is approved. Response: See response to comment 13.01 & 22.01.
22.03 – There has already been a noticeable increase in "Home for Sale" signs in this vicinity. Response: See response to comment 13.01 & 22.01.
22.04 – "The enormous traffic impacts (volume, noise, pollution) will cause other negative impacts as well. In particular, it is well established that property values in neighborhoods are linked to perceptions of traffic concerns." Response: As demonstrated in the revised TIS, the project is not anticipated to result in significantly more traffic than the combination of Mario’s, Mamasans and Clover Lanes. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
FEIS January 2018 452
Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however.
22.05 – "The Applicant must revise the DEIS to identify property value impacts on the residential neighborhood and the commercial corridor. The Developer makes much of his promise to pay taxes, yet absent an understanding of the impact on residential values and commercial lease rates, no determination of benefits can be made." Response: See response to comment 13.01 & 22.01.
22.06 – "If commercial delivery vehicles become a burden for Allens Creek and Clover, we will see a much more serious devaluation in property values." Response: Commercial Delivery vehicles are not expected to use Allen’s Creek Road or Clover Street on a regular basis. The applicant has removed the proposal to provide access from Clover Street and Allen’s Creek Road to the project.
22.07 – Residential access will impact market value of nearby homes.[u92] Response: See response to comment 13.01 & 22.01.
22.08 – Any decision that negatively impact property values along the Clover corridor will result in a slow but steady deterioration in the Brighton community.[u93] Response: See response to comment 13.01 & 22.01.
22.09 – Residents will not continue to invest their money in updating homes in a neighborhood whose future and property values are threatened by the overdevelopment of Clover Lanes.[u94] Response: See response to comment 13.01 & 22.01.
FEIS January 2018 453
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 23– ZONING AND CODE 23.01 – Getting rid of the variance law is not a solution; they were put in place to avoid problems. The car wash required a variance; the current result is now we have a mess. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.02 – What is the value added to our community by accepting the proposed variance? "I fail to see sufficient benefit to the Town to warrant those zoning variances. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.03 – Any current or future development of that parcel must be done to existing code regulations, and with the full blessing of the citizens of Brighton. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.04 – The Town should require the project to adhere to regular zoning and not permit any incentive zoning. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.05 – While we respect the developers right to build on their property, we feel it is crucial that this proposal should not be done through incentive zoning and instead through the traditional zoning standards in order to best protect residents. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.06 – The "feeder streets" to and from Monroe Avenue and adjoining residential areas are not zoned for this type of traffic. Response: There is no provision in Town zoning districts for “type of traffic”. See response to comment 10.15.
23.07 – It is irresponsible not to abide by regular zoning. Regular zoning protects the interests of the residents. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
FEIS January 2018 454
23.08 – The conventional zoning standards are more than sufficient for the developer's needs. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.09 – The project should adhere to standard zoning in order to control congestion and overbuilt commercialization. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.10 – The Town should do the right thing and help the developer sail through the project using the regular zoning that is already in place. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.11 – The development of this area would be beneficial, but only if it is done responsibly and abides by the town's existing zoning laws. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.12 – Regular zoning will allow our community to gain a right-sized redevelopment for this site without the negative impacts on a dangerously congested section of roadway; light, noise and air pollution; the safety of pedestrians and cyclists; and the great quality of life that exists in the surrounding neighborhoods. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.13 – The developers have known all along what the zoning parameters are for their property and they should not be allowed to receive special consideration or incentive zoning. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.14 – The developers proposes hijacking the zoning code statute by using it as a pathway for the wholesale re-writing of the code. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.15 – The developer is claiming that mandatory mitigation measures are amenities. It is a misuse of the incentive zoning statute.
FEIS January 2018 455
Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.16 – The Town will give up much more than it will receive if incentive zoning is approved. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.17 – Basic zoning laws should be enforced for the citizens' health, safety, and welfare. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.18 – Incentives must offset and match the magnitude of the ask...The Town is not getting anything in return that is not already required. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.19 – Code-compliant alternatives were not analyzed enough. Response: The alternatives analysis complies with the approved EIS Scoping document.
23.20 – 150% over what the lot is zoned for is unacceptable. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.21 – 22 requested zoning variances is too much. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.22 – "There is good case law which suggests that this case is not eligible for incentive zoning." Response: Comment noted. See response to comment 13.01.
23.23 – Why did this not go through the normal zoning board process? Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.24 – The project should adhere to Sec. 261-B of the zoning law/guidelines. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
FEIS January 2018 456
23.25 – Who decided this project was incentive zoning - when and why? Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.26 – Can this project be pushed back to "regular zoning" instead of incentive zoning? Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.27 – "The Developer claims that developing the site under existing zoning regulations would reduce the property tax and sales tax revenue increases from the redevelopment, would not be financially viable and would result in a negative return on investment, and would not "reflect the goals of the Project Sponsor or future tenants...There is no evidence to support this conclusion." Response: Comment noted.
23.28 – "The Developer treats the possibility that the site could be developed under existing zoning laws in an extraordinary dismissive fashion." Response: The applicant has provided an alternatives analysis which considers development of the parcel within allowable density requirements and without development in the residentially zoned land in accordance with the approved scoping document. See figure 7.
23.29 – "An analysis of the project must consider that the residentially zoned area will not be available for business use." Response: See response to comment 23.28.
23.30 – "In proposing single development alternative that complies with existing zoning laws, the Developer designed a project with only one large strip-mall style building in the most unattractive manner possible. No effort was made to lay out an appropriate development under the existing zoning, such as including a smaller grocery store or other code-compliant buildings. Without a realistic proposal of what is permitted under the Zoning Code, how can the Board properly evaluate alternatives?" Response: See response to comment 23.28.
FEIS January 2018 457
23.31 – "The Developer is attempting to use incentive zoning for an improper purpose...incentive zoning is not a vehicle to cut special deals with local politicians to ignore zoning requirements in exchange for token 'amenities'". Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.32 – "The Board must act rationally and reasonably in making a determination to grant an incentive zoning application, and must follow State law and the Town's comprehensive plan in doing so. As set forth in respected planning and zoning treatises on the subject, the public benefits of incentive zoning must offset the negative effects of the zoning bonus." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.33 – "The proposed development area must contain adequate resources, including transportation, public facilities, waste disposal, water supply, etc., to facilitate the development. 12 NY Jur. Buildings, Zoning, and Land Controls § 220 (2d 2014). Also, in designating areas where incentive zoning may be used, the appropriate legislative body must “determine that there will be no significant environmentally damaging consequences” as a result of the proposed development. Id. As set forth in State law, “the purpose of the system of incentive, or bonus, zoning [is] to advance the town’s specific physical, cultural and social policies in accordance with the town’s comprehensive plan and in coordination with other community planning mechanisms . . ..” Town Law § 261-b(2)." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.34 – "The Board has the obligation to evaluate the proposed incentives and amenities and judge whether, pursuant to Zoning Code § 209-5(B), the Application is worthy of further consideration." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.35 – " Incentive zoning proposals must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and inconsistency requires rejection of the Application."
FEIS January 2018 458
Response: Refer to section 2.3.13 of the DEIS for a detailed analysis of the project as it relates to the Town’s planning documents including the comprehensive plan and Bike/Walk Brighton.
23.36 – " The DEIS is further incomplete since it does not contain all of the information required by the DEIS Final Scope document issued by the Town on September 24, 2015. Section 2 of the Final Scope requires the Developer to explain how the improvements offered by the project sponsor are not otherwise mandated by the Town’s Comprehensive Development Regulations/Zoning Code and/or general SEQRA mitigation principles." Response: See response to comment 13.01 & 16.02.
23.37 – "The Applicant has made abundantly clear that it feels it has a sense of entitlement to wipe out existing zoning regulations to meet its profit goals." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.38 – "Maybe the site should make use of more adjacent commercial space, and none of the residential space." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.39 – "Please consider all current zoning violations within the proposed parcel, and enforce the standards." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.40 – "Zoning variances are excessive. The most egregious being the fact that the retail space exceeds zoning/density by 150% This should be scaled back to the restricted levels for grocery stores (20k vs. the proposed 55k)." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.41 – Given the project's non-compliance with current zoning standards, why have they not been told unequivocally that the stated plan is impermissible? Response: See response to comment 13.01.
