DDB DSGEIS Full.PDF

Prepared for: CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE

NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS

Prepared by:

August 2007 CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENTS

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

September 20, 2007

Lead Agency: City of New Rochelle City Council

Prepared by: AKRF, Inc.

DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS AMENDMENTS DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Project Name: Downtown Density Bonus (DDB) Amendments

Project Location: DB, DMU, and DMUR Zoning Districts within the Central Parking Area

Lead Agency: City of New Rochelle City Council 515 North Avenue New Rochelle, NY 10801

Lead Agency Contact: Mr. Craig King, Commissioner Department of Development 515 North Avenue New Rochelle, NY 10801

Prepared By: AKRF, Inc. 34 South Broadway White Plains, New York 10601

Special SEQRA Counsel: Michael Zarin Zarin & Steinmetz

Date of Acceptance as Complete: September 24, 2007

Public Hearing Date: November 20, 2007

Public Comment Period Ends: November 30, 2007

This document is the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the above-referenced project. Copies are available for review at the office of the Lead Agency. Comments are solicited and may be submitted to the Lead Agency. Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... S-1 Chapter 1: Project Description...... 1-1 Chapter 2: Land Use, Community Character, Zoning, And Public Policy ...... 2-1 Chapter 3: Traffic...... 3-1 Chapter 4: Visual Impact and Shadow Assessments...... 4-1 Chapter 5: Socioeconomics ...... 5-1 Chapter 6: Community Facilities ...... 6-1 Chapter 7: Infrastructure ...... 7-1 Chapter 8: Alternatives ...... 8-1 Chapter 9: Growth-Inducing Aspects...... 9-1 Chapter 10: Irreversible And Irretrievable Commitments Of Resources...... 10-1 Chapter 11: Impacts on Energy...... 11-1 Chapter 12: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...... 12-1

i 09/20/07 Chapter S: Executive Summary

A. INTRODUCTION The City Council of the City of New Rochelle (the “City”) proposes to amend the Downtown Density Bonus (DDB) Overlay Zone (§ 331-85.3 of the City’s Zoning Code) (the “Proposed Action”) to permit additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and height at certain locations within the Downtown Business (DB), Downtown Mixed Use (DMU), and Downtown Mixed Use Urban Renewal (DMUR) zoning districts within the Central Parking Area. On May 16, 2006, through Ordinance No. 110-2006, the City Council adopted an initial DDB Overlay Zone that allows development with an FAR of up to 4.0 on parcels or assemblages of up to 10,000 square feet in the DB Zoning District and with an FAR up to 5.5 and 9.0 on parcels at least 60,000 square feet in the DMU and DMUR Zoning Districts, respectively. In addition, the initial DDB Overlay Zone permits a total height not exceeding 390 feet on qualifying parcels in the DMU and DMUR Zoning Districts. Both FAR and height bonuses require City Council Special Permit approval subject to provision of specified “Public Benefits” and a City Council determination that the public benefits obtained by virtue of the density bonus substantially meet the goals of the City as expressed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and that the applicant demonstrates to the Council’s satisfaction that sufficient capacity exists within water supply, wastewater conveyance and treatment, and roadway infrastructure to support the density bonus or that appropriate mitigation is provided to the maximum extent practicable. Following adoption of the initial DDB Overlay Zone, and as part of the City’s evaluation of several applications seeking height and/or density bonuses, the City has determined that additional amendments (the Proposed Action) are required to achieve the intended goals of the DDB Overlay and the City’s downtown redevelopment goals as expressed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the City is evaluating potential amendments to the DDB Overlay Zone that would permit an FAR bonus of up to 6.0 FAR (to a total maximum of 11.5 FAR) in the DMUR Zoning District and additional height of up to 500 feet in the DMU and DMUR Zoning District. Other amendments to the DDB Overlay included in the Proposed Action would clarify that FAR and/or height bonuses are not to be considered as-of-right subject to simple consistency with Special Permit standards, but are granted solely at the discretion of the City Council based upon a number of objective and legislative policy factors relating to the Public Benefits offered in return for the bonuses. The Proposed Action also includes the possibility of attainment of certain “green building” standards defined by the United States Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program as “Public Benefits” for which density bonuses may be sought in the DB, DMU, and DMUR Zoning Districts. This document is a Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DSGEIS) for the Proposed Action and evaluates the potential for any additional environmental impacts that could result from the Proposed Action – i.e., additional development made possible by increased FAR in the DMUR Zoning District or increased height in the DMU or DMUR

S-1 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

Zoning Districts. This DSGEIS was prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (Article 8 of Environmental Conservation Law) and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617). The Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) on the initial DDB Overlay Zoning District, for which the City Council issued a Notice of Completeness on January 17, 2006, and the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) on the initial DDB Overlay Zoning District, for which the City Council issued a Notice of Completeness on April 20, 2006, are hereby incorporated by reference.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following Zoning amendments would be required to implement the Proposed Action: • Amend § 331-4 to add definition of Floating Overlay Zone. • Repeal § 331-85.3 Downtown Density Bonus (DDB) Overlay Zone. • Add Article XX Floating Overlay Zone. Chapter 1, “Project Description,” provides the full text of the proposed zoning amendments. The Proposed Action would provide for a continuation of the orderly development of New Rochelle’s downtown consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Proposed Action would also encourage development of a limited number of large mixed-use projects on underutilized parcels that would serve as anchors for additional private investment in the downtown. This public action is considered a key element in the City’s overall plan to encourage private investment in the City’s downtown.

C. LAND USE, COMMUNITY CHARACTER, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY The Proposed Action would not result in any Zoning Map changes but would amend the DDB Overlay provisions to allow more height in the DMU and DMUR Zoning Districts and more density in the DMUR Zoning District. The Proposed Action would also clarify the process by which a property owner would apply for bonuses under the DDB to make it clear that a grant of a height or density bonus is subject to City Council approval and cannot be considered an as-of- right condition. The Proposed Action is consistent with the City’s previous efforts to implement the Comprehensive Plan through adoption of floating zones or overlay districts and would facilitate the continuation of a redevelopment trend that is viewed favorably and in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the Proposed Action is consistent with zoning. The initial DDB Overlay Zoning District was implemented in the context of the numerous public policy statements the City has adopted to guide future development in the downtown. As such, it is considered to be consistent with the City’s overall policy toward encouraging mixed-use development in the downtown and preserving the community character within the downtown. The Proposed Action would continue the City’s policy toward encouraging mixed-use development and would not have significant adverse impacts on community character.

D. TRAFFIC The traffic study reveals that there appears to be sufficient capacity in the downtown network to accommodate Phase I and Phase II development, as well as traffic generated by additional development under the Proposed Action.

09/20/07 S-2 Chapter S: Executive Summary

However, the Proposed Action may generate traffic that would require minor mitigation measures (e.g. signal timing changes or removal of limited on-street parking) but that would not create significant adverse impacts. Implementation of a managed traffic system would improve the overall operating conditions beyond any minor mitigation measures. Full implementation of that system is pending additional funds and replacement of the existing traffic signal system. Once this system is installed and operating, the City will be able to better manage traffic operating conditions and adjust signal timing on a real-time basis to account for unexpected congestion or special event conditions. With this system in place, some of the unacceptable conditions identified in this analysis will be improved, although some others may still be considered unacceptable. With the full capital investment, the City must also invest in additional resources to fund ongoing system operation and maintenance. Future development within the downtown will be reviewed with respect to specific traffic impacts (using this traffic impact study as a base) and any project-specific mitigation will be identified and implemented as needed.

E. VISUAL IMPACT AND SHADOW ASSESSMENTS

SHADOW ASSESSMENT Overall, new shadows cast by the Proposed Action (e.g., additional height to 500 feet) would not be expected to significantly affect pedestrian conditions within the study area or any publicly accessible open space, historic landscape, or other historic resources due to their short duration and limited extent. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not expected to result in any significant shadow impacts.

VISUAL ASSESSMENT The Proposed Action would result in the increase of maximum height in the DMU and DMUR zoning districts from 390 feet to 500 feet. Although visible, development under the Proposed Action would not eliminate any significant view sheds, significantly change the visual perception along streets corridors, or impair the public’s enjoyment of any view sheds. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in any significant adverse visual impacts.

F. SOCIOECONOMICS

DIRECT DISPLACEMENT Since the Proposed Action does not involve a specific development proposal on a defined site, it is not possible to determine whether any direct displacement will occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Any potential future development projects that utilize the proposed density bonus would be required to provide a detailed analysis of direct displacement resulting from the specific project.

PROJECTED POPULATION Under the Proposed Action, it is estimated that approximately 1,842 new residential units could be constructed in the downtown. Given the average household size within the study area of 2.74, this could potentially increase population within the study area by 5,047 people. This total population growth of approximately 16.6 percent would be spread over several years, and nearly

S-3 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS twice the growth rate of the study area from 1990 to 2000. It is however, consistent with the overall growth rate of New Rochelle.

EFFECTS ON POPULATION VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT Approximately 16,600 residents that could potentially be displaced either directly or through secondary displacement live in the study area. These residents would have the potential benefit of certain statutory and programmatic relocation subsidies or other protections as described above. Bringing a critical mass of new residents to the downtown and stimulating additional activity has, however, been expressed as a goal of the City through the 1996 Comprehensive Plan.

G. COMMUNITY FACILITIES

POLICE The Proposed Action would increase the number of residents, employees, and visitors in the downtown which would increase the demand for service from the Police Department. The Proposed Action would require a variety of police services, potentially including traffic control and parking enforcement, crossing guards, and patrols to monitor groups and suppress criminal activity. The Police Commissioner estimates that the cumulative impact of new downtown development would necessitate an additional 15 officers and six community service officers (CSOs) to provide a comparable level of police services. It is expected that some downtown projects would employ 24-hour manned security. It is also anticipated that the proposed mix of uses would create activity throughout day and evening hours, thus increasing the “eyes on the street.” Both of these items are expected to reduce demands on the police department. However, overall development within the downtown area will continue to require services of the Police Department.

09/20/07 S-4 Chapter S: Executive Summary given time, a second alarm fire in a high-rise building would theoretically require the response of the entire New Rochelle Fire Department on duty. This level of response is not a result of the Proposed Action as high-rise development in New Rochelle preceded even the initial DDB Overlay District. However, the Fire Department has identified staffing as a concern regarding any additional development within the downtown. In addition, a significant difference in tactical approach to fighting fires exists when fighting fires in an open office floor plan versus compartmentalized (e.g. residential) units. Non- residential development (e.g., office or hotel) is considered as a Public Benefit under the initial DDB Overlay District. Any development that includes such uses in the high-rise portion of a development would present additional challenges to fire fighting services. Therefore, additional training and/or equipment for Fire Department personnel would likely be required. With specific respect to the Proposed Action, the Fire Department has indicated that the incremental difference in height from the existing 400-foot limit to the 500 feet permitted under the Proposed Action, would have a potentially significant adverse impact to fire fighting services as the City does not currently own the equipment needed to pump water to the highest floors of a high-rise building. A fire pumper with a two-phase pump would be required to raise a column of water for sprinkler/standpipe use to the highest stories of a building above an elevation of 400 feet above grade level.

EMERGENCY SERVICES The Proposed Action would generate additional demands for emergency services. It is possible that after full build out and occupancy, the part-time ambulance would need to become full-time to meet the demands of development made possible by the Proposed Action.

SOLID WASTE The Proposed Action will likely bring additional development to the downtown. This additional development would result in an increased number of housing units. Since commercial wastes are typically hauled by private haulers, any new commercial development is not likely to result in any significant changes. The Proposed Action has the potential to allow for approximately 1,278 additional residential units in the downtown. Assuming 41 pounds of solid waste is generated per household per week, a maximum of approximately 52,400 pounds per week would be generated by the additional residential units. This translates to 1,362 tons per year. Additional personnel and/or equipment will be required to meet this additional demand on the City’s services.

H. INFRASTRUCTURE The City’s sanitary sewage collection system is likely to require numerous upgrades in order to accommodate sewage flows from new development made possible by the Proposed Action. Additional sewage flows resulting from possible density bonuses on the LeCount Square site, Lawton-North site, and Garden Street Lot site would potentially exacerbate existing problems or create new problem areas. Any large-scale development would be required to conclusively demonstrate that the sewer lines serving the downtown are in a suitable condition and have sufficient capacity and to provide domestic and commercial service, or to provide appropriate mitigation, as necessary.

S-5 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

With the Proposed Action, there may also be additional demand for water. As a public utility, United Water New Rochelle would be required to meet any future demands that may arise. The system, and the supply sources that feed them, appear to have sufficient capacity to handle future growth, but it should be noted that significant improvements to the water supply system were required (and recently completed as mitigation for a private development project) to accommodate new growth in the downtown. Additional improvements may be required to accommodate other new developments. Any large-scale development would be required to conclusively demonstrate that the water lines serving the downtown have the capacity and are in a suitable condition to provide domestic and fire protection supplies, or to provide appropriate mitigation, as necessary.

I. ALTERNATIVES The Alternatives chapter provides a brief comparative summary of three alternatives to the Proposed Acton: (1) a “No Action” alternative, meaning that the proposed amendments to the DDB Overlay would not be adopted and the initial DDB Overlay height and density bonuses would be retained; (2) a “Modified Proposed Action” that would amend the process by which height and density bonuses are granted but would not change the amount of height or density bonuses allowed; and (3) an alternative means for implementing the proposed amendments through creation of three separate floating zones, the DDB-DB, DDB-DMU, and DDB-DMUR, which could be applied in each of the underlying districts, as appropriate.

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Should the City Council opt not to take any action, potential future development levels as projected in the DGEIS and potential impacts from that development would remain as described in the DGEIS. However, as currently codified, it is possible that applicants seeking to apply height or density bonuses could make a legal argument that provision of certain of the public benefits identified in the text entitles the applicant to the height or density bonus without City Council discretion. While the City Council is not certain whether this legal argument holds merit, the City Council would prefer that this circumstance be avoided. Thus, taking no action on proposed amendments may place the City Council in an undesirable position with respect to reviewing development applications within the downtown and is not considered a preferred alternative.

MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION Potential environmental impacts of the Modified Proposed Action would be identical to the environmental impacts of the initial DDB as levels of potential development would be identical. The Modified Proposed Action would enhance the City Council’s review authority of development applications but may not result in development levels that would be considered feasible to implement or achieve Comprehensive Plan goals for revitalizing downtown, especially for parcels in an urban renewal district where cost of parcel assemblage may be higher. Thus, the Modified Proposed Action is not considered the preferred alternative.

SEPARATE FLOATING ZONE ALTERNATIVE Potential environmental impacts of the Separate Floating Zone Alternative would be identical to the Proposed Action. The only difference would be the form in which the proposed zoning amendments are implemented. Based on a review of the alternatives, City staff has

09/20/07 S-6 Chapter S: Executive Summary recommended to the City Council that the Proposed Action be considered the preferred alternative.

J. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The Proposed Action would allow eligible properties in the downtown to be redeveloped with a density bonus. Applying the density bonus would encourage property owners and developers to make improvements that would continue the development activity that has occurred since 1996 and result in an overall improvement to the downtown. Therefore, the Proposed Action would result in growth in the downtown. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Land Use, Community Character, Zoning, and Public Policy,” the Proposed Action has the potential to add approximately 1,842 new residential units. These new units would be instrumental in bringing a critical mass of residents to the downtown.

K. IMPACTS ON ENERGY The Proposed Action would not have a direct impact on the energy supply system and would not place excessive demands on it. However, if the level of energy use were to change from its current level as a result of specific development encouraged by the proposed density bonuses, then increased energy usage would occur. Any additional demands for energy would not be significant. The existing energy infrastructure has adequate capacity and would be expected to meet increased energy demand in the downtown with minimal or no major improvements. The Proposed Action allows for the provision of density bonuses for buildings that achieve United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. Encouraging green building standards through additional density could serve to offset new demand on energy use represented by the additional density.

L. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The Proposed Action would not directly result in the commitment of irreversible and irretrievable resources. To the extent that specific development encouraged by the Proposed Action occurs, the building materials used, energy and electricity, and human effort expended in the construction process would be considered irretrievably committed. It should also be noted that the decision to adopt the zoning amendment is, in fact, reversible.

M. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The potential impacts of the Proposed Action include: 1) increased demand for community services (police and fire); 2) increased demand for water; 3) increased sewage flows; and 4) increased traffic congestion. Mitigation of each of the potential impacts is possible through specific project design, provision of additional labor or capital resources, or specific improvements to infrastructure. New development in the downtown may, however, result in traffic impacts that can not easily be mitigated. Project-specific environmental impact assessment of development seeking to apply the proposed height or density bonuses would have to demonstrate that all reasonable means for mitigation are explored before the City Council could approve the height or density bonuses. Ï

S-7 09/20/07 Chapter 1 : Project Description

1-1 09/20/07 MORRIS 7.30.07

PALMER RHODES MONROE ROCHELLE THE

MEMORIAL HIGHWAY JACKSON PARK LINCOLN SICKLES

MAY

GUION CEDAR COTTAGE ADAMS LAWN RENEWAL LINCOLN RADISSON LOCKWOOD I 95 MAY

GARDEN BURLING

GRAND

FOUNTAIN

HARRISON ECHO

LECOUNT

WASHINGTON BRIDGE

BADEAU

ANDERSON LAFAYETTE

MECHANIC NORTH

UNION ODELL RAILROAD LAWTON

FRANKLIN MEMORIAL

WARREN BAYVIEW

GROVE LOCUST

SOUNDVIEW

CRESCENT PC RAILROADBARTELS CLINTON

DIVISION MAIN

NORTH BONNEFOY COLUMBUS

LEROY

CHURCH EUCLID

HICKORY HUGUENOT

PROSPECT N PINE FAIRVIEW UNION SHEA CENTRE WEBSTER MAPLE

MARVIN

DAVIS

Study Area Boundary 0 200 500 FEET

LAUREL SCALE

Figure 1-1 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Downtown Study Area Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

CONTEXT The City of New Rochelle has recently undertaken redevelopment efforts throughout its downtown area to strengthen the economic base of the City, provide new housing opportunities, and provide an overall improvement to quality-of-life in New Rochelle. This redevelopment, guided largely by the City’s Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1996, is an ongoing process. While many redevelopment projects have been completed, a number of additional projects are either planned or under construction in downtown New Rochelle. From a land use perspective, the overall vision of the City’s Comprehensive Plan to encourage mixed-use development in the downtown area remains the guiding principle for new downtown development. This is especially true for the areas surrounding the North Avenue and Main Street and North Avenue and Huguenot Street intersections. Similarly, the Plan’s vision for preserving the character of Main Street is essential to retaining the quality of the downtown experience and to retaining essential services for downtown residents. Thus, building upon the recommendations of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the success of recent redevelopment activities, two additional objectives for revitalizing downtown have been developed: • Preserve the character of Main Street by preserving historically and architecturally significant building facades, limiting heights of new development along Main Street, and ensuring that new development is consistent with the existing character of Main Street. • Encourage higher density development only where it can be supported by existing infrastructure, including, but not limited to, parking facilities and traffic networks, and where it would not significantly alter the downtown character of New Rochelle. This increased density would capitalize on proximity to the New Rochelle Train Station for purposes of bringing residents to the downtown who are less reliant on automobiles or on proximity to major municipal parking facilities where capacity exists to accommodate new demand. Moreover this density may initially be high density residential to attract a new higher income demographic to the downtown. But, in the long run, there should be an emphasis on attracting a balanced mix of retail, office, and residential development to the downtown. To implement these objectives, the City adopted an initial Downtown Density Bonus (DDB) Overlay District on May 16, 2006 (Ordinance No. 110-2006; codified as § 331-85.3 of the City’s Zoning Code) to allow selective redevelopment of large parcels in the DMU and DMUR Districts and to encourage redevelopment of smaller parcels in the DB District. Property owners could seek a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus and/or a height bonus. The City Council would retain overall approval for application of the overlay district and for determining the extent of

09/20/07 1-2 Chapter 1: Project Description density bonus given in return for public benefits (the suggested FAR bonuses are maximums and a property owner is not necessarily entitled to the full bonus). The DDB Overlay District was developed consistent with other overlay zones in the City’s zoning code. Subsequent to the adoption of the DDB Overlay Zone, and as part of the City’s evaluation of several applications seeking height and/or density bonuses, the City has determined that additional amendments are required to achieve the intended goals of the DDB Overlay and the City’s downtown redevelopment goals as expressed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City has further determined that, while the initial Overlay Zone conceptually achieved the goals of the City in terms of downtown redevelopment, the procedural requirements of the initial DDB Overlay Zone could be strengthened specifically by requiring that any property owner seeking to take advantage of the density or height bonuses would have to petition the City Council for a Zoning Map amendment, which approval would be at the discretion of the City Council in its legislative capacity.

PROPOSED ACTION The following Zoning amendments would be required to implement the Proposed Action: • Amend § 331-4 to add definition of Floating Overlay Zone. • Repeal § 331-85.3 Downtown Density Bonus (DDB) Overlay Zone. • Add Article XX Floating Overlay Zone. The text of the proposed Zoning Amendments follows. New text is shown in bold.

§ 331-4. Specific terms defined. FLOATING ZONE — A floating zone district defines a use, such as an office complex, educational institution, research laboratory, or multifamily housing, that the community wants to encourage. The floating zone can be affixed to a qualifying parcel of land, either upon the application of the parcel's owner or upon the initiative of the local governing body. Upon approval, the parcel is rezoned to reflect the new use and becomes a separate zoning district as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Its development is governed by the use, dimensional and other provisions of the Floating Zone Ordinance. FLOATING OVERLAY ZONE — A floating overlay zone is an unmapped district that at the discretion of the City Council may be superimposed on one or more established underlying zoning districts which may be used to impose supplemental restrictions on uses in these districts, permit uses otherwise disallowed, or implement some form of density bonus or incentive bonus program. The floating overlay zone can be affixed to a qualifying parcel of land, either upon the application of the parcel's owner or upon the initiative of the local City Council. Upon approval, the floating overlay zone is applied to the parcel and becomes a mapped overlay district. Its development is governed by the use of the underlying zoning district and the dimensional and other provisions of the Floating Overlay Zone Ordinance. OVERLAY ZONE — A mapped overlay district superimposed on one or more established underlying zoning districts which may be used to impose supplemental restrictions on uses in these districts, permit uses otherwise disallowed, or implement some form of density bonus or incentive bonus program.

1-3 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

Article XX Floating Overlay Zone § 331-153. Introduction; definition. A. See § 331-4. B. Introduction. A floating overlay zone is an unmapped district that at the discretion of the City Council may be superimposed on one or more established underlying zoning districts which may be used to impose supplemental restrictions on uses in these districts, permit uses otherwise disallowed, or implement some form of density bonus or incentive bonus program. The floating overlay zone can be affixed to a qualifying parcel of land, either upon the application of the parcel's owner or upon the initiative of the local City Council. Upon approval, the floating overlay zone is applied to the parcel and becomes a mapped overlay district. Its development is governed by the use of the underlying zoning district and the dimensional and other provisions of the Floating Overlay Zone Ordinance. Floating overlay zones are distinct from overlay zones because of several features, the most significant of which is that overlay zones are mapped, and floating overlay zones are not mapped until legally placed. Floating overlay zones are also distinct from floating zones; the substantive difference is that a floating zone replaces an underlying zoning district, while a floating overlay zone works in tandem with existing underlying zoning districts.

§ 331-154. Downtown Density Bonus (DDB) Floating Overlay Zone A. Legislative Findings and Purpose: There exist within the Central Parking Area, as shown on the Zoning Map, the potential and desire to redevelop certain large underutilized areas with mixed-use projects to create a vibrant mix of residential, office, hotel, retail, and entertainment uses to serve both resident and non-resident (e.g. office and visitor) populations. There is also the potential and desire to encourage reoccupancy or adaptive reuse of smaller properties along Main Street in a manner consistent with the smaller-scale Main Street character. Recognizing this potential and desire, the City seeks to encourage redevelopment that has significant public benefits and enhances the character of the Downtown area. Density bonuses are intended to give property owners incentives to provide public benefits such as improved parks and open space, new public parking, improved pedestrian areas, and preservation of the Downtown’s historic character in conjunction with the development of mixed-use projects. B. Initiation. A density bonus on a development site shall be sought from the City Council. An application shall be initiated by filing a petition with the City Council. C. Eligibility of Development Site. The Downtown Density Bonus Floating Overlay Zone (DDB) is hereby established as a floating overlay zone with potential application to any development site which meets all of the following eligibility requirements: (1) The development site shall be located within the DB, DMU, or DMUR zoning district, in the Central Parking Area as shown on the Zoning Map. (2) The development site, in the DMU or DMUR zoning district, shall consist of a parcel or assemblage of parcels with an area of at least 60,000 square feet.

09/20/07 1-4 Chapter 1: Project Description

(3) The development site, in the DB zoning district, shall consist of a parcel or assemblage of parcels with an area of not greater than 60,000 square feet. (4) The development site, in the DMU or DMUR zoning district, shall be located within 500 feet of the New Rochelle Transit Center or a public parking facility with greater than 300 spaces. (5) The development site, in the DB zoning district, shall be located within 500 feet of any public parking facility, except that where a development site does not meet such distancing requirement but satisfies all other zoning requirements, provides all parking on-site, all such parking is subsurface, and the applicant submits an environmental impact statement for the proposed project on the site, the City Council may, in its sole and absolute discretion, waive such distancing requirement for a development site in the DB zoning district. D. Permitted uses and Dimensional Standards. Permitted uses and Dimensional Standards within the Downtown Density Bonus Floating Overlay District are the same as those for the underlying DB, DMU, and DMUR Zoning Districts with the exception of Height and FAR which may be increased at the discretion of City Council under the provisions of this Section. E. Bonuses. The density bonuses to be applied to a development site can consist of additional FAR and/or Height. (1) FAR bonuses, which vary by the underlying zoning district, may be applied to the base FAR of a development site for providing any one or several of the public benefits identified in the table below. In no event may total FAR for a development site exceed 4.0 in the DB, 5.5 in the DMU, or 11.5 in the DMUR.

Maximum FAR Bonus Public Benefit DB DMU DMUR Provision of new public parking in excess of that required N/A 1.0 1.5 for proposed uses and which provides a significant public benefit, or significant improvement or replacement of an existing parking facility. Provision of new publicly accessible open space on-site or N/A 1.0 1.5 anywhere within the DB, DMU, or DMUR Zoning Districts in the Central Parking area, and/or improvements to existing open space or streetscape in excess of any improvements required by § 331-119.1 Commitment to design and construct a project to achieve United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification at either of the following levels: Certification 1.5 1.0 1.5

Silver 2.0 1.25 2.5

Gold 2.0 1.5 3.0

Platinum 2.0 1.5 3.5 Provision of a minimum of 100,000 sq. ft. of office and/or N/A 1.5 3.0 hotel with conference center use guaranteed by a covenant to provide same.

1-5 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

Protection, conservation, or renovation of historic site or 2.0 1.0 1.5 building element of historic quality. Maintain and enhance the overall architectural character, 2.0 N/A N/A massing, and urban design of Main Street, furthering its critical role as a pedestrian-scaled retail destination. Provision of public access between Main Street and public 0.25 0.25 0.25 or private parking facilities. New construction with high-quality design that is in context 2.0 1.5 2.0 with adjacent buildings or that serves to enhance the downtown visual environment. Maximum Total FAR Bonus 2.0 1.5 6.0

(2) A Height bonus for a total Height not exceeding 500 feet may be provided to any development site in the DMU or DMUR Zoning Districts or for a total Height not exceeding 165 feet may be provided to any development site in the DB Zoning District, which site meets all of the criteria in §331-154(C) and some or all of the criteria in Sections 331-154(E)(1) and 331-154(G). (3) Any Height bonus shall be set back at least fifty-five (55) feet from the right-of-way of Main Street starting at a point a maximum of 40 feet above grade. F. Application and Procedure. An application to map an eligible development site to the DDB Floating Overlay and to seek applicable Height and/or FAR bonuses for such site shall be initiated by formal petition to the City Council. Along with its petition, the applicant shall submit a description of its proposed project, including a conceptual plan and statement of proposed use, together with an environmental assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed project to the satisfaction of the City Council, as lead agency, in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act and its implementing regulations. At a minimum, this environmental assessment shall take the form of a Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) with supplemental information in Part 3 of the EAF identifying the project’s potential impacts with respect to: aesthetics, streetscapes, and neighborhood character including a visual impact study; parking demand and available supply; traffic generation; and demand on water and sanitary sewer infrastructure. The City Council may require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) based upon its analysis of the EAF. The petition together with the EAF or EIS, as the case may be, shall be referred to the Planning Board and a City-appointed peer review committee for recommendation and report prior to approval. G. Review Process. The City Council may, in its sole and absolute discretion, map a development site to the DDB Floating Overlay and grant partial or entire Height or FAR bonuses depending on the substance and degree to which the Public Benefits set forth in Section 331-154(E)(1) are included in a redevelopment project. In order to grant DDB mapping and height or density bonuses, the applicant must demonstrate and the Council must determine and find the following: (1) That the public benefit(s) obtained by virtue of the density bonus substantially meet the goals of the City as expressed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan or as articulated in §331-154(A).