FEIS January 2018 459
23.42 – An investigation of design alternatives to provide green space at the project site consistent with the requirements of the Town Code should be put forth, and the Town should require the Developer to propose an entirely new plan that meets current zoning requirements (no incentive zoning) and does not include access roads.[u95] Response: See response to comment 23.28
23.43 – "Their request for a variance regarding signage is totally unacceptable! Businesses have very effectively complied with the ban on large signs"...granting this variance would start a slippery slope.[u96] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.44 – "Essentially 20,000 sq ft big box store allowed vs. 50,000 sq ft. big box store proposed & 35% max paved area allowed vs. 61% proposed. Just these two variances alone represent a significant departure from current zoning requirements (and are signs that this is super-sized).[u97] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.45 – The Town should reject the many zoning variances the project would entail and not give the developer any type of special deal. Incentive zoning is not appropriate for this development - we have lost sight of what the community benefits will be.[u98] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.46 – It's important to make clear that I have no problem with Mr. Daniele developing the property he has purchased, particularly in this location. It's his property. It's in a commercial corridor. A Developer should be able to make whatever profit they can, particularly in a commercial zone such as this on the Monroe Avenue corridor - unless and until part of the community has to suffer by giving away its zoning protections.[u99] Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 460
23.47 – I understand that there is a time and a place for incentive zoning and I trust our town leaders to have the knowledge and experience to know when it is appropriate and in the best interest of the residents they serve to use incentive zoning rather than following the path of traditional zoning procedures. But if they decide to allow the developer to proceed with the project through incentive zoning, outside of the restrictions that the rest of the residents of Brighton have to follow, then they should require him to scale back the project a minimal amount to a more manageable level that does not require access from any road other than Monroe.[u100] Response: See response to comment 13.01. The proposal does not include access to any street other than Monroe Ave.
23.48 – There is a reason the parcel is not zoned for drive through retail or banks, or a 50,000 sq. ft. grocery store.[u101] Response: The BF-2 zoning district does allow a 50,000 SF grocery store and Drive Thru Bank with a Conditional Use Permit.
23.49 – Please do not set a zoning precedent here that will adversely affect our neighborhood in the near future and potentially lead to more mixed commercial/residential zoned areas in Brighton; doing so would destroy the essential character of the Town itself.[u102] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.50 – The Town should deny the current redevelopment plan and require the Daniele Family to present a new revised plan that is equitably beneficial to all, before proceeding any further in the zoning approval process. Allow the property to be developed, but only under regular zoning.[u103] Response: See response to comment 13.01 & 23.28.
23.51 – The incentive zoning is a political issue because it has been taken from the zoning boards and is being addressed by the town board.[u104] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
FEIS January 2018 461
23.52 – The project, as proposed, is too far outside what the parcel is zoned for, and is unreasonable in light of the foreseeable traffic consequences.[u105] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.53 – The development should be scaled back and confined solely to the commercially zoned district. All currently zoned residential areas should remain residential, with a guarantee to prevent any future encroachment, including disallowing any parking on residentially zoned land. Additionally, all setbacks from residential land should be honored.[u106] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
23.54 – The Town Code allows for up to 65% impervious space on BF2 properties. This incentive zoning application proposes a 40% greater building and parking lot coverage than allowed by code. Having 91% versus 65% impervious space does not reflect the town's Vision Plan, and also creates a problem with storm water run-off...the application says this impervious coverage is approximately what currently exists, but that doesn't make it right.[u107] Response: See response to comment 13.01. Additionally, the proposal includes stormwater practices to mitigate the increase in impervious area.
23.55 – If this incentive zoning application is successful, could this entire area eventually be rezoned for general commercial use or office space?[u108] Response: The incentive zoning only applies to the boundaries of the project as defined by this FEIS. The underlying zoning of the entire property will remain unchanged.
23.56 – The BF2 portion of the old RG&E parcel should be rezoned RLA, or otherwise protected.[u109] Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 462
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 24– TRUCK TRAFFIC 24.01 – The data needs to factor in not only cars, but also the service trucks that will supply Whole Foods, Starbucks, etc. Response: The TIS utilizes a “Heavy Vehicle” factor to account for service trucks which is included as part of the model and study and concurred with by both NYSDOT and Stantec, the towns traffic consultant. Additionally, deliveries to the store and plaza will occur well outside of the peak hours of travel.
24.02 – Monroe Avenue does not need more large capacity trucks. Response: The project will not result in a significant increase of large trucks on Monroe Avenue. Whole Foods has advised the applicant that it anticipates on average two deliveries by tractor trailer per day.
24.03 – "One thing that wasn't mentioned on Wednesday night was truck traffic (ranging from large grocery trucks to smaller trucks delivering to the back of the retail section of the plaza). I believe that this truck traffic is the main reason for these proposed outlets. The thought of trucks on residential roads is very disturbing to us." Response: The project has been revised to eliminate access on Clover Street and Allens Creek Road; therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will result in an increase in truck traffic on these roads.
24.04 – "The Daniele Family should be required to address commercial delivery access to their proposed stores. If commercial vehicles cannot easily enter and exit from Monroe Avenue, they should be required to redesign the site to accommodate the issue." Response: The site is designed to accommodate truck traffic through the proposed signal light at the projects entrance.
24.05 [u110]– "If commercial delivery vehicles become a burden for Allens Creek and Clover, we will see a much more serious devaluation in property values...this should be prohibited".
FEIS January 2018 463
Response: See response to comment 24.03.
24.06 [u111]– "Where will additional delivery truck traffic be entering/exiting the property? Does it mean that large eighteen wheelers will be going out onto Allens Creek Road and Clover Street? Or will they be pulling out into and trying to cross traffic to go up the 590 ramp entrances?" Response: See response to comment 24.03. Trucks will utilize the proposed signal light at the project entrance off peak hours of travel.
FEIS January 2018 464
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 25– COMPREHENSIVE TOWN PLANS 25.01 – What happened to the attempt to make Brighton safely and pleasantly walkable and bikeable? Response: The proposal construction of the Auburn Trail from Highland Ave. to the Pittsford Town line. It also includes crosswalks at the new signal light at the Sakura Home consistent with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan and Monroe Avenue Vision Plan. See Sections 3.4 and 3.7 of the SDEIS and Section 1.4 of this FEIS.
25.02 – The developer plan is a wholesale rupture of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Response: Refer to section 2.3.13 of the DEIS for a detailed analysis of the project as it relates to the Town’s planning documents including the comprehensive plan and Bike/Walk Brighton. Some of the elements of the project that comply with the Comprehensive Pan include: -Providing quality commercial development -Enhancing pedestrian recreation needs (The plan specifically addresses the Auburn Trail) -Improving access on the South side of Monroe Avenue -The installation of a new pedestrian crossing at the signal light -Redeveloping existing infrastructure.
25.03 – The project should adhere to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Response: See response to comment 25.01 and 25.02.
25.04 – Two high uses on one parcel is not in the Town's Comprehensive Plan (Starbucks & Whole Foods). Response: The Comprehensive Plan does not include references to specific retailors but rather promotes “quality commercial development”.
FEIS January 2018 465
25.05 – "The Developer claims that such alternative development (5% oversized and not using residentially zoned land for business use) "does not meet [The Town's] Comprehensive Plan objectives and Monroe Avenue Corridor objectives." Response: Development of the parcel utilizing conventional zoning methods would not allow for the implementation of the access management plan or Lehigh trail improvements, both of which are specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan.
25.06 – "The Board must act rationally and reasonably in making a determination to grant an incentive zoning application, and must follow State law and the Town's comprehensive plan in doing so. As set forth in respected planning and zoning treatises on the subject, the public benefits of incentive zoning must offset the negative effects of the zoning bonus." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
25.07 – "Incentive zoning proposals must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and inconsistency requires rejection of the Application." Response: See response to comment 25.06.
25.08 – Discuss the project's application of recommendations from Bike/Walk Brighton and Monroe Vision Plan, as well as the Town's Comprehensive Plan. (Especially with regard to traffic, crash data, and land use.) Response: See response to comment 25.01 and 25.02.
25.09 – Transportation, traffic impact analysis, crash data, land use, construction impacts, Auburn Trail intrusion, pedestrian right of way, and appendices, should specifically reference and address recommendations from Bike/Walk Brighton and the Monroe Vision Plan.[u112] Response: See response to comment 25.01 and 25.02.
FEIS January 2018 466
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 26– FIGURES AND DEIS TRAFFIC STUDY 26.01 – Request that the Town generate the necessary and accurate data, and not accept the data provided by any of the developers that have a vested interest. Moreover, the Town should not utilize the developer's traffic analysis in making a decision. Response: The data depicted in the revised TIS which is included as part of the SDEIS includes updated data that has been approved by the Town’s engineering consultant and NYSDOT. Specifically, that data includes signal information and timing and existing traffic volumes. The revised Traffic Impact Study (TIS) included as part of the SDEIS has been extensively reviewed by the Town’s engineering consultant and NYSDOT. It will not be accepted until it has been completed to the satisfaction of both of those parties.
26.02 – The studies need to factor in not only cars, but also the service trucks that will supply Whole Foods, Starbucks, etc. Response: The study utilizes a “heavy vehicle” factor to account for truck traffic. The internal traffic circulation accounts for delivery vehicles.
26.03 – The traffic data presented by the Daniele Family and accepted by the Town Board was full of holes and inaccurate. The study should be done again so that it reflects actual use and timing. Response: The traffic study has been redone and is included as part of the SDEIS. The baseline data utilized in the revised study has been reviewed and approved by the Town’s engineering consultant and NYSDOT. The original Traffic Study submitted as part of the DEIS was prepared using signal timing data provided directly to the applicant by the NYSDOT. That data included signal timing at Monroe and Clover Street which provided an eastbound green time of over 70 seconds. Shortly after the completion of the DEIS, it was determined that the intersection of Monroe and Clover was not functioning as designed and anticipated by the NYSDOT, it was only providing approximately 40 seconds of eastbound green time. The dysfunction of the light led to increased delays in the Monroe Avenue corridor through the spring and summer of 2016.
FEIS January 2018 467
After it was discovered by the applicant that the light was not working as designed, the NYSDOT began to implement incremental increases to the westbound green time. As a result, the traffic along Monroe Avenue improved significantly as evidenced by field observations conducted throughout September and October of 2016. The revised TIS includes the final programmed signal timing which now provides over 65 seconds of green time similar to the NYSDOT’s original design. (See revised TIS Section IV.B Page 2-4).
26.04 – The data used should be current and not from years back. Response: The NYSDOT recently conducted traffic counts along the Monroe Avenue corridor that verified that the existing volume data contained within the Traffic Study is accurate.
26.05 – Square footage of use space within the proposed plaza is not related to the vehicular activity. Number of individual sales is the driver that determines the level of congestion. Response: Whole Foods traffic data has been researched and it was found that the majority of existing Whole Foods stores are located in densely populated urban areas. Other traffic studies for Whole Foods that were under design in more suburban areas determined that ITE rates were the most appropriate source of trip generation data. This site was compared to the East Avenue Wegmans store as well. The study for East Avenue Wegmans determined that “Because of its urban location the trip rates for this store are skewed as many patrons frequent the store several times per week, often on their way home from work, versus completing one large shopping trip on the weekends, which is typical of other store locations.” The traffic projections provided in the TIS are an accurate representation of anticipated volumes. See response to comment 12.30.
26.06 – It is clear that the developer will continue to maximize the size of the development at the expense of the resident requests and justify it with inaccurate, misleading traffic numbers. Response: The baseline numbers presented in the Traffic Study were reviewed and confirmed by the NYSDOT and the Town’s engineering consultant.
FEIS January 2018 468
26.07 – The Town needs to commit to requiring that the developer fix the traffic information in the DEIS to the reasonable satisfaction of the DOT, Stantec, and the resident's traffic consultant. Response: See responses to comments 26.01 and 26.03.
26.08 – The developer's estimate for site generated trips could be off by as much as 90-100% - please validate this figure using real world Whole Foods data. Response: See response to comment 12.30 and 26.05.
26.09 – The DOT disagrees with the numbers the DEIS uses for Monroe Avenue; they stated that the traffic delay estimates with the proposal are grossly underestimated. Response: See responses to comments 26.01 and 26.03.
26.10 – Does the traffic study in the DEIS include an accident study? If not, it should. Response: NYSDOT instructed the applicant to omit a safety/accident study given the recent construction throughout the corridor. An appropriate post-construction sample size is not currently available. The police department has indicated that accident rates have decreased in the project area over the past 4 years by approximately 25%.
26.11 – The Daniele’s deflate their figures, and even still what they want to put up would be double the size of the average Whole Foods emporium and the numbers (from the website) show that it would average 8000 plus per day. This is not acceptable. Response: See response to comment 12.30 and 26.05.
26.12 – I expect that Monroe, Clover and Westfall traffic will be significantly affected by the Whole Foods development. This concern is not addressed adequately by the DEIS or its traffic study. Response: The Traffic Study includes a thorough analysis of Monroe Avenue, Clover Street and Westfall Road and has been conducted in accordance with the applicable guidelines and scope as provided by the NYSDOT. Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 469
The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however.
26.13 – It is apparent that traffic is the most significant of the project's impact. A meeting should be set up with the applicant and its traffic engineer, interested members of the public, citizens groups and their traffic engineer, members of the Town Board and its consultant, and representatives of the NYSDOT. Response: The applicant has met with the Town, their engineering consultants and the DOT on numerous occasions to ensure that the Traffic Impact Study was prepared in a manner consistent with their expectations.
26.14 – All of the traffic reviewers have noted the increased traffic will have severe harmful effects on the community. Response: As demonstrated in the revised traffic study, the project will not result in additional traffic that is significantly higher than the combination of Marios’ Clover Lanes and Mamasans restaurant. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however.
FEIS January 2018 470
26.15 – Traffic on Monroe Avenue needs to be properly analyzed so that all parties can agree that we have the best data available to use going forward. Response: See responses to comments 26.01 and 26.03.
26.16 – The developer needs to provide the missing traffic information. Response: See responses to comments 26.01 and 26.03.
26.17 – The base for the DEIS traffic study is not accurate. Response: See responses to comments 26.01 and 26.03.
26.18 – The traffic study's "delay" is unknown or failing. Response: Traffic delays and levels of service for each intersection are provided within the revised SDEIS. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however.
26.19 – Will the lack of turning arrows promote unsafe maneuvers by motorists? Response: A left turn signal has been added to the western Monroe Ave access point. See Sections 1.4 and 2.2 of this FEIS.
26.20 – Was a highway safety analysis done? If not, it should be. Response: See response to comment 26.10.
FEIS January 2018 471
26.21 – There is a high accident rate on this stretch of Monroe Avenue. Was an accident study done with root cause analysis? Response: See response to comment 26.10.
26.22 – The "Q-lengths" included in the DEIS are not correct. Response: The revised TIS includes a detailed discussion on the reported queue lengths vs the actual que lengths. The software used to analyze the traffic provides the queue length. It is the distance from the light to the last stopped vehicle when the light turns green. It is noted that after the light turns green, addition vehicles do enter and lengthen the queue prior to the entire block of traffic moving forward through the light. (See revised TIS Section XI Pages 27-30). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS for a summary of anticipated queue lengths.
26.23 – Additional traffic analysis is needed. Response: See responses to comments 26.01 and 26.03.
26.24 – A more thorough traffic study should be done on Clover Street. Response: See response to comment 26.12.
26.25 – The traffic study should include statistics since the changes were made to 590 access and since the Royal Car Wash was put in. Response: See responses to comments 26.01 and 26.03.
26.26 – Review how students can safely walk from the 12 corners, and well as across Allen's Creek at the Auburn Trail. Response: There are existing sidewalks on both sides of Monroe Avenue from the proposed site to the 12 Corners with pedestrian accommodations provided at traffic signals. The project includes construction of the Auburn Trail from Highland Ave to the Pittsford Town line, including the addition of crosswalks at Allen’s Creek Road, Elmwood Ave. and Clover Street.
FEIS January 2018 472
26.27 – Table 2.2 11-1 (p. 100) of the DEIS, titled "Operational Volume Summary" is nearly identical (has identical data and times listed) to another chart one resident found online on a National Real Estate Investment web page. Moreover, the data listed on their page is from 2003; this is disconcerting, and means that the data is not relevant to the Town of Brighton. What other data in the DEIS follows this pattern? Response: All data contained within the SDEIS and TIS has been presented so that it is specific to the Town to the maximum extent practicable.
26.28 – How many cars can you store between lights? This needs to be added to the traffic study, because it is likely that adding a light here is just going to back everything up. There are just too many cars, and realistically there needs to be more than one point of access. Response: For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. A maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor during the peak hour.
26.29 – "...in a brochure advertising the proposal on its website, the Developer brags that this Monroe Avenue Whole Foods anchored center all but guarantees record breaking sales and traffic...the brochure further projects a daily traffic count of 49,249 vehicles, a more than 20% increase over the NYSDOT traffic volume data (40,890 vehicles per day) reported in the DEIS. (DEIS at 141). This increase would have a significant, negative effect on traffic along the project corridor." Response: Specific and accurate traffic data is provided within the revised TIS. The volume data has been reviewed and verified by the NYSDOT. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also
FEIS January 2018 473
proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
26.30 – "Despite the obvious negative effects this proposal would have on local traffic, the Developer completely failed to propose adequate traffic mitigation measure for SEQRA purposes. Response: The proposal includes significant traffic mitigation including the access management plan and new signal light which will make the corridor safer. Also see response to comment 26.29.
26.31 – "...the Developer states that it will, at some unspecified point in time, develop a maintenance and protection of traffic plan to address these [traffic] problems in the future. DEIS at 175. In assessing a project under SEQRA, it is impermissible for an agency to rely upon general assurances that after the problems develop the applicant will adequately mitigate them by some appropriate action. See H.O.M.E.S. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 69 A.D.2d 222, 232 (4th Dep't 1979)." Response: The maintenance and protection of traffic plan (MPOT) is a temporary measure that is utilized during the construction phase of the project. Standard MPOT procedures and requirements are provided by the NYSDOT. Prior to issuing a permit for any work within the State right-of-way the developer will satisfy those requirements.