09/20/07 1-6 Chapter 1: Project Description

(2) That sufficient capacity exists within water supply, wastewater conveyance and treatment, and roadway infrastructure to support the density bonus or that appropriate mitigation is provided to the maximum extent practicable. (3) That the applicant, for a project in the DB zoning district, intends to utilize available off-peak capacity at an existing public parking facility. (4) That a project, in the DMUR zoning district, provides a mix of uses, with at least 60 percent of the total floor area occupied by non-residential uses. H. An application for site plan approval shall be made to the Planning Board to develop any development site to which the City Council has mapped the DDB Floating Overlay and granted bonuses allowed by the DDB Floating Overlay. I. Expiration of DDB Floating Overlay Mapping and Bonuses. Notwithstanding and superceding where inconsistent the expiration of site plan approval provisions set forth in Section 331-123 of this Chapter, the City Council’s mapping of a particular development site to the DDB Floating Overlay District and the City Council’s granting of partial or entire Height and/or FAR bonuses under the DDB Floating Overlay, for the proposed project to be built on such site, shall all expire on the earlier to occur of the following, subject to force majeure: (1) Failure to obtain site plan approval for the proposed project to be built on the development site, within three (3) months of the City Council’s adoption of ordinance approving such DDB Floating Overlay mapping and/or granting of such DDB bonuses; (2) Failure to obtain building permits to build the proposed project on the development site, as follows: (a) For a project containing not more than one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) square foot floor area of new and/or rehabilitated construction, within six (6) months of obtaining site plan approval therefor; (b) For a project containing more than one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) square foot floor area of new and/or rehabilitated construction, within one (1) year of obtaining site plan approval therefor; (3) Failure to commence construction of the proposed project on the development site, within three (3) months of obtaining building permits therefor; and Failure to complete construction of the proposed project on the development site, within two (2) years of obtaining building permits therefor. Based on a showing by the applicant that it has completed construction of more than one-half (1/2) of the proposed project, together with a showing by the applicant that the size of the proposed project prevents its completion within two (2) years of obtaining building permits therefor, the City Council may grant up to one (1) additional year for such completion prior to expiration of such DDB mapping and/or granting of such DDB bonuses.

C. PURPOSE AND NEED The Proposed Action would provide for a continuation of the orderly development of New Rochelle’s downtown consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Proposed Action would also encourage development of a limited number of large mixed-use projects on

1-7 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS underutilized parcels that would serve as anchors for additional private investment in the downtown. This public action is considered a key element in the City’s overall plan to encourage private investment in the City’s downtown.

D. DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA The downtown study area for this analysis is defined by the Downtown Business (DB), Downtown Mixed Use (DMU), and Downtown Mixed Use Urban Renewal (DMUR) Zoning Districts within the Central Parking Area as depicted on the City’s zoning map and Figure 1-1. This area generally includes all parcels fronting on Main Street and Huguenot Street between Pintard Avenue and River Street including cross streets between Main Street and Huguenot Street and several blocks just off of these major corridors. Although land use and community character analyses generally focus on this study area, other key components of this study such as traffic and infrastructure are evaluated based on broader study areas. The Central Parking Area contains 256 parcels that occupy approximately 86 acres. While Huguenot and Main Streets run roughly northeast to southwest through the downtown, they are generally considered east-west streets with North Avenue and Memorial Highway defining north-south corridors. For the purpose of describing land use and community character within this study, Main and Huguenot Streets are referred to as east-west roadways with all intersecting roadways referred to as north-south roadways. For the purpose of describing traffic within this study, Main and Huguenot Streets are referred to as north-south roadways with all intersecting roadways referred to as east-west roadways. Ï

09/20/07 1-8 Chapter 2: Land Use, Community Character, Zoning, and Public Policy

A. INTRODUCTION This chapter evaluates potential impacts of the Proposed Action on the downtown’s land use and community character, zoning, and public policy.

B. LAND USE AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER

LAND USE

EXISTING CONDITIONS The downtown study area is characterized by a wide variety of land uses including apartment buildings, retail stores, offices, warehouses, and institutional facilities (see Figure 2-1). While many of the uses within the study area contribute to the vibrant character, the uses on some parcels do not take full advantage of potential development opportunities and are not consistent with the overall character of downtown New Rochelle. As New Rochelle continues to grow, numerous development projects (small and large) have been initiated to strengthen the downtown and provide additional opportunities for housing and economic development. The City’s downtown has evolved over the last 50 years from its traditional role as the City’s main central business district where department stores, small shops, and several movie theaters and restaurants provided the primary shopping and entertainment needs of the City’s residents and even residents of surrounding communities. Today, the downtown serves fewer daily needs of the majority of residents of New Rochelle, who now find other neighborhood shopping centers (such as Wykagyl) or shopping centers in nearby communities (such as Eastchester and Yonkers) more convenient and use the “regional” shopping centers at Weyman Avenue and along the Post Road for other non-convenience shopping needs. The downtown now serves three main purposes: 1) the historic “heart” of New Rochelle whose institutional uses (e.g., the United States Post Office, several banks, and the Public Library) still serve residents throughout the City’s many outlying residential neighborhoods; 2) a shopping center for the denser residential neighborhoods immediately south of the downtown area and for the residents of the downtown itself; and 3) a regional center for entertainment, shopping, and education. The City’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in July of 1996, sets forth a number of recommendations for improving the quality of life and economic status of the City as a whole and for the downtown specifically. The Plan’s goal for downtown development is to: “Expand the economic base of New Rochelle by revitalizing the downtown. Develop downtown as an attractive, safe, economically productive shopping and working destination, that serves both local residents and a larger market area.” The Plan also includes a number of Goals for achieving this objective which include the following:

2-1 09/20/07 MORRIS 8.30.07

PALMER RHODES MONROE ROCHELLE THE

MEMORIAL HIGHWAY JACKSON PARK LINCOLN SICKLES

MAY

GUION CEDAR COTTAGE ADAMS LAWN RENEWAL LINCOLN RADISSON LOCKWOOD I 95 MAY

GARDEN BURLING

GRAND

FOUNTAIN

HARRISON ECHO

LECOUNT

WASHINGTON BRIDGE

BADEAU

ANDERSON LAFAYETTE

MECHANIC NORTH

UNION ODELL RAILROAD LAWTON

FRANKLIN MEMORIAL

WARREN BAYVIEW

LOCUST GROVE

SOUNDVIEW

CRESCENT PC RAILROADBARTELS Study Area Boundary

DIVISION MAIN One & Two Family Residential

NORTH BONNEFOY Multi-Family Residential COLUMBUS Retail/Residential LEROY Office CHURCH EUCLID Retail/Office HICKORYRetail HUGUENOT Automotive PROSPECT PINE FAIRVIEW Institutional/CommunityUNION Facilities N SHEA CENTRE MAPLE Open Space Utility MARVIN Parking DAVIS Light Industrial 0 200 500 FEET Construction SCALE Vacant Vacant Comercial

Figure 2-1 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Existing Land Use Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

• Coordinate public and private actions to improve the appearance, convenience, and functioning of the downtown. • Revitalize vacant and underutilized business establishments, where appropriate, and encourage new compatible commercial activities. • Encourage mixed-use development including commercial, cultural, residential, entertainment, community, and recreational uses to create a critical mass of new development downtown. • Encourage the private sector to provide a broad range of commercial activities, goods, and services to meet the needs of a large market area. • Encourage the redevelopment of downtown along a specific architectural theme. • Improve pedestrian connections to and from downtown to the Sound Shore Medical Center and the College of New Rochelle. Development activities in downtown New Rochelle since 1996 have largely been consistent with these six objectives and the overall goal for revitalizing the downtown. In the year 2000 the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) became operational with the mission to recruit new businesses, coordinate efforts by property owners to improve existing buildings and vacant properties, and provide shared services such as the Clean Streets Program. In September 1999, the old New Rochelle Mall was reborn as New Roc City, which attracted a new regional audience to downtown through provision of a major retail entertainment complex. While New Roc City certainly has been credited for its share of new activity in downtown, numerous other smaller properties have been redeveloped by long-time property owners to give the downtown an emerging character also attractive to a broader audience. The design and construction of Library Green, a collaborative effort between the City, the County, and the AvalonBay Communities turned an underutilized block situated between Avalon I, Avalon II and the New Rochelle Library into a major gateway and downtown center of activity. Following this private investment in the City’s future, several successful residential developers made their own investments in the City’s future. The construction of Avalon’s Phase I project brought 412 units of market-rate rental housing with additional street-level retail in a building that redefined the City’s skyline and enhanced the City’s retail streetscape. Avalon Phase II, which includes 588 units of market-rate rental housing, is nearing completion. Other smaller residential projects (e.g., Davenport Lofts, Blue Gill Development and Huguenot Hills) followed that added over 200 additional market-rate for-sale units. Taken together, these residential projects began to form the “critical mass” that the City set out to create in its Comprehensive Plan. Figure 2-2 and Table 2-1 identify recent and pending downtown development projects. A second large mixed-use project is nearing completion at the Parcel 1A site on the north side of Huguenot Street. This project will add 185 new residential units and 140,000 square feet of new retail at a location that had been underutilized for many years. Analysis of potential impacts from new development that could occur as a result of the Proposed Action specifically addresses the changing conditions in downtown economic activity and traffic resulting from six of the large projects currently under construction or undergoing review. These six projects are classified as either “Phase I” projects that have been recently built or have approvals or “Phase II” projects that are currently under review and have no approvals. Phase I projects are: Avalon Phase II, Parcel 1A, Palladium/M Squared, and 543 Main Street/Blue Gill. Phase II projects are: LeCount Square and the Church/Division project. It is important to realize

09/20/07 2-2 MORRIS 8.30.07

PALMER RHODES MONROE ROCHELLE THE

MEMORIAL HIGHWAY JACKSON PARK LINCOLN SICKLES

MAY

GUION CEDAR COTTAGE ADAMS LAWN

LINCOLN I 95 RENEWAL RADISSON LOCKWOOD

MAY

GARDEN BURLING Parcel 1A

GRAND

RAILROAD

FOUNTAIN

LeCount Square HARRISON ECHO LECOUNT New Roc City WASHINGTON BRIDGE

BADEAU Avalon Phase I ANDERSON LAFAYETTE

MECHANIC NORTH

UNION ODELL LAWTON

FRANKLIN MEMORIAL

WARREN BAYVIEW

Avalon Phase II

GROVE 543 Main Street/Blue Gill LOCUST

SOUNDVIEW

CRESCENT PC RAILROADM BARTELSSquared CLINTON DIVISION Development MAIN NORTH BONNEFOY COLUMBUS

LEROY Church/Division

CHURCH EUCLID Davenport Lofts HICKORY HUGUENOT

PROSPECT N PINE FAIRVIEW UNION SHEA CENTRE WEBSTER MAPLE

MARVIN

DAVIS

Study Area Boundary 0 200 500 FEET

LAUREL Completed Projects SCALE Phase I Projects Phase II Projects

Figure 2-2 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Development Projects Chapter 2: Land Use, Community Character, Zoning, and Public Policy that the emergence of these projects is the product of previous planning efforts undertaken by the City of New Rochelle over the last ten years. Each of the Phase II projects will be required to prepare full Environmental Impact Statements to identify all potential significant adverse environmental impacts that might result from those specific development proposals, and it is assumed would seek full or partial application of the DDB. Table 2-1 Recent Downtown Development Activity Status No. of Residential No. of Commercial (Date of Project Name Units Square Feet Occupancy) Projects Completed Prior to Initial DDB Zoning Overlay Avalon, Phase I 412 units 5,600 sq. ft. retail Built New Roc City 500,000 sq. ft. Built retail/entertainment Knickerbocker Lofts 45 units 3,000 sq. ft. retail Built Davenport Lofts 73 units Built Summit at New Roc 100 units Built Huguenot Hill 28 Townhomes 6,390 sq. ft. retail Built Sub-Total 658 units 514,990 sq. ft. Phase I and Phase II Projects 543 Main Street/Blue Gill (1) 90 units 5,000 sq. ft. retail Built Parcel IA /Trump (1) 185 units 142,000 sq. ft. retail Built Avalon, Phase II (1) 588 units 7,850 sq. ft. retail Built Palladium/M Squared (1) 155 units 7,400 sq. ft. retail Approved LeCount Square (2) 258 units 200,000 sq. ft. retail Proposed 380,000 sq. ft. office (2009) 145,600 sq. ft. hotel 12,000 sq. ft. restaurant Church/Division Site (2) 438 units 53,200 sq. ft. retail Proposed (2012) Echo Bay* 336,300 sq. ft. 56,500 sq. ft. office, RFQ Issued (min. 250 units) commercial, retail (2011) Sub-Total 1,964 1,009,550 sq. ft. Note: Unit counts, commercial square footage, and occupancy dates are estimates based on current expectations of the Department of Development. (1) Phase I Project; (2) Phase II Project * - No specific development proposal has yet to be developed for Echo Bay. Numbers presented here are approximations only. Source: City of New Rochelle Department of Development.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The DGEIS and FGEIS for the initial DDB Overlay Zoning District analyzed potential build-out for properties in the DB, DMU, and DMUR Zoning Districts that could potentially use the density bonuses and height bonuses in each of the districts. This analysis was based on investigations of existing built conditions and an assessment of the feasibility for additional development on individual properties and on assemblages of properties. It is recognized that a