26.32 – "All three sets of traffic engineers who have reviewed the developer's traffic report have unanimously found the report to have material deficiencies." Response: See responses to comments 26.01 and 26.03.
26.33 – "The Developer actually makes the convoluted argument that because the plaza will attract many visitors, drawing them off of Monroe Avenue for a limited time while they are patronizing the plaza, that this somehow has the effect of reducing traffic levels there. DEIS at 213. No citation or other authority is provided which explains or supports this assertion." Response: The DEIS refers to a common theory known as “pass by traffic”. Pass by traffic includes cars that are already traveling the corridor on a regular basis who would then use the plaza prior to re-entering the corridor. The applicant does not claim
FEIS January 2018 474
that the project will reduce traffic, but instead acknowledges that some of the traffic generated by the proposal is already traveling within the corridor.
26.34 – "In all, the DEIS devotes over thirty pages to discussing “transportation mitigation”. DEIS at 202-237. Incredibly, the Developer completes this lengthy discussion without proposing that it be required to take a single action to mitigate the effect of traffic. Instead, the Developer repeatedly implies that it would rely on the efforts of others to mitigate the harmful effects that traffic from the plaza would have on the Monroe Avenue corridor." Response: The proposal includes several measures that will mitigate existing traffic problems including the addition of a traffic signal and access improvements along the south side of Monroe Avenue.
26.35 – "One of the many failures of the DEIS is the failure to include a chart showing the rezonings, variances, and other approvals required if the proposal went through regular zoning." Response: The “incentives” identified in the DEIS and in this FEIS at section 1.5 illustrate the typical zoning approvals and requirement for the deviations from the code.
26.36 – "Given the incompleteness and deficient nature of the DEIS, the Town Board should require the developer to submit a supplemental environmental impact statement, or SDEIS, particularly with respect to the issue of traffic, but also for the other issues discussed above." Response: See responses to comments 26.01 and 26.03. An SDEIS was required by the Town and prepared by the applicant.
26.37 – "If the DEIS is not rejected as incomplete, the Developer should be required to submit a SDEIS on the issue of traffic since “newly discovered information” – namely, the deficiencies and inaccuracies in the Developer’s traffic study as identified by Stantec, DOT, and MFJ – raise serious doubts as to the credibility of the that traffic study, and/or whether it adequately addressed the environmental impacts which could result from increased traffic from the proposed development." Response: See responses to comments 26.01, 26.03 and 26. 36
FEIS January 2018 475
26.38 – "Requiring a SDEIS would also permit the developer to rectify the other deficiencies in the DEIS discussed above, such as properly addressing secondary/growth impacts, cumulative impacts, and other requirements in the DEIS Final Scope that the Developer ignored." Response: See responses to comments 26.01, 26.03 and 26. 36.
26.39 – "Lead agencies may reject traffic studies submitted by applicants where those studies are shown by opposing experts to be deficient in quality, or contain overly optimistic assumptions about traffic patterns, or otherwise fail to analyze the effect of increased traffic on the area surrounding area. See Retail Prop. Trust v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 98 N.Y.2d 190, 194- 95 (2002). Such is the case here." Response: See responses to comments 26.01 and 26.03.
26.40 – "The Developer’s failure to properly consider traffic impacts is particularly egregious since the New York State Department of Transportation has previously given this section of Monroe Avenue an “F”, and the new development is guaranteed to increase traffic there." Response: The applicant does not fail to properly consider traffic impacts. A detailed analysis of existing conditions and potential impacts related to the development is included within the TIS included as part of the SDEIS.
26.41 – "Of particular note is the failure to address the recent changes in signals by the NYSDOT. The TIS must be redone to properly consider those conditions. This alone justifies the requirement of an SDEIS." Response: See responses to comments 26.01, 26.03 and 26. 36.
26.42 – "The DEIS relies on mitigation using land not currently owned or controlled by the Applicant. The TIS must be redone to reflect the unavailability of those lands." Response: The access management plan proposed along the south side of Monroe Avenue is not mitigation for the project but rather an amenity offered by the project. The applicant has provided easement agreements demonstrating their ability to construct the proposed improvements. Refer to Section 1.6 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 476
26.43 – "Throughout the process the Applicant has given conflicting measures on using back roads into a local neighborhood for access. The TIS must be redone to reflect clearly the impact of such options on the traffic, as well as accident potential in the residential area." Response: See response to comment 19.01.
26.44 – "The DEIS is incomplete since it fails to adequately address traffic impacts." Response: The SDEIS has been prepared at the direction of the Town Board and in accordance with the approved EIS scope.
26.45 – "It is utterly inconceivable that a 93,000-square foot commercial redevelopment, placed on the doorstep of several residential neighborhoods, in a traffic burdened, accident prone area, which displaces existing, successful commercial enterprises and is seeking wholesale exemption from a plethora of Zoning Code provisions, could have no cumulative impacts on the proposed project area." Response: The applicant does not refute the claim that the proposal will have potential impacts to the surrounding area. Those potential impacts are studied in detail as part of the EIS process. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however.
FEIS January 2018 477
26.46 – "The DEIS is further incomplete since it does not contain all of the information required by the DEIS Final Scope document issued by the Town on September 24, 2015." Response: See responses to comments 26.01 and 26.03. The revised TIS satisfies the original scope of the DEIS as well as the scope of the SDEIS.
26.47 – "The Developer’s traffic study fails to include items required by the DEIS Final Scope." Response: See response to comment 26.46.
26.48 – "Any argument that the DEIS should be approved contingent on the inclusion of the missing/deficient information in the final EIS should be rejected. As noted by the Court of Appeals, where a DEIS fails to include any of the statutorily required items, “the omission [ ] cannot be cured simply by including the item in the final EIS.” Webster Assocs. v. Webster, 59 N.Y.2d 220, 228 (1983). This is because the abbreviated waiting period before the approval of a final EIS “is not a substitute for the extended period and comprehensive procedures for public and agency scrutiny of and comment on the draft EIS.” Response: The SDEIS has been prepared to address the comment.
26.49 – "The Developer has repeatedly stated that it is asking for less than other developers have already received in other parts of the Monroe Avenue Corridor. The actual question is what is the capacity of the infrastructure to handle this proposal? The Applicant should instead provide evidence of any major development like this – adding 20,000 ft plus in building space and a major change in use being approved in Brighton where the intersections were, prior to approval, already at failing (“F”) levels." Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The existing capacity of the Monroe Avenue corridor is studied in the revised TIS. That TIS includes potential impacts and the associated mitigation resulting from the proposed development. The existing failing levels of service were in part a result of dysfunctional signal timings at the Monroe Avenue and Clover Street intersection which were recently corrected by the NYSDOT.
FEIS January 2018 478
26.50 – "Here the Developer has acted as if his supersized project has floated down onto vacant lands. There is no analysis of the overwhelming negative impacts their gridlock will impose on the community." Response: The DEIS and SDEIS have been prepared based upon an approved scope. The purpose of these documents is to analyze the potential impact on the community. The EIS process will not be completed until the documents have been prepared to the satisfaction of the Town and their consultants.
26.51 – Regarding impacts of increased general pollution as a result of the traffic - "if this can be quantified by the traffic engineer, it would be another important aspect to consider." Response: The proposed use allows shoppers another option for groceries and other services, and enhances infrastructure for walking and cycling, as alternatives to vehicle trips. Those future shoppers would likely seek other locations to satisfy those needs if the project were not developed. The potential pollution from emissions is not increased because of the project.
26.52 – Will the increase in traffic from the project impact how long it will take for an ambulance, fire truck, or police officer to respond to the Monroe Ave area? A study should be done to understand what the impact will be and what the numbers would be before and after the proposed project? Response: See response to comment 1.03.
26.53 – "Discussion must include bicycle and ADA access and intersections, a bicycle parking plan, and traffic controls to specifically include pedestrian crossings and signals at Clover Street and Allens Creek Road for Auburn Trail." Response: New pedestrian crossings are proposed for Auburn Trail at Clover St. and Elmwood Ave. as part of the project improvements. Bicycle parking and access is provided throughout the development. See section 3.4 and 3.7 of the SDEIS. Also see Figure 3 of this FEIS.
FEIS January 2018 479
26.54 – Please include map specifically showing bicycle and pedestrian trail links. Response: The site plan included as part of the SDEIS includes the proposed trail system. Also see Figure 3 of this FEIS.
26.55 – Please include a chart or list of permitted construction and operation hours, access for construction vehicles, storage of equipment and materials, and construction impacts (specifically discussing any intrusion into the Auburn Trail / pedestrian right of way). Response: Construction activities will be consistent with the Town ordinances. Construction vehicles will enter the site from Monroe Avenue. Construction staging will be separated from the Auburn Trail.
26.56 – "The Daniele Family should be required to address commercial delivery access to their proposed stores. If commercial vehicles cannot easily enter and exit from Monroe Avenue, they should be required to redesign the site to accommodate the issue." Response: See responses to comments 24.01 and 24.04.