2-3 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS number of smaller properties in the downtown are not likely to apply for a density bonus due to constraints imposed by building code or other provisions of zoning. However, several parcels or potential assemblages were identified as feasible locations for development under the Proposed Action. Within the DB, there are three sites where it has been determined additional development of an assemblage of parcels under the Proposed Action could result in creation of a larger project than what would be allowed if the parcels were developed individually. These sites are shown in Figure 2-3. Development of these sites would be able to overcome the constraints found on smaller sites regarding building code and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and would, thus, represent locations where more than a few new residential units could be built. The properties off Westchester Place were estimated to have potential for approximately 150 dwelling units (in addition to ground-floor commercial space); the site at the former REI store has the potential for approximately 80 dwelling units above a commercial base; the site at the corner of Main Street and North Avenue has the potential for approximately 150 dwelling units above a commercial base. These sites were considered to have the greatest likelihood for applying the DDB Overlay within the DB Zoning District. Additional parcels in the DB Zoning District that can potentially be redeveloped were also identified in the DGEIS (see Table 2-2 of the DGEIS). These parcels are primarily occupied by one- and two- story buildings with ground-floor retail and office or additional retail on upper floors. With few exceptions, these buildings generally have no residential dwelling units. The DGEIS identifies these parcels and describes the method used to calculate a reasonable worst- case scenario build-out. The analysis concludes that a maximum of 708 additional residential units could be constructed in the downtown; however, as fully described in the DGEIS, various regulatory and financial factors suggest that a more realistic range of new residential units in the DB Zoning District is 330 to 445. Although there is only one parcel entirely within the DMU or DMUR zoning districts, four additional parcels exist within the downtown where the density bonus can potentially be applied. Two of these parcels are located on either side of Division Street at Leroy Place. These two large parcels are currently owned by the City and used for parking. Recognizing development potential and underutilization, the City issued an RFP for their redevelopment and subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Understand to rezone the easterly parcel now occupied by the Church/Division Parking Garage to DMU with a possible density bonus at a later date. The selected developer has proposed a new 859 space parking garage on the westerly parcel now known as the Prospect Street Parking Lot, a maximum of 438 residential condominium units, and 44,000 square feet of retail space for the site. A third assemblage of parcels is located between North Avenue and Lawton Street. Although the DMU, DMUR, and DB districts are all mapped on this assemblage, the majority is zoned DMUR, making the rezoning of two parcels and a portion of a third a possibility for the future. If this scenario did evolve, an estimated 60,000 square feet of retail and 216 residential units could be constructed on the site. A fourth assemblage of parcels is located between LeCount Place and North Avenue. The City has also recognized development potential at this location due to the proximity to New Roc City and the Intermodal Transportation Center. Given this potential and the desire to redevelop, the City has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for development of these parcels. In

09/20/07 2-4 R2-7.0 LI ROS NB R1 - 7.5

8.30.07 RMF - SC 4.0 Legend THE LI MONROE ROCHELLE JACKSON LSR PALMER 60,000sf Parcel Assemblages NB NB DB Parcel Assemblages R2 - 7.0 MEMORIAL PARK LINCOLN DB Individual Sites SICKLES Railroad PALMER Existing Zoning District Boundaries MAY

SICKLES 500ft Public Parking Buffer CEDAR GUION DB COTTAGELI 500ft 300+ Space Public Parking Buffer LAWN LINCOLN RENEWAL Public Parking Facilities I 95 RADISSON RIVER LOCKWOOD NB MAY DMU C - 1M RMF-0.7 GARDEN

GLOVER JOHNSON H BURLING

GRAND ECHO

NB VAN GUILDER FOUNTAIN

RMF - 1.0 RMF - 1.3 MUFE HARRISON

LECOUNT

WASHINGTON BRIDGE RMF - 0.7 RMF - 0.4 BADEAU WARREN

ANDERSON MECHANIC LAFAYETTE

NB RMF - SC 4.0 R2 - 7.0 ODELL RMF - 0.4 DMUR LAWTON UNION MEMORIAL

WARREN RMF - SC 4.0 RMF - 1.3 WALNUT BAYVIEW

RMF - 0.4

FRANKLIN LI GROVE RMF - 1.3

RMF - 0.5 LOCUST WESTCHESTER DB CRESCENT PC RAILROAD CLINTON

BARTELS RELYEA LI MAIN NORTH BONNEFOY NB COLUMBUS RMF - 0.7 LEROY LI DIVISION

RFMSC HICKORY

HUGUENOT

PROSPECT PINE RMF - 0.4 FAIRVIEW WEBSTER UNION RMF - 0.5 SHEA CENTRE RMF - 1.3 PINTARD RMF - SC 4.0 MAPLE RMF - 1.3 N MARVIN RMF - 1.3 CHURCH NB DAVIS BEECHWOOD RMF - 2.0 DAVIS

LAUREL BANCKER MT ETNA 0 200 500 FEET R 1 - 7.5 TRINITY R 1 - 7.5 R2 - 7.0 RMF - 1.3 SCALE

Figure 2-3 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Density Bonus Analysis Chapter 2: Land Use, Community Character, Zoning, and Public Policy order to fully utilize development potential in this area, rezoning to DMUR and allowing a density bonus may present an opportunity to strengthen the downtown at this critical location. A proposal by the selected developer includes 1,150,000 square feet of mixed-use space with 258 residential units, retail, office, and hotel components. A fifth parcel assemblage is located at the northeast corner of North Avenue and Huguenot Street. This parcel which is already zoned DMU, is also in close proximity to New Roc City and the Intermodal Transportation Center and presents itself as a prime location for higher density development. However, existing development at this site (e.g., the K Building) would make this assemblage less likely, and therefore, it is not considered as a potential development site. In other instances, parcel assemblages not entirely meeting one of the above criteria were added to the analysis based on the City’s development plans or potential rezonings. For example, an assemblage of parcels totaling 78,783 square feet between North Street and Lawton Street was added because most of the assemblage is zoned DMUR. Due to existing land uses which are unlikely to be redeveloped such as churches, and newly redeveloped or planned projects on other parcels, no additional assemblages of parcels are likely. Total new development projected under the initial DDB Overlay Zoning District was approximately 1,278 residential units and approximately 462,000 square feet of non-residential use including Phase II projects. The Proposed Action would allow additional height in the DMU and DMUR Zoning Districts (up to 500 feet) and additional density in the DMUR Zoning District (up to 11.5 FAR). The additional development permitted by the Proposed Action would be approximately 552 residential units, 120,000 square feet of retail, and 708,000 square feet of office beyond the development projected for the initial DDB Zoning Overlay. Therefore, the Proposed Action would allow for approximately 1,842 residential units to be constructed along with approximately 598,340 square feet of retail, 1,088,000 square feet of office, 12,000 square feet of restaurant, and 145,600 square feet of hotel (including development proposed as part of Phase II projects) (see Figure 2-3). This overall intensity of development is consistent with a downtown area, especially a downtown with excellent transit links to a major metropolitan center and several sub-regional employment centers (e.g., White Plains and Stamford), and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the desire to bring a “critical mass” to the downtown. As such, the Proposed Action will not result in any significant adverse impacts to land use within the study area.

COMMUNITY CHARACTER

EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 2-4 identifies specific “Character Areas” within the downtown. These areas, when considered individually define internally consistent sub-zones within which land use and zoning strategies are articulated. The Inner Core of downtown is centered on the intersection of North Avenue and Huguenot Street. The Main Street corridor has two distinct characters: the western end is more the traditional area of downtown while the eastern end is an evolving area presided over by Monroe College. The Huguenot Street corridor is also evolving, albeit more slowly than Main Street, but contains a number of potential development sites that could stretch the activity within downtown further west. The Outer Core and Fountain Place areas flank the northern and eastern sides of the Inner Core. The Outer Core includes the New Rochelle Transit Center and a

2-5 09/20/07 I 95 BURLING 8.30.07 WASHINGTON

WALNUT GRAND I 95

COTTAGE

WARREN WEBSTER I 95 GARDEN

BADEAU

MEMORIAL

CHARLES

RENEWAL PALMER

WALNUT

WARREN UNION CEDAR

PALMER

CRESCENT GROVE ODELL

RADISSON

BRIDGE STATION PLAZA HUGUENOT

RAILROAD MECHANIC

PC RAILROAD

RIVER

BARTELS

RELYEA ANDERSON

MEMORIAL FOUNTAIN COLUMBUS

PINE LAWTON

WESTCHESTER

HARRISON

LECOUNT

CENTRE

MAIN

NORTH LOCUST

CHURCH

LAFAYETTE

MAPLE LEROY ECHO Study Area BoundaryPINTARD MARVIN Main Street: Western End CLINTON LAUREL Main Street: Western End Anchor N

FRANKLIN

Main Street: Eastern End DIVISION SHEA DECATUR Huguentot Street BONNEFOY BAYVIEW

Inner Core PROSPECT

Outer Core 0 250 500 FEET Fountain Place SCALE Cedar Street

Figure 2-4 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Character Areas Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS number of large office buildings and other uses and represents, perhaps, an area that is not likely to change as much as other areas. The Fountain Place area is characterized by multi-family apartment buildings. Finally the Cedar Street area is a potential gateway into the downtown because of its location just off the exit from I-95. Each of these areas, and the purpose they serve in the downtown, is described in more detail below. Main Street: Western End The western end of Main Street is characterized by a series of two- to three-story mixed-use buildings punctuated by four- to six-story buildings. The mix of offices, retail establishments, restaurants, and residences in this area creates a truly mixed-use environment and a distinct character which the City of New Rochelle wishes to preserve. Also in this area are several historically and architecturally significant buildings that add to the overall image of the downtown. In the western-most portion of the study area, there are a number of small businesses and residential structures along Main Street. For example, along the south side of Main Street, between Pintard and Maple Avenues, there is a large apartment building and a two-story mixed use building with apartments and various small businesses located on the ground floor. The north side of Main Street at this location is occupied by a gas station/convenience store that lies on a triangular parcel that also fronts on Huguenot Street. Between Maple and Centre Avenues the variation in building types and uses is continued. On the south side of Main Street there are two small mixed-use buildings, a night club, a three-story office building occupied by a religious institution, and a large two-story building with a mix of retail and office space. The north side of Main Street is occupied by several two- to five-story mixed-use buildings as seen in Photo A on Figure 2-5. One prominent land use on this block is the former Lowes Theatre, shown in Photo C on Figure 2-6 which currently lies vacant. This site is slated for redevelopment by M Squared. The proposed development is expected to include 155 new residential units, 7,400 square feet of retail space and a preservation of the existing façade along Main Street. The block bound by Centre Avenue, Main Street, Division Street, and Leroy Place is generally occupied by retail establishments and office space. On this block, parcels extend from Main Street to Leroy Place and accommodate a variety of buildings ranging from single-story storefronts to multi-story office buildings. Uses on this block include a restaurant, office space, the C-Town supermarket, and two mixed-use buildings along Division Street. The building formerly occupied by Bloomingdale’s which also lies on this block has recently been rehabilitated into the Davenport Lofts, shown in Photo D on Figure 2-6. One parcel on this block also includes a building currently under construction. The block to the north also has a mixed-use character similar to other locations along Main Street. There are a number of retail storefronts located on the ground floor with offices above. The 543 Main Street/Blue Gill development recently added 90 residential units and 5,000 square feet of ground floor retail space. Between Division Street and Memorial Highway, the mixed-use character continues with office, retail, and residential uses in buildings ranging from one to three stories on either side of Main Street. The former Palace Shoe store, shown in Photo B on Figure 2-4 is also located on this block.

09/20/07 2-6 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

8.30.07 Downtown Character:Western Main Street South sideofMainStreetbetween ChurchandDivisionStreets North sideofMainStreetatMaple Avenue Figure 2-5 B A NEW ROCHELLE Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

8.30.07 North sideofMainStreetbetweenMaple Avenue andCentre Avenue Downtown Character:Western Main Street South sideofMainStreetbetween ChurchandDivisionStreets Figure 2-6 D C Chapter 2: Land Use, Community Character, Zoning, and Public Policy

The buildings west of Church Street range from one to three stories and generally all include ground floor retail. Upper floors, where present, include both office and residential uses. This block contains several of the few single-story buildings along this stretch of Main Street. East of LeCount Place, buildings are generally three stories with ground-floor retail and offices on upper floors. In addition to these district characteristics, there are two critical development parcels controlled by the City located south of Main Street between Centre Avenue and Church Street. These two parcels are used exclusively for either surface or structured parking and have no architectural or historic merit. These parcels have, however, been the subject of a competitive RFP process that has resulted in a significant development proposal for the development of a high-rise residential tower, 44,000 square feet of retail space and significant public amenities. These amenities include a public parking garage of 859 spaces, a major public plaza and parkland. The size of this site and the potential impact of this development is critical for the overall revitalization of the western end of Main Street because it will serve to anchor development south of Main Street while still preserving the overall architectural integrity and scale of Main Street. For this reason, this area is still designated as Main Street Western End, but receives the further clarification as Main Street Western End Anchor. Huguenot Street Corridor Huguenot Street has a number of different types of land uses within the boundaries of the study area. At the western most end of Huguenot Street, the study area is characterized by uses such as loading docks, auto repair facilities, car dealerships, and public storage facilities as seen in Photos E and F on Figure 2-7. Although other uses such as apartment buildings and retail establishments exist in this area, several light industrial uses dominate the neighborhood and provide it with an overall industrial character. Specifically, along the north side of Huguenot Street between Main Street and Centre Avenue, land uses from west to east include an office building, car dealership, apartment building, janitorial supply store, a U-Haul rental center, a row of two story buildings with ground floor retail and second story apartments and offices, a public storage facility, warehouse, auto repair facility, parking lot, apartment building, and a second parking lot. The south side of the street, also from west to east includes a gas station, the back side of buildings with Main Street frontage (see Photo G on Figure 2-8), and a telephone switching building. The buildings that also front on Main Street generally appear to be used as loading areas or are vacant storefronts on the Huguenot Street side, however other uses such as a carpet store, furniture store, and night club do occupy Huguenot street frontage. On the north side of Huguenot Street there is a parking lot and a church between Centre and Division Streets. The south side of Huguenot Street is occupied by a hardware store, a four story mixed-use building, and a two-story mixed-use building. Westchester Place serves as a rear alley to these buildings and also provides frontage to a plumbing supply center. The northern portion of Centre Avenue also shares a similar character with industrial portions of Huguenot Street. Uses along either side of Centre Avenue include an auto repair facility, car wash, the telephone building which also fronts on Huguenot Street, and an apartment building with ground floor retail (see Photo H on Figure 2-8).