26.57 – "The information should include traffic volumes, peak times, speeds, crash locations and types of other pertinent information...some of the data prior to (2014) reconstruction, such as traffic volumes adjusted for trends may still be useful...this data could easily be kept up to date, weekly." Response: See responses to comments 26.01 and 26.03.
26.58 – "It appears that some of the intent with the Developer's 300+ page document was to overwhelm the Board and the public with so much 'data' that one almost gives up reading it and begins to assume that the conclusions must be correct." Response: The DEIS and SDEIS were prepared in accordance with the content required in the approved scope.
26.59 – "Provide a comprehensive metes and bounds survey map delineating exactly what is being proposed at the Project site and where, including without limit all structures, paved areas, pedestrian access, landscaping, utilities, and so forth."[u113] Response: Refer to the proposed Site Plan provided at figure 1.
FEIS January 2018 480
26.60 – Concerns regarding Monroe Avenue and Westfall traffic congestion, specifically during rush hour and holiday season traffic...what impact will the project have on traffic during rush hour times on Monroe Avenue and surrounding areas? Are those numbers included in the traffic study? No time period should be excluded.[u114] Response: The TIS analyzes traffic during the peak hours (rush hour) in the morning, afternoon and weekend. It is noted that traffic increases during the Holiday season; however, it is not common traffic engineering practice to base the study during those timeframes as they are the exception. (See revised TIS Section IV.D Pages 4-5).
26.61 –Transportation must include a detailed corridor study including new traffic studies conducted after completion of recent Monroe Avenue construction and to include recommendations from and specifically reference Bike/Walk Brighton, Monroe Vision Plan, and the Town's Comprehensive Plan.[u115] Response: The DEIS includes an evaluation of the plans mentioned by the commenter. The proposal includes several improvements which are consistent with those plans including pedestrian and trail improvements, bicycle accommodations and access management. The proposal also seeks to utilize incentive zoning to decrease the front setbacks to the proposed buildings which is recommended in the Towns planning documents.
26.62 – "The scope of the traffic evaluation should extend all the way to the Route 490 entrances/exits as many local residents already use these routes to relieve the burden along Monroe Avenue, as well as the Clover Street to Elmwood Avenue to access Twelve Corners.[u116] Response: The scope of the study as presented in the DEIS and SDEIS was reviewed and approved by the Town’s engineering consultant and NYSDOT.
FEIS January 2018 481
26.63 – It is apparent that traffic is the most significant issue with the project. Traffic flow on Monroe all the way from Clover to Edgewood, and on Clover from Monroe to Allen's Creek, and on Allen's Creek between Clover and Monroe, must be evaluated and incorporated in the Palazzo Project scope... including an evaluation of the effects of traffic flow synchronization, without which considerable harm will be done to the neighboring properties.[u117] Response: The TIS has been prepared to analyze potential impacts within the area identified by the commenter. The study includes a proposal to provide coordination between with the proposed traffic signal and the signal at Clover Street and Monroe Avenue.
26.64 – Have any viable solutions to the problem of increased traffic been presented? To date it appears there has not been any discussion on how to resolve the issues that will be created by this development. The DOT and the Town engineers have stated that the Developer's proposal does not address these issues.[u118] Response: The applicant does not refute the claim that the proposal will have potential impacts to the surrounding area. Those potential impacts are studied in detail as part of the EIS process. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Thus, it is not anticipated that additional people would choose to use Clover Street or Allens Creek Road because of the project. Both Clover Street and Allens Creek have capacity for more traffic however.
26.65 – I am aghast that someone would even propose such a development with such blatantly incorrect and dishonest supporting documentation.[u119] Response: The supporting data contained within the SDEIS and TIS, with respect to traffic volumes and signal timings, was reviewed and confirmed by the NYSDOT.
FEIS January 2018 482
26.66 – What do the numbers look like for the former Mario's, bowling alley and Clover Lanes Plaza businesses? They could not have generated anywhere near the number of customers that this new proposal will.[u120] Response: The alternatives analysis shows that the proposal generates more traffic than the previous land uses. See response to comment 1.01. Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
26.67 – Where can I find the information on the NYSDOT study of Monroe Avenue, and its F rating?[u121] Response: Monroe Ave. does not have an F rating. See response to comment 1.01. Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
26.68 – Were they lying about the numbers? Why were the other studies so much more accurate than theirs?[u122] Response: The applicant was not lying, there was a discrepancy with the malfunctioning traffic signal at Monroe and Clover Street. See section 1.0 of the SDEIS.
26.69 – The Daniele’s made a claim that traffic does not back up onto Monroe Avenue as people wait to get on 590. This is a blatantly false statement, as "we have come to a dead stop up on 590 at the Monroe Ave. exit more than once...not a safe feeling with traffic zooming past you a 70 mph.[u123] Response: The applicant does not refute the claim that the proposal will have potential impacts to the surrounding area. Those potential impacts are studied in detail as part of the EIS process. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
FEIS January 2018 483
26.70 – The Daniele’s should provide a parcel plan and site map which includes a copy of the existing site with labels indicating all easements, utilities, RG&E poles, existing structures, property lines, parking, zoning districts, etc., as well as indicate what portion of the Auburn trail is on residential land. The details for any easements should also be included.[u124] Response: Refer to figures 1 and 5 of this FEIS for the requested mapping.
26.71 – How could a commercial road be approved by the town on residentially zoned land - land that is intended to be a buffer? And how could that road - intended for vehicular traffic - be placed on top of a pedestrian easement for a trail?[u125] Response: No road has been planned on top of a pedestrian trail as part of the project. The proposal includes the construction of the Auburn Trail from Highland Ave. to the Pittsford Town line.
26.72 – Opening a Whole Foods here would draw in more outsider traffic to the area, and probably increase the traffic numbers more than they think or are suggesting...how can the accurately predict what those numbers might be?[u126] Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS for the projected number of trips generated by the project.
26.73 – The report is missing information and figures regarding customer volume for Whole Foods, Starbucks, and the 19 other planned retail shops. This should include averages, as well as seasonal, weekly, daily, and hourly spikes.[u127] Response: Traffic generated by the number of people using the development is provided at section VII-C of the TIS and at Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
26.74 – Some of the important information in the DEIS report appears to be intentionally misleading.[u128] Response: The information provided in the DEIS is based on standard engineering practices.
FEIS January 2018 484
26.75 – Other than Appendix 4: Water Distribution, the MCWA GIS mapping, none of the figures or maps show the location of Shoreham Drive, which is less than 100 feet from the project, or any of the properties to the east side of Clover, Pickwick Circle, or Whitestone.[u129] Response: The traffic counts and trip generations contained within the Traffic Impact study illustrate the location of Shoreham Drive and other residential streets analyzed in accordance with the approved scope.
FEIS January 2018 485
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 27– IMPACT ON LOCAL BUSINESS 27.01 – The traffic has become so bad on Monroe Avenue, that some people no longer consider shopping at stores along this corridor. It's just too difficult to turn in or onto Monroe Avenue. Response: The proposed traffic signal and access management plan will improve the ability to enter sites on both sides of Monroe Avenue by providing protected signalized turning movements. As explained at Section 2.2 of this FEIS, the businesses on the South side of Monroe Avenue currently experience failing levels of service at their entrances. Under developed conditions, vehicles will have the ability to access a signal light to allow safe exit into the corridor.
27.02 – "I rent an office on Allen's Creek Road." Due to the trouble that clients experience with traffic congestion, as well as concerns over an increase in that congestion if this project goes through "I will hesitate to renew my lease..." Response: The only access to the site will be from Monroe Avenue in an effort to reduce potential impact to Allen’s Creek Road.
27.03 – The project will result in lost revenue for other local businesses, and therefore tax revenue as more people start to avoid Monroe Avenue for their shopping and dining needs. Response: The Town Board will consider all potential environmental impact as it relates to neighboring properties and businesses.
27.04 – Existing businesses will close or relocate. Response: See response to comment 27.03.
27.05 – This is already a commercial area and the new development will significantly increase the quality and appeal of the area, in turn benefitting other local businesses. Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 486
27.06 – This project will allow many local farmers and small town businesses to offer their products through Whole Foods, through their internal community outreach. Response: Comment noted.
27.07 – "The DEIS did not substantively attempt to assess the impact the project would have on the surrounding businesses along Monroe Avenue either, other than to comment on how its self-serving access management plan would facilitate traffic between the northern and southern development plazas." Response: See response to comment 27.03.
27.08 – "Perhaps Tops in Brighton will go out of business as a result of this project. Then what will become of that site?" Response: See response to comment 27.03.