2-7 09/20/07 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

8.30.07 Downtown Character:Huguenot Street North sideofHuguenotStreet westofColumbus Avenue North sideofHuguenotStreetatMain Figure 2-7 F E NEW ROCHELLE Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

8.30.07 East sideofCentre Avenue betweenMainStreetandHuguenot Downtown Character:Huguenot Street South sideofHuguenotStreetatMain Figure 2-8 H G Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

Inner Core The intersection of Huguenot Street and North Avenue is being considered as the downtown’s “100 percent corner” where it is anticipated that economic activity from both past development and future development within the downtown will be focused. In this area, lots are generally larger and occupied by a mix of residential, office, retail, entertainment, and institutional uses (see Photos I – L, Figures 2-9 and 2-10). Specific examples of uses within this portion of the study area include Avalon’s two apartment buildings and New Roc City. Phase I of the Avalon development includes 412 residential units with ground-floor retail and a parking garage. Phase II of the Avalon development is located on the south side of Huguenot Street, and contains 588 residential units and 7,850 square feet of retail space. Another component of the Inner Core is the North Avenue Corridor. Similar to Main Street, North Avenue is lined by a number of small-scale retail uses. The major difference between the two corridors, however is the increased number of single-story buildings. Furthermore, where upper floors do exist, they are often occupied by offices or additional retail space. In general, fewer residential uses exist along North Avenue. Although there are no existing high density buildings along North Avenue, south of Huguenot Street, the block bound by North Avenue, Huguenot Street, LeCount Place, and Anderson Street has been proposed to be redeveloped into LeCount Square, an approximately 1,150,000 square-foot mixed-use building with retail, office, a hotel, and residential units. This development would make the character of this block more similar to some of the surrounding high-density uses. Additional future development may occur on the west side of North Avenue. Office buildings occupy a major portion of the Inner Core as well. Examples include the Chase Building and K-Building. Adjacent to the K-Building, the former “Parcel 1A” site has been developed into a residential tower with 185 units and 142,000 square feet of retail space. On the opposite side of Huguenot Street, a large block is occupied by New Roc City which includes retail, a hotel, offices, residential lofts, and a 2,300-space public parking garage. The New Rochelle Public Library and the adjacent park and parking lot which all occupy relatively large lots are also located within the Inner Core. Outer Core Located just outside the Inner Core is the New Rochelle Transit Center (NRTC). In addition to providing a significant amount of parking, the NRTC also provides access to Metro-North, Amtrak, and a number of bus lines that provide transportation alternatives and enable higher densities in the surrounding areas. Although the NRTC is a significant component of the Outer Core, this area’s primary land use is office buildings (see Photos M and N, Figure 2-11. There are four relatively large office buildings at the corner of Huguenot Street and Cedar Street. Other portions of the Outer Core include the fire station on a triangular parcel formed by Harrison, Cedar, and Huguenot Streets, an electric substation, and a parking lot on the north side of Renewal Place. Main Street: Eastern End The eastern end of Main Street differs significantly in character from the western end. While Monroe College is a primary presence within this area, other portions of Main Street east of Locust Street are occupied by a number of mixed-use buildings and commercial uses that generally promote less pedestrian activity. Furthermore, the north side of Main Street between

09/20/07 2-8 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

8.30.07 West sideofNorth Avenue betweenMain andHuguenotStreets Northeast cornerofMemorialHighwayandHuguenotStreet Downtown Character:Inner Core Figure 2-9 J I NEW ROCHELLE Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

8.30.07 East sideofNorth Avenue between Anderson StreetandMain West sideofLeCountPlacebetweenMainandHuguenot Streets Downtown Character:Inner Core Figure 2-10 K L NEW ROCHELLE Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

8.30.07 Downtown Character:Outer Core North sideofHuguenotStreetatHarrison South sideofRenewalPlace Figure 2-11 M N Chapter 2: Land Use, Community Character, Zoning, and Public Policy

LeCount Place and Harrison Street, is occupied by New Roc City which does not have any pedestrian entrances along Main Street to stimulate activity on the south side of Main Street. Some of the parcels along the eastern end of Main Street are occupied by buildings with vacant storefronts, storefronts in need of façade improvements, and parking areas. The stores include a small grocery store, a used car dealership, and a power equipment dealer. Most of these buildings are single-story structures. Exceptions to these parcels are the newly constructed Monroe College buildings and adjacent two-family house (see Photos O and P, Figure 2-12). Fountain Place Apartments Parcels on Fountain Place, some of which also have frontage along Main Street are occupied largely by residential apartment buildings as seen in Photo Q on Figure 2-13. With the exception of approximately five storefronts along Main Street this area is entirely occupied by mid-rise apartment buildings. No major changes are anticipated in this district. Cedar Street There are two large parcels on the east side of Cedar Street that currently have large amounts of paved areas for parking. One of these parcels is occupied by New Rochelle Toyota and uses a relatively small two-story building for offices and showrooms (see Photo R on Figure 2-13). On the opposite side of the street there is 10-story hotel which is also surrounded by parking. Similar buildings also exist along the south side of Huguenot Street on a smaller scale. Examples include a fast food chain, used car dealership and restaurant which all have a significant amount of underutilized space. In the short term, no major changes are anticipated in this district.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action would allow additional height in the DMU and DMUR Zoning Districts and additional density in the DMUR Zoning District. Neither the additional height nor the additional density would readily be noticed at street level (from which most people perceive impacts to community character). (See Chapter 4 for an evaluation of potential visual impacts from points outside the downtown). The Proposed Action includes the appropriate setbacks to retain the existing urban pattern of building street walls and base heights, and to avoid a “canyon effect” on downtown streets. Further, the additional 100 feet of building height that would be permitted would not be readily perceived from areas within the immediate downtown in comparison to the 400-foot height limit already allowed by the City. Similarly, additional density (FAR) would be expressed as slightly broader towers which would not be readily perceived in comparison to density already permitted and may provide additional design flexibility to achieve the City’s goals of high-quality design in the downtown. Thus, the Proposed Action will not result in any significant adverse impacts to community character within the study area.

C. ZONING

EXISTING CONDITIONS Most parcels within the study area are regulated by one of four zoning districts: the downtown Business District (DB), Downtown Mixed Use District (DMU), Downtown Mixed Use Urban renewal District (DMUR), or Mixed Use Family Entertainment District (MUFE). A smaller

2-9 09/20/07 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

8.30.07 Downtown Character:Eastern MainStreet South sideofMainStreetwest ofHarrisonStreet South sideofMainStreetatHarrison Figure 2-12 P O NEW ROCHELLE Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

8.30.07 East sideofCedarStreetbetween RamadaPlazaandPalmer Avenue Fountain Place/CedarStreet Apartments alongFountainPlace Downtown Character: Figure 2-13 R Q Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS number of parcels are mapped as General Commercial modified District (C-1M), Light Industry District (LI), Neighborhood Business District (NB), or one of the City’s residential districts. Figure 2-14 shows the zoning district boundaries throughout the study area. Generally, the mapped zoning districts, and the permitted building density within those districts, correspond well with the Character Areas defined above. However, there are locations where changes to zoning district boundaries could be made to more closely follow the pattern of the actual built environment. It should also be noted that existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) within the downtown tends to be significantly lower than what is permitted (see Figure 2-15). While the bulk and dimensional standards in each of the zoning districts is fairly permissive, many sites within the downtown have not taken full advantage of the permitted density. This condition likely results from an inconsistency between historic building patterns (prior to implementation of zoning controls) that, at the time, reflected an appropriate market and design response to development needs and the later development of standard zoning regulations that focused on future development instead of preservation of historic built form. This is especially true in the DB district where a mismatch between FAR, lot coverage, and height does not convey a strong indication of how the City would like the DB district to be developed from a character point of view.

DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT (DB) The DB district is mapped primarily along Main Street, but also includes parcels along Centre Avenue, Division Street, and North Avenue. The DB district permits primarily retail uses such as shops and stores, banks, and restaurants, but also permits dwelling units and offices above the first floor of a building. Within the DB district, base building height is limited to six stories or 70 feet with a maximum FAR of 2.0 and permitted lot coverage of 100 percent. The initial DDB Zoning Overlay permits an additional 2.0 FAR and height of up to 165 so long as the additional height is set back from the Main Street façade by at least 55 feet subject to City Council approval.

DOWNTOWN MIXED USE DISTRICT (DMU) The DMU district is mapped in the northeastern portion of the study area, primarily north of Huguenot Street and east of North Avenue. The DMU district is intended to encourage development of a regional office center with high-density residential uses to vitalize the City and increase the tax base. Permitted uses in the DMU district include offices, apartment buildings, hotels, and retail spaces. Within the DMU district, building heights of 240 feet are permitted (or up to 39 stories or 390 feet on sites of 75,000 square feet or more with a Land Development Agreement in place with the City) with a maximum FAR of 4.0 and permitted lot coverage of 100 percent. The initial DDB Zoning Overlay permits an additional 1.5 FAR and height of up to 390 feet subject to City Council approval.

DOWNTOWN MIXED USE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT (DMUR) The DMUR district permits uses similar to those permitted in the DMU district but in locations officially designated as urban renewal areas. The DMUR district is mapped along Huguenot Street in the vicinity of Memorial Highway and Lawton Street. In order to encourage redevelopment of parcels within the urban renewal area, a higher FAR of 5.5 is permitted although maximum building height is capped at 24 stories or 280 feet. Permitted lot coverage is

09/20/07 2-10 MORRIS 8.30.07

PALMER RHODES LRS MONROE ROCHELLE THE LI R2-7.0 MEMORIAL HIGHWAY JACKSON RMF-0.7 PARK LINCOLN SICKLES NB MAY

GUION DB COTTAGELI CEDAR ADAMS LAWN RENEWAL LINCOLN RADISSON LOCKWOOD I 95 MAY DMU C-1M GARDEN BURLING C-1M

GRAND

FOUNTAINRMF-1.3

HARRISON ECHO DB DB WASHINGTON MUFE LECOUNT BRIDGE

BADEAU RMF-0.7 DMUR LAFAYETTE ANDERSON LAWTON MECHANIC NORTH RMF-0.4 UNION ODELL RMF-0.4 RAILROAD

RMF-SC4.0 BAYVIEW WARREN RMF-SC4.0 R2-7.0 DB MEMORIAL

HUGUENOT GROVELI RMF-1.3 SOUNDVIEW LI NB CRESCENT PC RAILROAD CLINTON BARTELS FRANKLIN

DIVISION DB MAIN LOCUST

NORTH

COLUMBUS RMF-0.4 LI NB LEROY

CHURCH RMF-1.3 EUCLID

DB HICKORY RMF-0.5 PROSPECT PINE NB RMF-0.5 FAIRVIEW UNION N SHEA CENTRE MAPLE CR-S RMF-SC4.0Study Area College RelatedRMF-1.3 DMU Downtown Mixed Use NB R1-10A One Family Residence R1-10A R2-7.0 Two Family Residence DAVISDMUR Downtown Mixed Use Urban Renewal RMF-0.4 NB Neighborhood Business 0 200 500 FEET Multi-Family Residence RMF-0.5 Multi-Family Residence C-1M General Commercial Modified SCALE RMF-0.7 Multi-Family Residence DB Downtown Business RMF-1.3 Multi-Family Residence MUFE Mixed Use Family Entertainment RMF-SC-4.0 Multi-Family Residence LI Light Industrial H Hospital LSR Large Scale Residential

Figure 2-14 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Existing Zoning MORRIS 8.30.07

PALMER RHODES MONROE ROCHELLE THE

MEMORIAL HIGHWAY JACKSON PARK LINCOLN SICKLES

MAY

GUION CEDAR COTTAGE ADAMS LAWN RENEWAL LINCOLN RADISSON LOCKWOOD I 95 MAY

GARDEN BURLING

GRAND

FOUNTAIN

HARRISON ECHO

LECOUNT

WASHINGTON BRIDGE

BADEAU

ANDERSON LAFAYETTE

MECHANIC NORTH

UNION ODELL RAILROAD LAWTON

FRANKLIN MEMORIAL

WARREN BAYVIEW

GROVE LOCUST

SOUNDVIEW

CRESCENT PC RAILROADBARTELS CLINTON

DIVISION MAIN Study Area Boundary NORTH BONNEFOY Existing FAR COLUMBUS

LEROY <0.25

CHURCH EUCLID 0.25 - 0.75

HUGUENOT 0.75 - 1.25

PROSPECT 1.25 - 2.25 PINE FAIRVIEW UNION SHEA N CENTRE 2.25 - 3.50 MAPLE 3.50 - 5.25 MARVIN

DAVIS >5.25 0 200 500 FEET No Buildings LAUREL SCALE NOTE: Existing FARs are Approximate

Figure 2-15 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Existing FAR Chapter 2: Land Use, Community Character, Zoning, and Public Policy

100 percent. The initial DDB Zoning Overlay permits an additional 3.5 FAR and height of up to 390 feet subject to City Council approval.

MIXED USE FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT (MUFE) The MUFE district is mapped in the area of New Roc City along Huguenot and Main Streets. Permitted uses in the MUFE district include retail uses, offices, restaurants, and entertainment uses such as theatres, skating rinks, and amusement establishments. Heights of up to 12 stories or 250 feet and a maximum FAR of 2.0 with 100 percent lot coverage are permitted in the MUFE district.

LIGHT INDUSTRY DISTRICT (LI) The LI district is mapped on the north side of Huguenot Street between Centre Avenue and Pine Street. The LI district permits uses such as offices, manufacturing, laboratories, warehousing and distribution, vehicle storage and sales, and retail establishments. The LI District permits a maximum height of 40 feet and an FAR of 1.0 with 60 percent lot coverage for buildings.

GENERAL COMMERCIAL MODIFIED DISTRICT (C-1M) The C-1M district is mapped in the vicinity of Cedar Street at the eastern most portion of the study area. Examples of permitted uses in the C-1M district include offices, large scale retail establishments, theatres, bowling alleys, boat yards, car washes, and motor vehicle sales. Buildings within the C-1M district are permitted to reach heights of up to 30 feet or two stories with a maximum FAR of 1.0.

NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT (NB) A small area is mapped as NB at the western most edge of the study area. The NB district permits uses such as retail establishments, offices, banks, restaurants and health clubs. Maximum heights within the NB district can reach up to 30 feet or two stories with an FAR of 0.5 and maximum lot coverage of 50 percent.

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS There are three Multifamily Residence Districts mapped within the boundaries of the study area. These districts include the RMF-0.5, RMF-SC4.0, and RMF-1.3. Each of these districts permit one-family, two-family, and multifamily dwellings. The RMF-1.3 district also permits physician’s offices and home offices. The RMF-SC4.0 district permits subsidized housing for seniors.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action would not result in any Zoning Map changes but would amend the DDB Overlay provisions to allow more height in the DMU and DMUR Zoning Districts and more density in the DMUR Zoning District. The Proposed Action would also clarify the process by which a property owner would apply for bonuses under the DDB to make it clear that a grant of a height or density bonus is subject to City Council approval and cannot be considered an as-of- right condition. The Proposed Action is consistent with the City’s previous efforts to implement the Comprehensive Plan through adoption of floating zones or overlay districts and would

2-11 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS facilitate the continuation of a redevelopment trend that is viewed favorably and in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the Proposed Action is consistent with zoning.

D. PUBLIC POLICY Several policy documents provide a framework within which future plans for downtown should be considered. In general, the City’s Comprehensive Plan makes a clear statement about the City’s intentions for the downtown area and the City has been consistently implementing it through various public actions or approval of private development. In general, the City’s overall policy of attracting new high-end residential development into the downtown with the expectation of attracting new retail uses has been successful.

NEW ROCHELLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As previously stated, the City’s Comprehensive Plan sets forth a number of Goals for revitalizing the City’s downtown. One objective that continues to guide the redevelopment of downtown is the City’s encouragement of mixed-use development including commercial, cultural, residential, entertainment, community, and recreational uses to create a critical mass of new development downtown. Several major projects such as Avalon Phase I, Avalon Phase II, Parcel 1A, New Roc City, Davenport Lofts, 543 Main Street/Blue Gill, and the Library Green, have already been completed. Additional development is also already proposed for the LeCount/Anderson block and for the Church/Division parking garage. Identifying additional development sites will further the objective of creating a critical mass of redevelopment to generate additional economic activity in the downtown. Zoning changes recommended by the 1996 Comprehensive Plan sought to preserve the character of Main Street by keeping heights of new buildings consistent with the heights of existing buildings, and maintaining ground level retail with residential or office uses on upper floors. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan also recommended changes in and around the downtown core to allow for higher densities and require on-site parking.

2003 NEW ROCHELLE DOWNTOWN STUDY In 2003 the City of New Rochelle prepared a study of the downtown to determine potential for redevelopment and make urban design recommendations. Based on an analysis of downtown New Rochelle, the study proposed four development scenarios. Each of the development scenarios implemented the following strategies: • Develop the existing soft sites; • Create public open space as a catalyst for development; • Establish connections between activity centers; • Connect east and west sides of the Metro-North/ Amtrak tracks and/or 1-95; • Create new opportunities for retail, while supporting the existing Central Business District; • Create a downtown gateway from North Avenue; • Create a mix of uses, including residential; • Encourage a walkable and vibrant downtown with a synergy between uses; • Plan for ground-floor retail within a two-story commercial base and six to eight stories of residential use above;

09/20/07 2-12 MORRIS 8.30.07

PALMER RHODES MONROE ROCHELLE THE

MEMORIAL HIGHWAY JACKSON PARK LINCOLN SICKLES

MAY

GUION CEDAR COTTAGE ADAMS LAWN

LINCOLN I 95 RENEWAL RADISSON LOCKWOOD

MAY

GARDEN BURLING

GRAND

FOUNTAIN

HARRISON ECHO

LECOUNT

WASHINGTON BRIDGE

BADEAU

ANDERSON LAFAYETTE

MECHANIC NORTH

UNION ODELL RAILROAD LAWTON

FRANKLIN MEMORIAL

WARREN BAYVIEW

GROVE LOCUST

SOUNDVIEW

CRESCENT PC RAILROADBARTELS CLINTON

DIVISION MAIN

NORTH BONNEFOY COLUMBUS

LEROY

CHURCH EUCLID

HICKORY HUGUENOT

PROSPECT N PINE FAIRVIEW UNION SHEA CENTRE WEBSTER MAPLE

MARVIN

DAVIS

Study Area Boundary 0 200 500 FEET

LAUREL Lawton Street Urban Renewal Area SCALE

Figure 2-16 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Lawton Street Urban Renewal Area Chapter 2: Land Use, Community Character, Zoning, and Public Policy

• Plan for ground-floor retail within a two-story commercial base and 10-12 stories of office use above; and • Plan for a hotel structure with six to eight stories of hotel use above a two-story base with ground-floor retail. URBAN RENEWAL PLANS The City’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1996, considers redevelopment of vacant sites within the Lawton Street Urban Renewal Area (LSURA) (see Figure 2-16) and Cedar Street Urban Renewal Area (CSURA) on Huguenot Street with mixed commercial, residential, and office uses. The Lawton Street Urban Renewal Plan also calls for improvements to the Anderson Street connection between New Roc City and the Library.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The initial DDB Overlay Zoning District was implemented in the context of the numerous public policy statements the City has adopted to guide future development in the downtown. As such, it is considered to be consistent with the City’s overall policy toward encouraging mixed-use development in the downtown and preserving the community character within the downtown. The Proposed Action would continue the City’s policy toward encouraging mixed-use development and would not have significant adverse impacts on community character. Ï

2-13 09/20/07 Chapter 3: Traffic

A. INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes the detailed traffic analysis that was completed to assess potential impacts of the Proposed Action. The study evaluates existing operating conditions, the effect of the Phase I and Phase II development projects, and the capacity of the roadway network for additional development within the downtown assuming projected build-out from application of the amended DDB overlay district (see Chapter 2). While some congestion is expected in a successful downtown environment, a certain threshold exists where traffic becomes unacceptable. This study evaluates the operating conditions within the network and makes recommendations for handling additional traffic from new development.

B. ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK/METHODOLOGY The analysis of existing traffic conditions presented in this chapter builds upon volumes presented in the Schoor DePalma traffic report (Traffic Signal Optimization Analysis for the Huguenot Street and Main Street Corridors, City of New Rochelle1) completed in June 2005. That study used the Synchro computer model for optimizing the traffic signals on Main Street and Huguenot Street to improve traffic operating conditions. Although the City Signal Timing Study presents one scenario for traffic conditions, a series of modifications to these timings was found to improve the overall traffic flow. The analysis in this study depicts the traffic conditions with signal phasing modifications to the city optimized timings along with some minor physical improvements. Under this scenario, the traffic analysis depicts future 2007 traffic conditions for both the Phase I and Phase II developments. This scenario is referred to as the 2007 AKRF Re-optimized Timings for both the Phase I and Phase II conditions throughout this section.

C. EXISTING CONDITIONS

STUDY AREA To assess traffic conditions, a study area was determined as shown in Figure 3-1. In addition to the intersections analyzed in the City Signal Timing Study, an additional eight intersections within the downtown area, primarily off the Main Street and Huguenot Street corridors, were included to provide a comprehensive analysis for the full downtown area. A total of 47 intersections (39 intersections in the City Signal Timing Study plus 8 additional intersections included as part of this study) were identified for detailed analysis including all the major

1 The City of New Rochelle is in the process of implementing the new signal timing plan from this study along the Main Street and Huguenot Street corridors.

3-1 09/20/07

HOLLY BEAUFORT D Z R HORTON A STONELEA L V O LE HARDING MORAN DEWITT JOYCE H BOU BROOK DELETED N E G M CHESTER 8.30.07 IO P E R CROSBY IS E R E WINTHROP S GLENMORE IV T PREMIUM O C D SHERMAN N B MANHATTAN E GAILLARD L ACORN R I R N H S HIGH V CHERRY VIE T O GRANT W O WINTHROP D IL THE L T HEMINGWAY MANOR E L N I S S E LAKESIDE WESTMINSTER N S O A LYONS P P KRESS T PALMER R T E A A FIR N G H N MAN MERTON O A A T

R S SHORE WATKINS O HERTFORD D VAUGHN L B THE I A D MORRIS R PRATT L SE IEW O O AV MUIR M HOMESTEAD E RHODES MADISON G LINCOLN M

L STEPHENSON STORER WINYAH MONROE LE FEVRE E ROCHELLE 4 N SHELDON LATHERS ADAMS W RISLEY MAIN O LINCOLN JACKSON CALHOUN O PRINCE D PARK PALMER SICKLES WOOD N R TO MAY EMING OAKDALE CEDAR N COTTAGE L GUION FRENCH O A R E W M N LINCOLN LAWN GARDEN E A R RIVER N MAY RADISON R O C HUGUENOT K SICKLES GLOVER JOHNSON W WARREN MAUL E L BURLING L GRAND

COLONIAL

4TH COLONIAL EVANS MADELINE HARRISON HUNTINGTON HAROLD FOUNTAIN VAN GUILDER LECOUNT GREEN E DG EW OO LOCKWOOD D R WASHINGTON BRIDGE U DECAT WARREN BADEAU ECHO

WALNUT ST JOHNS CHARLES MECHANIC R O LAFAYETTE N A ODELL LAWTON M N O M T WARREN E T M BAYVIEW U CHARLES O S R UNION WALNUT IA L SOUNDVIEW H IG 8TH H 7TH 5TH 9TH 6TH 3RD W ACACIA 2ND A ALPHA 1ST Y

GROVE LOCUST PARK A T E EN Y ESC L WESTCHESTER CLINTON LAFAYETTE CR E HUDSON PK R NORTH JONES BONNEFOY FRANKLIN W UMBUS COL IL D LEROY C L

D I EUCLID A F V F

E DIVISION HICKORY N P I 95 O WEBSTER R PINE T PROSPECT SHEA UNION FAIRVIEW MAPLE

GLEN BEECHWOOD PINTARD CEMETERY MARVIN DAVIS L ROCKDALE E HIGHLAND R DAVIS U B MT ETNA A A L N C K CLIFF E TRINITY R

R POPLAR CHELSEA BIRCH P O LAUREL O RONALDS T N KINGS T ECHO BAY A E B EVERETT CLU SYCAMORE LIBERTY R E L R Study Area Boundary LINDEN O D S H S S WOODLAND COVENTRY

ALLARD DRAKE CENTRE Analyzed Intersections HANFORD R ELM CASTLE O LIBERTY VILLUS D N M HILL LELAND PELHAMSIDE A R L N RIA CHURCH E ST JOHN T DU S IN E M FLOWE L H R E A C I BAYARD A LYNNS IN R D W WEYMAN T O CASTLE N

S WOODBURY W O ELM N U G T A KAREN R P O D M T I T L O A N U I H G N S PC RAILROAD T N S GAIL D SI E N N H WILLOW PELHAM I E C W K 0 500 1000 FEET

SCALE Figure 3-1 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Traffic Study Area

Project Site Study Area Boundary Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS intersections along Main Street and Huguenot Street in the downtown core. For the purpose of describing traffic conditions, Main and Huguenot Streets are defined as north-south roadways with intersecting cross-streets treated as east-west.

ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION CHARACTERISTICS The following is a brief description of the major roadways and intersections within the study area. Main Street. Main Street is also designated as U.S. Route 1 and is a primary corridor within the City of New Rochelle that generally traverses in a north-south direction. Main Street, which is under the jurisdiction of the City of New Rochelle, provides two-way traffic flow north of Pratt Street and south of Pintard Avenue. Between Pratt Street and Pintard Avenue, Main Street provides one-way northbound traffic flow. Huguenot Street. Huguenot Street is also designated as southbound U.S. Route 1 and is a primary corridor under the jurisdiction of the City of New Rochelle that generally traverses in a north-south direction. Huguenot Street, which is under the jurisdiction of the City of New Rochelle, provides southbound one-way traffic flow between Pratt Street to the north and Pintard Avenue to the south where it links directly with Main Street at both ends. North Avenue. North Avenue is a major arterial roadway under the jurisdiction of the City of New Rochelle that generally runs in an east-west direction within the study area. North Avenue provides two-way traffic flow. North Avenue traverses several New Rochelle neighborhoods from the Town of Eastchester border in the north to the Long Island Sound shore neighborhoods to the south. Within the study area, the land uses are primarily commercial along North Avenue. Outside of the study area, the land uses along North Avenue include residential, institutional (educational facilities, police department), recreational, as well as commercial uses. River Street. River Street is an east-west roadway within the study area that connects Palmer Avenue and the Interstate 95 Exit 16 ramps to the downtown area. River Street provides westbound one-way traffic flow across four lanes between Ramada (Radisson) Plaza and Palmer Avenue. Between Palmer Avenue and Huguenot Street, River Street provides two-way traffic flow with two moving lanes in each direction. Cedar Street. Similar to River Street, Cedar Street traverses in an east-west direction within the study area and connects Palmer Avenue and the Interstate 95 Exit 16 ramps to the downtown area. Cedar Street generally provides eastbound one-way traffic flow across four lanes. Lawton Street. Lawton Street traverses in an east-west direction within the study area and connects Huguenot Street and Main Street. Lawton Street provides eastbound one-way traffic flow across two lanes. Division Street. Division Street traverses in an east-west direction within the study area between Huguenot Street and Main Street. Division Street also bridges over I-95 and the Metro-North Railroad tracks linking neighborhoods northwest of the downtown with the central business districts. Division Street is one-way eastbound with traffic flow across two lanes. Most of the remaining roadways in the study area are local roads/streets under the jurisdiction of the City of New Rochelle. These roadways are a mix of two-way traffic roadways and one-way traffic roadways. These roadways generally provide one to two moving lanes in each direction.

09/20/07 3-2

Chapter 3: Traffic

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The operation of signalized intersections in the study area was analyzed applying the methodologies presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). This procedure evaluates signalized intersections for average control delay per vehicle and level of service (LOS). LOS for the signalized intersections is based on the average control delay per vehicle for the various lane group movements within the intersection. Control delay is equal to stopped delay times 1.3. This delay is the basis for a LOS determination for individual lane groups, each approach as a whole, and the overall intersection. The capacity analysis of the study area intersections was performed by Synchro-6 traffic modeling and optimization software which applies the methodologies presented in the HCM. In addition, traffic simulation and animation for the study area intersections was performed by SimTraffic simulation software which is used in conjunction with the Synchro-6 software. The delay criteria for the range of service levels for signalized intersections are shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level-of-Service (LOS) Control Delay Per Vehicle A ≤ 10.0 seconds B >10.0 and ≤ 20.0 seconds C >20.0 and ≤ 35.0 seconds D >35.0 and ≤ 55.0 seconds E >55.0 and ≤ 80.0 seconds F >80.0 seconds Sources: Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.

Although the HCM methodology calculates a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio, there is no strict relationship between v/c ratios and LOS as defined in the HCM. A high v/c ratio indicates substantial traffic passing through an intersection, but a high v/c ratio combined with low average delay indicates an optimization of traffic flow—when an approach, or the whole intersection, processes traffic close to its theoretical maximum with a minimum amount of delay. However, very high v/c ratios—especially those greater than 1.0—are often correlated with a deteriorated LOS. Other important variables affecting delay include cycle length, progression, green time, and presence of high pedestrian activity or double-parked vehicles that are common in a downtown area. LOS A and B indicate good operating conditions with minimal delay. At LOS C, the number of vehicles stopping is higher, but congestion is still fairly light. LOS D describes a condition where congestion levels are more noticeable and individual cycle failures (a condition where motorists may have to wait for more than one green phase to clear the intersection) can occur. Conditions at LOS E and F reflect poor service levels, and cycle breakdowns are frequent. For developed areas, LOS D or better indicates acceptable operating conditions; however, in downtown environments LOS E can be considered acceptable. The HCM methodology provides for a summary of the total intersection operating conditions. The analysis chooses the two critical movements (the worst case from each roadway) and calculates a

3-3 09/20/07

Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS summary critical v/c ratio, delay, and LOS. There are no unsignalized intersections analyzed in the study area.

QUEUE LENGTH ANALYSIS Vehicular queue lengths – the length in feet of the line of cars waiting to pass through an intersection – were also analyzed at each of the study area intersections. Queue length in a downtown area is another method of characterizing traffic operating conditions and the key evaluation parameter is whether the estimated queue would exceed link capacity (i.e., whether vehicles queued at the intersection would back up to the point where turning movements at an upstream intersection would be affected).

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS As discussed above, existing traffic conditions in the study area were established based on the traffic data presented in the City Signal Timing Study completed in June 2005 and traffic counts conducted at eight additional intersections within the downtown area, primarily off the Main Street and Huguenot Street corridors, in May 2005. It should also be noted that traffic volumes along study-area roadways may not necessarily balance because of the presence of various sinks and sources (e.g., driveways and minor roadways), many of which are significant generators and receptors of traffic (e.g., gas stations, retail stores, etc.). Figures 3-2 and 3-3 show the existing traffic volumes for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, which were determined to take place from 8:00 to 9:00 AM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM, respectively. In terms of traffic volumes, Main Street carries the highest two-way traffic volumes in the study area, approximately 1,770 and 2,097 vehicles per hour (vph) during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Traffic volumes along the one-way section of Main Street range from approximately 890 to 1,286 vph; whereas, the traffic volumes along Huguenot Street range from approximately 553 to 1,420 vph. Traffic volumes along North Avenue range from approximately 550 to 1,249 vph. Traffic volumes along River Street range from approximately 606 to 1,424 vph. Traffic volumes along Cedar Street range from approximately 169 to 1,975 vph. Traffic volumes along the southbound I-95 ramps range from approximately 712 to 1,216 vph. Traffic volumes along Weyman Avenue range from approximately 1,131 to 1,577 vph. Traffic volumes along Kings Highway range from approximately 976 to 1,129 vph. Traffic volumes along Palmer Avenue range from approximately 1,429 to 1,605 vph. Traffic volumes along Radisson Place range from approximately 922 to 1,215 vph. Traffic volumes along Echo Avenue range from approximately 1,002 to 1,112 vph. The traffic volumes along the other study area roadways range from approximately 9 to 964 vehicles per hour. The data were then analyzed by applying the HCM Methodology, using the Synchro traffic analyses computer model to compute delays, v/c ratios, and LOS. It should be noted that signal phasing plans recommended in the City Signal Timing Study (which are in the process of being implemented by the City of New Rochelle) were primarily utilized in the traffic analyses. The capacity analysis for the study area intersections in the study area indicates that most study area intersections operate at overall acceptable conditions—at LOS D (delay less than 55 seconds) or better for the two peak hours with the exception of the intersection of Harrison Street and Cedar Street which operates at an overall LOS E during the AM peak hour. Figure 3-4 shows the results of capacity analysis for the overall intersection conditions. Table 3-2 presents in detail 09/20/07 3-4

New Rochelle Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Table 3-2 Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections 123456 7 8 910 2005 Existing Optimized Conditions 2007 City Signal Timings Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (3) 2007 City Signal Timings Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (3) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Intersection Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Main Street and Cleveland Avenue Eastbound - Cleveland Avenue LR 0.10 31.1 C LR 0.06 30.5 C LR 0.10 31.1 C LR 0.06 30.6 C LR 0.1 31.1 C LR 0.06 30.6 C LR 0.10 31.1 C LR 0.06 30.6 C LR 0.10 31.1 C LR 0.06 30.6 C Northbound - Main Street LT 0.38 8.8 A LT 0.30 8.2 A LT 0.41 9.2 A LT 0.36 8.6 A LT 0.41 9.2 A LT 0.36 8.6 A LT 0.47 9.7 A LT 0.43 9.3 A LT 0.47 9.7 A LT 0.43 9.3 A Southbound - Main Street TR 0.24 12.1 B TR 0.39 14.0 B TR 0.26 12.1 B TR 0.44 14.7 B TR 0.26 6.7 A TR 0.44 4.6 A TR 0.28 12.3 B TR 0.52 16.9 B TR 0.28 4.3 A TR 0.52 10.3 B Int. 0.30 11.0 B Int. 0.29 12.1 B Int. 0.33 11.1 B Int. 0.33 12.6 B Int. 0.33 9.1 A Int. 0.33 6.8 A Int. 0.37 11.4 B Int. 0.39 14.0 B Int. 0.37 8.5 A Int. 0.39 10.3 B Main Street and SB I-95 Ramps Eastbound - SB I-95 Ramps LT 0.46 34.3 C LT 0.31 10.5 B LT 0.49 35.0 C LT 1.04 92.0 F LT 0.46 32.7 C LT 0.65 26.0 C LT 0.50 35.4 D LT 1.06 98.5 F LT 0.50 35.4 D LT 0.79 39.2 D R 0.17 0.2 A R 0.37 1.7 A R 0.17 0.2 A R 0.30 0.5 A R 0.17 0.2 A R 0.30 0.5 A R 0.18 0.2 A R 0.31 0.5 A R 0.18 0.2 A R 0.31 0.5 A Westbound - Woodside Avenue LTR 0.01 26.3 C LTR 0.99 79.8 E LTR 0.01 26.3 C LTR 0.02 26.5 C LTR 0.00 24.9 C LTR 0.01 14.4 B LTR 0.01 26.3 C LTR 0.02 26.5 C LTR 0.01 26.3 C LTR 0.02 19.2 B Northbound - Main Street LTR 0.44 14.0 B LTR 0.29 0.5 A LTR 0.48 16.0 B LTR 0.37 12.2 B LTR 0.50 6.0 A LTR 0.53 16.6 B LTR 0.54 19.2 B LTR 0.44 15.4 B LTR 0.54 5.2 A LTR 0.53 19.3 B Southbound - Main Street LTR 0.23 0.7 A LTR 0.02 26.5 C LTR 0.25 0.9 A LTR 0.44 3.4 A LTR 0.26 5.5 A LTR 0.62 13.4 B LTR 0.28 1.6 A LTR 0.55 6.5 A LTR 0.28 0.5 A LTR 0.67 22.2 C Int. 0.45 10.2 B Int. 0.58 17.4 B Int. 0.48 11.2 B Int. 0.64 19.8 B Int. 0.48 7.8 A Int. 0.64 14.0 B Int. 0.53 13.0 B Int. 0.72 21.6 C Int. 0.53 6.0 A Int. 0.72 20.3C Main Street and NB I-95 Ramps (5) Westbound - NB I-95 Ramps L 0.04 36.5 D L 0.09 37.1 D L 0.04 36.6 D L 0.09 37.2 D L 0.04 36.6 D L 0.09 37.2 D L 0.04 36.6 D L 0.10 37.3 D L 0.04 33.3 C L 0.08 32.3 C R 0.19 0.3 A R 0.26 0.4 A R 0.20 0.3 A R 0.27 0.4 A R 0.20 0.3 A R 0.27 0.4 A R 0.20 0.3 A R 0.28 0.4 A R 0.20 0.3 A R 0.28 0.4 A Northbound - Main Street TR 0.50 26.5 C TR 0.51 29.0 C TR 0.56 25.7 C TR 0.58 29.6 C TR 0.56 9.5 A TR 0.58 11.7 B TR 0.63 24.4 C TR 0.65 29.4 C TR 0.87 29.2 C TR 0.72 23.6 C Southbound - Main Street LT 0.59 12.6 B LT 0.66 14.8 B LT 0.63 13.2 B LT 0.76 17.5 B LT 0.63 11.7 B LT 0.76 14.3 B L 0.95 59.3 E LT 0.91 25.3 C L 0.71 27.7 C LT 0.97 38.3 D T 0.50 10.0 B T 0.52 13.8 B Int. 0.49 17.5 B Int. 0.56 18.5 B Int. 0.53 17.4 B Int. 0.64 20.0 C Int. 0.53 9.4 A Int. 0.64 11.4 B Int. 0.76 22.6 C Int. 0.75 23.6 C Int. 0.64 21.5 C Int. 0.76 26.9 C Main Street and Weyman Avenue Eastbound - Driveway LTR 0.04 31.8 C LTR 0.02 31.5 C LTR 0.04 31.8 C LTR 0.02 31.5 C LTR 0.05 35.0 D LTR 0.02 31.5 C LTR 0.04 31.8 C LTR 0.02 31.6 C LTR 0.04 31.8 C LTR 0.02 33.1 C Westbound - Weyman Avenue L 0.59 40.5 D L 0.75 46.1 D L 0.62 41.2 D L 0.78 47.7 D L 0.72 48.4 D L 0.78 47.7 D L 0.63 41.6 D L 0.80 48.6 D L 0.63 41.6 D L 0.86 55.6 E R 0.18 33.7 C R 0.25 35.0 C R 0.19 33.9 C R 0.28 35.4 D R 0.19 37.1 D R 0.27 35.3 D R 0.20 34.1 C R 0.40 37.7 D R 0.20 34.1 C R 0.29 37.1 D Northbound - Main Street T 0.36 8.1 A T 0.37 7.8 A T 0.41 9.1 A T 0.45 9.5 A T 0.44 13.4 B T 0.53 22.1 C T 0.48 11.6 B T 0.53 12.4 B T 0.57 10.4 B T 0.62 16.0 B R 0.16 1.0 A R 0.22 1.5 A R 0.17 3.1 A R 0.23 4.8 A R 0.17 1.9 A R 0.23 50.0 D R 0.17 8.6 A R 0.24 11.5 B R 0.17 1.0 A R 0.24 21.3 C Southbound - Main Street L 0.46 13.6 B L 0.71 32.6 C L 0.52 20.4 C L 0.82 42.6 D L 0.45 18.3 B L 0.74 36.5 D L 0.58 32.0 C L 0.95 68.2 E L 0.53 31.8 C L 0.81 49.1 D T 0.21 3.5 A T 0.23 3.3 A T 0.23 3.4 A T 0.28 3.5 A T 0.22 5.1 A T 0.28 4.3 A T 0.26 3.3 A T 0.36 3.0 A T 0.26 4.9 A T 0.35 4.5 A Int. 0.50 15.8 B Int. 0.72 20.7 C Int. 0.54 17.0 B Int. 0.81 22.4 C Int. 0.52 19.7 B Int. 0.75 29.7 C Int. 0.60 19.2 B Int. 0.91 26.7 C Int. 0.57 18.5 B Int. 0.83 27.1 C

Main Street and Kings Highway Eastbound - Kings Highway LT 0.89 75.7 E LT 0.97 87.7 F LT 0.95 86.1 F LT 1.01 98.5 F LT 0.72 48.4 D LT 0.81 54.7 D LT 1.01 102.0 F LT 1.09 122.7 F LT 0.77 52.1 D LT 0.84 57.0 E R 0.19 34.0 C R 0.22 34.4 C R 0.20 34.1 C R 0.23 34.6 C R 0.20 37.3 D R 0.23 34.6 C R 0.20 34.2 C R 0.29 35.6 D R 0.30 16.6 B R 0.24 36.2 D Westbound - Driveway LTR 0.06 36.0 D LTR 0.09 36.5 D LTR 0.06 36.0 D LTR 0.09 36.6 D LTR 0.05 30.4 C LTR 0.06 29.8 C LTR 0.07 36.1 D LTR 0.11 37.0 D LTR 0.05 30.4 C LTR 0.06 29.1 C Northbound - Main Street LTR 0.45 2.8 A LTR 0.56 3.6 A LTR 0.51 3.1 A LTR 0.65 5.6 A LTR 0.57 6.7 A LTR 0.73 13.9 B LTR 0.59 4.3 A LTR 0.77 9.4 A LTR 0.64 9.0 A LTR 0.87 19.5 B