27.09 – How will increased traffic volume from this project affect our important Brighton businesses on Monroe Avenue? If traffic increases it may cause more people to avoid Monroe Avenue and avoid shopping at local businesses on Monroe Avenue. We cannot jeopardize our local businesses![u130] Response: The applicant does not refute the claim that the proposal will have potential impacts to the surrounding area. Those potential impacts are studied in detail as part of the EIS process. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
FEIS January 2018 487
27.10 – It appears that the location for the proposed access road currently belongs to another local business - the Animal Hospital (whose parking lot is often full). What effect will this plan have on the Animal Hospital and what do they have to say about all this? Is someone working with them in this regard?[u131] Response: The only vehicular access to the site is proposed off of Monroe Avenue.
27.11 – Will existing businesses from the local area relocate to the plaza? If so, what will become of the old locations? What will the impact of the new location be to the businesses on the South side of Monroe Avenue? Ideally, new and different businesses would be at the proposed plaza; I would hope that if existing businesses relocate to the plaza that there will not be unintended consequences elsewhere.[u132] Response: It is possible that existing businesses would relocate to the plaza and other businesses would backfill those locations.
27.12 – Local business owners and employees feel that Whole Foods Plaza will affect their business. Response: See response to comment 27.03.
27.13 – The proposed development and resulting traffic will negatively impact other local businesses...I do not want to see businesses like Abundance Foods and Loris to go under just because some national chain decides to move in on their turf.[u133] Response: The applicant does not refute the claim that the proposal will have potential impacts to the surrounding area. Those potential impacts are studied in detail as part of the EIS process. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
FEIS January 2018 488
27.14 – Many have already stopped going to businesses along Monroe Ave. because traffic is so frustrating.[u134] Response: See response to comment 27.13.
27.15 – If the traffic becomes unbearable on Monroe Ave., many people will probably stop going to businesses along Monroe Avenue, and start shopping at Tops instead.[u135] Response: See response to comment 27.13.
FEIS January 2018 489
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 28– PUBLIC HEARING 28.01 – The residents who are part of the Clover Areas Neighborhood Association would like another 60 days after the traffic information is corrected and submitted in order to comment. Response: Updated traffic information is contained within the SDEIS and the TIS in accordance with the SDEIS Positive Declaration. Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
28.02 – Unless and until the developer provides the missing traffic information, there is not enough for the public to comment on under the DEIS. Therefore, the public hearing should remain open. Response: See response to comment 28.01.
28.03 – The current DEIS is not easy or reasonable for people to read; therefore, it is not possible to make an informed decision in this amount of time. The DEIS should be explained before the hearing is closed. Response: The DEIS was prepared in accordance with the approved EIS scope. The public comment period was extended to provide additional time to review the document.
28.04 – McFarland Johnson will submit "the correct numbers" to the Town for the traffic study by the end of July. The Town should extend the public hearing period until they have had time to review Stantec's review of McFarland Johnson's numbers before the public hearing is closed..."it would be unfathomable to close the public hearing before that." ..."it's about fundamental fairness." Response: See response to comment 28.01.
28.05 – "Unless and until the developer of the Project provides all of the missing traffic information, the written comment period on the DEIS should not be closed." Response: See response to comment 28.01.
FEIS January 2018 490
28.06 – "All three sets of traffic engineers who have reviewed the developer's traffic report have unanimously found the report to have material deficiencies. For purposes of proper process, compliance with SEQRA, and fundamental fairness, the written comment period needs to be left open until a reasonable time after the developer has materially provided the information requested by the Town's traffic engineers. Furthermore, the public comment period must not be closed until the Town's traffic engineers issue their comments on the project impact(s) on traffic and the Association's traffic engineers are given sufficient opportunity to properly review and respond to the Stantec comments in writing for the Town Board's review." Response: See response to comment 28.01.
28.07 – It is impossible to adequately comment on the deficiencies and omissions in this DEIS due to the sheer size and scope of the project, but there are things both the public and the Board need to know before this is allowed to move forward.[u136] Response: The TIS has been updated and was provided within the SDEIS which was subject to a separate public hearing.
FEIS January 2018 491
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 29– THE DEVELOPER 29.01 – The private developer must mitigate the density of use on his own property, and if he is unable to meet established standards for traffic and safety, then it is his burden to decrease the project's density. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
29.02 – The Developers have been active community partners for all the years they have been in Rochester. Response: Comment is not relevant to the project.
29.03 – The Daniele Family's apartment project at the southern end of Irondequoit Bay also has an inappropriate size and density for its parcel of land. Response: Comment is not relevant to the project proposal.
29.04 – Has the Royal Car Wash on Monroe Avenue been financially successful? It is an attractive structure, but relatively few cars can be seen using it. Response: Comment is not relevant to the project proposal.
29.05 – The Daniele Family closed quite a successful business in anticipation of this build. It looks very suspicious. "This family has deep political ties and I have heard fellow residents state that there is no use in fighting it, that Brighton is in the Daniele’s' back pocket...the Town Board is obliged to the common good of ALL its citizens." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
29.06 – At the end of the day will it be the voices of the folks in Brighton who are heard or the family with money and power? Response: See response to comment 13.01. The Town Board as Lead Agency considers all comment from the public in their findings.
FEIS January 2018 492
29.07 – The Daniele Family and their supporters are being disingenuous and somewhat tone deaf. The opposition to the redevelopment plan is not anti-development and isn't putting forth a plea to do nothing; the project just has to have less square footage that adheres to existing zoning; a lower density of use; no drive throughs; a permanent agreement to forego access roads; and be in keeping with the character of Brighton. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
29.08 – The importance of the quality of life of our current and future Brighton residents should be considered over the constant expansion of financially-motivated developers. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
29.09 – Opposed to the expectations of the Daniele Brothers - that because of their influence and money they can do what they please. Response: Comment is not relevant to the project proposal.
29.10 – Greed motivates this proposal. Response: Comment is not relevant to the project proposal.
29.11 – The developer has proven to be an excellent company with fine products that have helped make the corridor a wonderful shopping experience. Response: Comment is not relevant to the project proposal.
29.12 – The developer's other company on Monroe Avenue, Royal Car Wash, also came up against neighbor's concerns over traffic which have since proven to be nonexistent. ("I use the car wash daily and have never had a problem getting in and out.") Response: Comment is not relevant to the project proposal.
29.13 – This is an opportunity to allow the Daniele Family to do what they do best...beautify the community! Response: Comment noted.
FEIS January 2018 493
29.14 – The Daniele Family has a reputation for quality and beautiful developments like Mario's, Royal Car Wash, Bazil Restaurant and Southpoint Marina. "I believe that the Whole Foods Plaza will be a community gem." Response: Comment noted.
29.15 – The Developer did not put enough thought put into the Alternative Site Plans. Response: The Alternatives were prepared in accordance with the approved EIS scoping document.
29.16 – The DEIS refers to private agreements the developer has for properties abutting residential properties...residents need to know what these are, NOW. Response: All agreements with adjacent property owners have been provided as part of the EIS and are included in the appendices of the SDEIS or will be required to be approved in form and substance by the Town prior to the start of any construction.
29.17 – "...in a brochure advertising the proposal on its website, the Developer brags that this Monroe Avenue Whole Foods anchored center all but guarantees record breaking sales and traffic." Response: The Traffic Impact Study contains real data and conclusions regarding traffic. Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS.
29.18 – "It is clear that the Developer is talking out of both sides of its mouth, downplaying the effect of traffic in an attempt to deceive the Town Board into approving the project, while simultaneously advertising that the plaza will attract a "record-breaking" number of visitors and traffic to attract renters and/or further investment. [See Environmental Impact Review in New York § 5-59]". Response: Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS for expected trip generations.
FEIS January 2018 494
29.19 – "Instead of addressing the potential cumulative impacts of this project, which are many, the Developer ignored them entirely, and/or is intentionally lying about them to the Town Board." Response: The FEIS has been prepared in accordance with the approved scoping document.
29.20 – "I have nothing against the current ownership group, and as a matter of fact will admit that they have been active community partners for all the years they have been in Rochester. That said, this is the wrong project, at the wrong location." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
29.21 – "Please consider what will happen to this site if the Developer defaults." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
29.22 – "The Developer seems to be signing contracts for buildings that the Developer doesn't even have permission to build; either a) the Developer is stupid or b) the Developer already has some assurance that he could build what he wants somehow." Response: Contracts with prospective tenants are contingent on the environmental review and Municipal Approvals.
29.23 – "I firmly oppose allowing the developers of the Whole Foods project any special treatment, incentive zoning, special zoning changes, concessions, exemptions or special uses, or releases from requirements, conditions or promises. They should not be allowed to make changes to the proposed plaza project unless every change is also made public and evaluated with the same intensity as the original proposal...Large corporations (including any of their developers, local representatives or franchise holders) should be required to follow the exact same rules as every local individual or entity must follow."[u137] Response: See response to comment 13.01. Any property owner may apply for variances, conditional use permits or incentive zoning, as the case may be in connection with the development of their property.
FEIS January 2018 495
29.24 – "The Developer has already demonstrated a disregard for their neighbors (paved path) and the safety of others for personal use and monetary gain. It is imperative that the Town step in to protect its citizens. The scope of this project demonstrates a clear disregard for the surrounding neighbors and safety of the community."[u138] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
29.25 – With Mr. Daniele's political ties, it seems suspicious that they are acting like this project is a done deal. It is inappropriate that the project is actively being marketed for rent...their arrogance is insulting.[u139] Response: The applicant is fully aware that the project is subject to a thorough environmental. review and that it is not “a done deal”. See response to comment 13.01.
29.26 – The only time or place on the Auburn Trail that I feel unsafe in any way is the area directly behind the Daniele's property, where they illegally paved and took it over for their own personal use years ago.[u140] Response: The project includes construction of the Auburn Trail to Town standards from Highland Ave. to the Pittsford Town line. See SDEIS section 3.7, Section 1.4 of this FEIS and Figure 3 of this FEIS.
29.27 – "Some people won't agree with me, but as far as I'm concerned the Developer is well within his rights to develop the Whole Foods Plaza...I honestly hope his final project is successful and makes a considerable profit doing so..." An APPROPRIATELY SIZED Whole Foods would be great to have here, provided a number of issued are fixed, including Auburn Trail restoration and pedestrian safety, reduction in scale, and significantly more amenities for the Town.[u141] Response: Comment noted.
29.28 – If the Daniele’s were tired of running the restaurant, they could have easily sold it. This whole thing is all just because of their greed. They don't want to have to share their "golden goose" with Delta Sonic. It's called "competition". Every other business deals with it, they can too.[u142] Response: Comment is not relevant to the environmental review.
FEIS January 2018 496
29.29 – What is being done about the fact that the Developer illegally paved over the trail behind Mario's restaurant in an RLA District, put speed bumps across the trail, and allowed parking on what should be a public trail? If permits were in fact filed, who approved it?[u143] Response: In 1996, the existing 10‘wide trail easement for the Auburn Trail located on the Mario’s Restaurant parcel was obtained during the Planning Board Site Plan and Subdivision approval for the parking lot expansion for Mario’s Restaurant. The easement is located within the existing paved area and is not formally improved as a trail. The project proposes the construction of the Auburn Trail from Highland Ave. to the Pittsford Town line, including a new paved trail through the project that is separated from vehicular traffic as well as offsite improvements as detailed at Section 1.6
29.30 – Do the Daniele’s have a right of first refusal for the rest of the First Baptist Church property? What is the likelihood that this land too will eventually be turned into commercial property?[u144] Response: Not to the knowledge of the Lead Agency.
FEIS January 2018 497
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 30– BRIGHTON TOWN GOVERNMENT 30.01 – Does the potential gain in sales tax outweigh citizen concerns about increased congestion, accidents, and general dissent and dissent with our town government? Response: See response to comment 13.01.
30.02 – "This family has deep political ties and I have heard fellow residents state that there is no use in fighting it, that Brighton is in the Daniele’s' back pocket...the Town Board is obliged to the common good of ALL its citizens." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
30.03 – Some residents feel that their confidence in local government has been badly damaged and that the future is now uncertain for their children. Response: See response to comment 13.01. No decision has been made regarding the proposal.
30.04 – The Town should do the right thing and help the developer sail through the project using the regular zoning that is already in place. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
30.05 – "I will express my displeasure with votes and encourage my friends to vote against those who vote for irresponsible development." Response: Comment is not relevant to the environmental review.
30.06 – The most responsive government is at the local level - please represent your constituents and stop this development from going forward under the current supersized configuration.[u145] Response: Comment is not relevant to the environmental review.
FEIS January 2018 498
30.07 – "I hope the Town of Brighton will recognize that the positives of this development substantially outweigh the negatives." Response: See response to comment 13.01.
30.08 – For years, the Town's staunch anti-development policies have sent businesses (and tax revenue) to Henrietta, Pittsford and elsewhere, and where has it gotten us? A depressingly well-deserved reputation for being a difficult place to do business, even for matters as small as putting up a sign announcing that a music store sells LPs. Response: Comment is not relevant to the environmental review.
30.09 – The Clover Street / Allen' Creek Neighborhood Association will be submitting a legal brief to the Town regarding "the adverse legal predicament they are in." It will address alleged flaws in the DEIS and argue that the Town accepted the DEIS prematurely, as well as offer solutions. Response: All comments received during the public review period for both the DEIS and SDEIS are considered as part of the environmental review.
30.10 – "As stated by the Court of Appeals, 'in considering the secondary and long-term effects of this project on population patterns and neighborhood character, respondents must look to more than the potential effects of this one parcel and must consider the potential impacts on the surrounding community.' Chinese staff & workers Ass'n v. New York, 68 N.Y.2d 359, 367-68 (1986). Since the Developer has failed to do this here, the DEIS is patently deficient, so the Town Board should require the Developer to fix those deficiencies." Response: The DEIS and SDEIS have considered potential impacts to surrounding properties as directed in the approved EIS scope.
30.11 – "The Board has the obligation to evaluate the proposed incentives and amenities and judge whether, pursuant to Zoning Code § 209-5(B), the Application is worthy of further consideration." Response: See response to comment 13.01. Following the completion of the environmental review process, the Town will continue the public hearing under Chapter 209 of the Town Code.
FEIS January 2018 499
30.12 – "The Applicant has made abundantly clear that it feels it has a sense of entitlement to wipe out existing zoning regulations to meet its profit goals." Response: Comment is not relevant to the environmental review.
30.13 – "A town's responsibility is to its community, all its residents and its future position in the larger regional context." Response: Comment is not relevant to the environmental review.
30.14 – "Clarification on the Town's current position would be helpful." Response: The Town has not and cannot take a position. The Town Board acting as Lead Agency for the SEQRA review will issue findings once all factors are considered.
30.15 – The Town should make residents a priority. Response: The Town Board will consider all comments presented by residents as part of the public comment period.
30.16 – Brighton leadership has consistently measured citizen input very thoroughly...we trust that a fair and common-sense approach will maintain through the current negotiations. [u146] Response: See response to comment 30.15.
30.17 – After the clear instructions of Supervisor Moehle to be respectful and listen to each other, I was surprised when a town official interrupted Mr. Burgdorf to tell him his discussion was off topic and irrelevant...I left with impression that, aside from being rude to interrupt the presentation, that if a Town Official was disinterested, that the Town Board has already made up its mind...many residents of the Town believe that the unnecessary interruption was an indication that the Town is going through this process as a formality, but their minds are already made up. [u147] Response: See response to comment 13.01 and 30.15.
30.18 – The Town should deny this application and its Scope. [u148] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
FEIS January 2018 500
30.19 – The Town should deny the developer's plan as it is currently proposed. Please do not give this or any developer any type of special agreement or incentive zoning but rather enforce the regular zoning standards that were put in place to protect residents. [u149] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
30.20 – Why would the Town give them this sweetheart deal? As the proposal currently stands, it seems to be an incredibly good deal for the Developer and a bad deal for the Town and the community. Response: See response to comment 13.01.
30.21 – The current Town Board has already shown to the people living in the Rowland's Tract Neighborhood that businesses are more important than the families living there. They should make the right decision and change my unfavorable opinion of them.[u150] Response: See response to comment 13.01 and 30.15.
30.22 – The Town Board has a duty to examine the larger issue of traffic flow throughout the town. Monroe Avenue is just one piece. We need a NEW broad town plan for traffic management so that we maintain our sense of community as we continue to grow in our confined space.[u151] Response: The Town currently has several planning tools which address traffic along the Monroe Avenue corridor. See section 3.9 of the SDEIS.
30.23 – The Town Administration should be held accountable for implementing town's codes, not circumventing them. The town's responsibility is to its community; they should not make special accommodations for this developer by ignoring existing zoning.[u152] Response: See response to comment 13.01 and 30.15.
FEIS January 2018 501
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic: TOPIC 31– MOTORISTS 31.01 – Due to the current traffic congestion on Monroe Avenue, drivers get frustrated, and will often "jump" fully red lights, or stop in the middle - blocking intersections. Response: Comment noted.
31.02 – Drivers going east on Monroe and turning South on Clover come around the corner at a high rate of speed, not slowing down. Response: Comment noted.
31.03 – If everyone followed the rules of the road, many of the issues with cars stuck in the middle of intersections would not happen. Response: Comment noted.
31.04 – Even though closed, many drivers still use the access road by driving around the gate and right over the orange cones. Response: Vehicular access along Auburn Trail will be prohibited. Bollards are proposed at Allen’s Creek Road and Clover Street to prevent vehicular access.
31.05 – More traffic will lead to more impatience among drivers and in turn likely lead to more accidents. Response: The applicant does not refute the claim that the proposal will have potential impacts to the surrounding area. Those potential impacts are studied in detail as part of the EIS process. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
FEIS January 2018 502
31.06 – Increased traffic volumes will create even more frustrated and distracted drivers, which will in turn put pedestrians, runners, bikers, and our children at greater risk of injury. Response: See response to comment 31.05. The Auburn Trail which is proposed to be constructed by the applicant as a multi-modal trail to Town specifications will provide an alternate route for pedestrians and cyclist, away from vehicular traffic, thereby improving safety.
31.07 – Even though they are not supposed to, many drivers already use the access road; resulting in pedestrians regularly having close encounters with unsafe drivers of vehicles traveling at a high rate of speed.[u153] Response: See response to comment 31.04.
31.08 – Does anyone seriously believe that people who cannot get out of their car to buy a cup of coffee will patiently wait two minutes at a traffic light in order to exit the plaza, or is there a reasonable chance they will attempt unsafe maneuvers to exit the plaza?[u154] Response: Projected delays exiting the plaza are not uncommon and are similar to and less than those experienced at other large grocery stores and malls. The installation of traffic signals, including left turn signals and the Access Management Plan will reduce the likelihood of unsafe maneuvers in the area.
FEIS January 2018 503
31.09 – The road rage that exists in this area already makes it dangerous for me to walk with my kids...what affect will the increase in traffic resulting from this project have on that?[u155] Response: The applicant does not refute the claim that the proposal will have potential impacts to the surrounding area. Those potential impacts are studied in detail as part of the EIS process. For ease of reference, this is the same response provided at 1.03(6). Refer to Section 2.2 of this FEIS. The project will result in increases to queue lengths and delays on Monroe Avenue; however, any delay is only expected to occur during a 15-30 minute timeframe within the peak hour. During the peak hour a maximum of 300 cars will be added to the corridor with a maximum eastbound delay increase of 22.0 seconds from Westfall to Clover Street during the PM peak hour. The project also proposes signal coordination and the implementation of an access management plan to improve traffic flow and traffic safety.
FEIS January 2018 504
Whole Foods Plaza FEIS Town of Brighton
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 32– ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 32.01 – This area has grown over the years. While we've had to adjust to that, the benefits of the growth and development have been a big plus. Response: Comment noted.
32.02 – "I want Whole Foods and other national businesses to find Brighton an attractive location to develop. I want the tax base that they can bring. And having lived in real cities with real traffic...I understand that traffic is sometimes the price of a vibrant economy. I would much prefer an extra couple of minutes on Monroe Avenue to the stretch of dead shells that now presents a less-than-appealing gateway to our town." Response: Comment noted.
32.03 – Whole Foods will bring commerce to the Town of Brighton as well as job opportunities for many. Response: Comment noted.
32.04 – "Bullying the developers sets a bad example for the Town, scaring other potential businesses away from our area that may have otherwise been considering coming here. Why would prospective businesses subject themselves to this when they can just go somewhere else?" Response: See response to comment 13.01 and 30.15.
32.05 – The Developer did not "consider how the creation of this development would spur additional economic growth in Brighton, which in turn would result in additional environmental impacts as well, such as increased public utility use, bringing additional work commuters to the plaza, and increased road maintenance costs."
FEIS January 2018 505
Whole Foods Plaza FEIS Town of Brighton
Response: Most the Monroe Avenue corridor in the project area is already built out with little ability for significant additional economic growth. The FEIS does consider future impacts from the proposal.
32.06 – The project increases consumer choice. It creates more competition to other grocery stores, which benefits consumers by lowering prices. And it brings jobs to the community.
32.07 – "Studies have shown that once congestion hits a certain level, the quality of life of people making those commutes starts to decline, as does area job growth." Response: Comment noted.
32.08 – It would be nice to see the economic impact evaluated of the project area as well as the surrounding area...i.e.: what types of businesses will locate at the plaza; where will they come from; what will become of their current location?[u156] Response: The applicant has not been able to determine what other businesses will enter the plaza due to the ongoing environmental review. Whole Foods and Starbucks are the only two that have made a commitment contingent on the SEQRA review and Municipal approvals.
FEIS January 2018 506
Whole Foods Plaza FEIS Town of Brighton
32.09 – "Moving businesses from point A to point B is not enhancing economic growth." Response: Comment noted.
32.10 – Although some businesses may not be forthcoming until the project is approved, could data be compiled using generic business aspects relating to the types and mixes of businesses that could be developed, to see whether or not the proposed economic benefit outweighs the cost?[u157] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
32.11 – Stop blocking competition![u158] Response: Comment not relevant.
32.12 – The Board should examine the economic impact of the new mall on the other businesses across the street and in the immediate area.[u159] Response: See response to comment 13.01.
32.13 – A number of people will lose their jobs when the Daniele’s demolish those buildings.[u160] Response: The parcel is currently vacant with no jobs.
FEIS January 2018 507
Whole Foods Plaza FEIS Town of Brighton
Responses to General Public Comments by Topic:
TOPIC 33– ALTERNATIVES 33.01 – "SEQRA mandates that agencies [ ] act and choose alternatives which, consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects." Response: The accepted DEIS is, in fact, compete and complies with SEQR. The Final Scope of the EIS, which was adopted by the Town Board, was generated after a full public hearing and in accordance with SEQR procedures. The list of alternatives is far more extensive than that proposed by the applicant in its Draft Scope and address’ alternatives which the lead agency (the Brighton Town Board) deemed reasonable to analyze, based on the subject site and the Town's development experience. Not all alternatives need be analyzed – there must be a "hard look" at reasonable alternatives but an EIS is to be "analytical, not encyclopedic." (Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 422 (1986).
33.02 – "The DEIS provides an inadequate and incomplete discussion of alternatives." Response: See response to comment 33.01.
33.03 – "The alternatives mentioned include development of the site under existing zoning regulations, alternate developed use, alternate site plans, and no-action." Response: See response to comment 33.01.
33.04 – "The alternatives must be redone to consider viable as of right and a reasonable 5% oversized property alternatives." Response: See response to comment 33.01.
FEIS January 2018 508
Whole Foods Plaza FEIS Town of Brighton
33.05 – "In proposing single development alternative that complies with existing zoning laws, the Developer designed a project with only one large strip-mall style building in the most unattractive manner possible. No effort was made to lay out an appropriate development under the existing zoning, such as including a smaller grocery store or other code-compliant buildings. Without a realistic proposal of what is permitted under the Zoning Code, how can the Board properly evaluate alternatives?" Response: See response to comment 33.01.
33.06 – "The Developer also allegedly considered alternatives for a hotel or mixed-use development, or other variations of the existing development, and provided very basic concept sketches of what the layout of some of those alternative plazas could look like...these alternatives are similarly devoid of details." Response: See response to comment 33.01.
33.07 – "Given that the Developer's repeated insistence that alternatives would not be financially viable, it is surprising that no supporting data is given to that effect." Response: See response to comment 33.01.
33.08 – "Lastly, the Developer does briefly mention the “no-action” alternative, but makes the meritless suggestion that existing site development is doomed to failure by reason of, “site access safety concerns, limited pedestrian accessibility issues, pedestrian safety issues, untreated storm water runoff, parking issues, [and] limited commercial viability/sustainability of properties.” Id. at 303-304. These statements are belied by the fact that the Site housed two successful local restaurants and other businesses which have been operating there for many years. Cursory or inadequate discussions of the “no- action” alternative are grounds for the rejection of an environmental impact statement." Response: See response to comment 33.01.
FEIS January 2018 509
Whole Foods Plaza FEIS Town of Brighton
33.09 – "A resolution of the Board directing the developer to focus on alternatives closing off the Clover Street and Allens Creek Road exits, backed by a restrictive covenant, is absolutely an appropriate action by the Town Board as lead agency directing the SEQRA review, and would assist all parties by sending a clear message of intent."[u161] Response: See response to comment 13.01. The proposal does not include ingress or egress to or from Clover St. or Allens Creek Rd.
33.10 – The Developer did not put enough thought into the Alternative Site Plans. They should be required to put forth a new, code-compliant alternative.[u162] Response: Refer to alternative #6, figure 7 of this FEIS.
33.11 – A traffic light is good, but the Developer should provide alternate site plans that include putting a median in the middle of the road between 590 and Clover Street, to force traffic to make a U-turn at the lights. Or perhaps the converging diamond traffic pattern like the one on Winton at 590.[u163] Response: Comments noted.
END OF TOPICS SECTION
FEIS January 2018 510
Whole Foods Plaza FEIS Town of Brighton
5.0 Conclusion The DEIS and SDEIS prepared for the Whole Foods Plaza were completed in accordance with the final Scope as approved by the Brighton Town Board acting as Lead Agency for the SEQRA Review. This FEIS contains responses to all substantive comments received during the public review of both the DEIS and SDEIS. The technical reports and information presented in the document were prepared by the applicant and their technical consultants. The Town Board has reviewed the documents and found them complete and accurate.
The Town of Brighton as lead agent complied with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and its implementing regulations found at 6 NYCRR Part 617.
FEIS January 2018 511