Southbound - Main Street LTR 0.35 9.2 A LTR 0.44 7.9 A LTR 0.39 9.1 A LTR 0.52 8.7 A LTR 0.41 16.9 B LTR 0.62 22.7 C LTR 0.44 8.9 A LTR 0.66 11.4 B LTR 0.51 12.1 B LTR 0.77 28.7 C Int. 0.55 19.1 B Int. 0.65 20.5 C Int. 0.61 20.0 C Int. 0.73 21.7 C Int. 0.61 19.5 B Int. 0.75 24.3 C Int. 0.68 21.6 C Int. 0.85 25.8 C Int. 0.68 16.2 B Int. 0.86 28.7 C Main Street and Allard Avenue Westbound - Allard Avenue L 0.07 27.1 C L 0.09 27.3 C L 0.07 27.1 C L 0.10 27.4 C L 0.07 27.1 C L 0.10 27.4 C L 0.08 27.2 C L 0.10 27.4 C L 0.08 27.2 C L 0.13 33.7 C R 0.02 26.4 C R 0.02 26.5 C R 0.02 26.4 C R 0.02 26.5 C R 0.02 26.4 C R 0.02 26.5 C R 0.02 26.4 C R 0.02 26.5 C R 0.02 26.4 C R 0.02 32.3 C Northbound - Main Street T 0.41 6.7 A T 0.46 9.1 A T 0.45 7.9 A T 0.52 12.6 B T 0.45 8.4 A T 0.52 8.7 A T 0.52 11.2 B T 0.60 16.0 B T 0.52 14.5 B T 0.54 7.5 A Southbound - Main Street T 0.35 17.0 B T 0.41 16.0 B T 0.38 17.0 B T 0.43 14.9 B T 0.38 4.7 A T 0.43 11.5 B T 0.42 17.4 B T 0.59 16.5 B T 0.42 4.4 A T 0.52 9.4 A Int. 0.29 12.0 B Int. 0.33 13.0 B Int. 0.32 12.6 B Int. 0.38 14.2 B Int. 0.32 7.4 A Int. 0.38 10.6 B Int. 0.37 14.3 B Int. 0.43 16.6 B Int. 0.37 10.5 B Int. 0.43 9.2A Main Street and Cliff Street/Drake Avenue Eastbound - Cliff Street LTR 0.61 48.7 D LTR 0.77 57.7 E LTR 0.64 50.7 D LTR 0.81 61.4 E LTR 0.46 35.9 D LTR 0.65 47.1 D LTR 0.67 51.9 D LTR 0.82 63.4 E LTR 0.47 36.3 D LTR 0.76 54.5 D Westbound - Drake Avenue LTR 0.62 48.7 D LTR 0.58 47.9 D LTR 0.66 50.6 D LTR 0.61 49.7 D LTR 0.48 36.3 D LTR 0.49 41.8 D LTR 0.67 51.4 D LTR 0.64 50.9 D LTR 0.49 36.5 D LTR 0.58 45.8 D Northbound - Main Street LTR 0.06 28.5 C LTR 0.51 31.0 C LTR 0.50 29.2 C LTR 0.58 33.2 C LTR 0.57 8.4 A LTR 0.58 15.5 B LTR 0.58 31.7 C LTR 0.67 36.0 D LTR 0.54 1.5 A LTR 0.58 4.3 A Southbound - Main Street LTR 0.32 2.1 A LTR 0.56 4.2 A LTR 0.43 2.8 A LTR 0.68 4.8 A LTR 0.49 6.6 A LTR 0.72 16.4 B LTR 0.50 3.3 A LTR 0.86 9.3 A LTR 0.59 5.6 A LTR 0.93 27.5 C Int. 0.39 19.6 B Int. 0.60 24.8 C Int. 0.52 23.7 C Int. 0.70 25.8 C Int. 0.52 12.8 B Int. 0.72 20.7 C Int. 0.58 24.9 C Int. 0.84 28.1 C Int. 0.56 8.8 A Int. 0.89 20.7 C Main Street and Beechwood/Woodland Avenues Eastbound - Beechwood Avenue LTR 0.41 43.5 D LTR 0.38 43.1 D LTR 0.42 44.0 D LTR 0.40 43.5 D LTR 0.42 44.0 D LTR 0.40 43.5 D LTR 0.43 44.1 D LTR 0.41 43.7 D LTR 0.41 42.8 D LTR 0.49 48.6 D Westbound - Woodland Avenue LTR 0.68 53.5 D LTR 0.38 43.0 D LTR 0.71 55.2 E LTR 0.40 43.5 D LTR 0.67 52.0 D LTR 0.40 43.5 D LTR 0.73 56.3 E LTR 0.40 43.6 D LTR 0.69 52.8 D LTR 0.48 48.5 D Northbound - Main Street LTR 0.60 22.9 C LTR 0.62 11.0 B LTR 0.66 12.9 B LTR 0.71 11.6 B LTR 0.67 13.6 B LTR 0.71 22.2 C LTR 0.75 13.7 B LTR 0.83 13.2 B LTR 0.78 17.5 B LTR 0.74 21.5 C Southbound - Main Street LTR 0.42 8.0 A LTR 0.67 17.0 B LTR 0.47 8.5 A LTR 0.82 20.8 C LTR 0.48 8.3 A LTR 0.82 13.5 B LTR 0.56 9.3 A LTR 1.08 63.3 E LTR 0.59 10.1 B LTR 0.93 15.4 B Int. 0.58 23.0 C Int. 0.55 17.5 B Int. 0.62 18.2 B Int. 0.65 19.1 B Int. 0.62 18.1 B Int. 0.65 21.2 C Int. 0.68 18.4 B Int. 0.80 37.8 D Int. 0.68 20.2 C Int. 0.77 21.7 C Main Street and Webster Avenue Eastbound - Webster Avenue LTR 0.77 51.5 D LTR 0.82 56.0 E LTR 0.81 55.1 E LTR 0.86 60.6 E LTR 0.63 37.0 D LTR 0.67 39.3 D LTR 0.83 57.3 E LTR 0.88 64.3 E LTR 0.80 53.1 D LTR 0.82 54.2 D Westbound - Driveway LTR 0.13 31.6 C LTR 0.22 33.1 C LTR 0.14 31.8 C LTR 0.24 33.4 C LTR 0.11 25.7 C LTR 0.19 27.4 C LTR 0.15 31.8 C LTR 0.26 33.7 C LTR 0.14 31.0 C LTR 0.24 31.8 C Northbound - Main Street LTR 0.69 7.3 A LTR 0.73 10.4 B LTR 0.77 10.0 A LTR 0.87 15.4 B LTR 0.89 13.7 B LTR 0.98 25.0 C LTR 0.89 13.7 B LTR 1.06 48.9 D LTR 0.91 13.7 B LTR 1.06 47.8 D Southbound - Main Street LTR 0.37 7.7 A LTR 0.45 12.3 B LTR 0.42 7.9 A LTR 0.54 16.1 B LTR 0.46 13.2 B LTR 0.61 10.2 B LTR 0.47 8.1 A LTR 0.67 19.1 B LTR 0.47 4.6 A LTR 0.76 24.9 C Int. 0.71 14.8 B Int. 0.75 18.8 B Int. 0.78 16.5 B Int. 0.86 22.5 C Int. 0.79 17.3 B Int. 0.86 21.8 C Int. 0.87 18.3 B Int. 1.00 38.9 D Int. 0.87 16.7 B Int. 0.97 39.3 D Number of Approaches with 143400 4602 LOS E or F (LOS A through D is considered acceptable in urban areas). Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service. (1) Phase I includes Avalon II, Bluegill, Parcel 1A, and M Squared Projects (2) Data sourced from Traffic Signal Optimization Analysis for Huguenot Street and Main Street Corridor Traffic Optimization Study, June 2005 (Prepared by Schoor DePalma) (3) Consists of simple signal retimings and phase changes to Schoor DePalma Optimized Timings. (4) Phase II also includes Church/Division and LeCount SquareProjects (5) The southbound left turn volumes resulted in the left lane operating as a defacto left turn lane. Since Synchro is not able to properly model a defacto left turn lane in a left-thru configuration, the southbound approach was analyzed as 1 left turn lane and 1 thru lane for the Phase 2 AM and Phase 2 AM optimized conditions, as per Synchro instruction. (6) Eastbound PM protected left turn changed from lag to lead to match AM configuration during Phase I optimized condition. Eastbound AM protected left turn changed from lag to lead to match PM configuration during Phase 2 optimized condition. (7) The southbound left turn volumes resulted in the left lane operating as a defacto left turn lane. Since Synchro is not able to properly model a defacto left turn lane in a left-thru configuration, the southbound approach was analyzed as 1 left turn lane and 1 thru lane for the Phase 2 AM and Phase 2 AM optimized conditions, as per Synchro instruction. The PM eastbound protected left turn was changed from lead to lag to match the AM configuration in Phase I and Phase 2 optimized condition. New Rochelle Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Table 3-2 (Continued) Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections 123456 7 8 910 2005 Existing Optimized Conditions 2007 City Signal Timings Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (3) 2007 City Signal Timings Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (3) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Intersection Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Main Street/Huguenot Avenue and Pintard Avenue Eastbound - Driveway LTR 0.02 30.0 C LTR 0.03 30.2 C LTR 0.02 30.0 C LTR 0.03 30.2 C LTR 0.02 29.3 C LTR 0.03 30.2 C LTR 0.02 30.0 C LTR 0.03 30.2 C LTR 0.02 30.0 C LTR 0.03 30.2 C Westbound - Pintard Avenue LT 0.29 34.4 C LT 0.14 31.8 C LT 0.31 34.7 C LT 0.15 31.8 C LT 0.30 33.7 C LT 0.15 31.8 C LT 0.32 34.8 C LT 0.15 31.9 C LT 0.32 34.8 C LT 0.15 31.9 C R 0.06 30.6 C R 0.04 30.3 C R 0.07 30.7 C R 0.04 30.3 C R 0.07 29.9 C R 0.04 30.3 C R 0.07 30.7 C R 0.04 30.3 C R 0.07 30.7 C R 0.04 30.3 C Northbound - Main Street TR 0.53 9.3 A TR 0.51 7.7 A TR 0.58 8.9 A TR 0.59 7.8 A TR 0.58 8.3 A TR 0.59 6.3 A TR 0.66 8.7 A TR 0.68 7.9 A TR 0.66 8.6 A TR 0.68 8.6 A Southbound - Huguenot Avenue L 0.05 5.7 A L 0.13 3.7 A L 0.07 5.3 A L 0.15 3.4 A L 0.07 3.3 A L 0.15 1.1 A L 0.07 6.4 A L 0.15 3.8 A L 0.07 14.5 B L 0.15 3.7 A TR 0.29 6.6 A TR 0.40 4.2 A TR 0.32 6.4 A TR 0.48 4.1 A TR 0.33 6.5 A TR 0.48 2.9 A TR 0.37 7.6 A TR 0.60 5.0 A TR 0.37 18.5 B TR 0.60 4.9 A Int. 0.43 11.1 B Int. 0.39 7.6 A Int. 0.47 10.7 B Int. 0.44 7.4 A Int. 0.46 10.2 B Int. 0.46 6.0 A Int. 0.52 10.7 B Int. 0.51 7.6 A Int. 0.52 14.3 B Int. 0.51 7.9 A Main Street and Maple Avenue Westbound - Maple Avenue R 0.22 25.7 C R 0.02 23.2 C R 0.27 26.5 C R 0.03 23.2 C R 0.27 26.5 C R 0.03 23.2 C R 0.31 27.2 C R 0.03 23.2 C R 0.31 27.2 C R 0.03 23.2 C Northbound - Main Street TR 0.52 2.1 A TR 0.49 1.8 A TR 0.58 2.4 A TR 0.56 1.9 A TR 0.58 7.7 A TR 0.56 6.9 A TR 0.66 2.6 A TR 0.65 2.0 A TR 0.66 11.1 B TR 0.65 2.0 A Int. 0.40 6.1 A Int. 0.31 2.6 A Int. 0.46 6.2 A Int. 0.36 2.6 A Int. 0.46 10.6 B Int. 0.36 7.5 A Int. 0.53 6.1 A Int. 0.41 2.7 A Int. 0.53 13.4 B Int. 0.41 2.7 A Main Street and Centre Avenue Eastbound - Centre Avenue LT 0.66 23.5 C LT 0.87 33.4 C LT 0.80 31.9 C LT 1.04 68.9 E LT 0.80 31.7 C LT 0.82 27.2 C LT 0.89 41.8 D LT 1.18 121.4 F LT 0.79 26.6 C LT 0.95 46.7 D Westbound - Centre Avenue TR 0.51 30.9 C TR 0.49 30.4 C TR 0.53 31.5 C TR 0.51 31.0 C TR 0.53 31.5 C TR 0.49 29.0 C TR 0.60 33.3 C TR 0.59 33.0 C TR 0.56 30.0 C TR 0.60 34.2 C Northbound - Main Street LTR 0.67 12.5 B LTR 0.57 5.9 A LTR 0.75 14.7 B LTR 0.66 8.2 A LTR 0.75 10.3 B LTR 0.72 8.2 A LTR 0.84 18.4 B LTR 0.77 11.8 B LTR 0.89 15.3 B LTR 0.85 13.9 B Int. 0.66 18.1 B Int. 0.71 16.8 B Int. 0.77 21.1 C Int. 0.83 25.8 C Int. 0.77 18.3 B Int. 0.76 16.2 B Int. 0.86 25.4 C Int. 0.95 37.7 D Int. 0.82 20.0 B Int. 0.89 24.2 C Main Street and Division Street South Eastbound - Division Street South L 0.36 43.7 D L 0.38 48.1 D L 0.53 42.1 D L 0.52 42.7 D L 0.53 22.8 C L 0.45 13.4 B L 0.60 43.5 D L 0.56 44.7 D L 0.55 20.8 C L 0.56 44.7 D T 0.47 40.2 D T 0.51 42.9 D T 0.49 38.9 D T 0.54 40.4 D T 0.49 22.5 C T 0.44 14.0 B T 0.45 37.9 D T 0.54 42.2 D T 0.40 18.7 B T 0.54 42.2 D Northbound - Main Street TR 0.58 8.1 A TR 0.55 10.9 B TR 0.65 8.4 A TR 0.65 11.8 B TR 0.65 9.4 A TR 0.76 13.8 B TR 0.72 7.9 A TR 0.71 11.2 B TR 0.79 11.6 B TR 0.71 8.2A Int. 0.53 20.0 C Int. 0.53 24.2 C Int. 0.60 20.1 C Int. 0.60 23.0 C Int. 0.60 14.2 B Int. 0.61 13.8 B Int. 0.68 19.3 B Int. 0.65 22.7 C Int. 0.68 14.4 B Int. 0.65 20.8 C Main Street and Church Avenue/Memorial Hwy. Westbound - Church Street TR 0.62 27.0 C TR 0.42 23.6 C TR 0.65 28.2 C TR 0.44 24.3 C TR 0.65 22.8 C TR 0.44 22.2 C TR 0.83 41.0 D TR 0.67 21.7 C TR 0.78 25.4 C TR 0.67 21.7 C Northbound - Main Street LT 0.69 13.5 B LT 0.67 14.8 B LT 0.81 18.7 B LT 0.8 18.7 B LT 0.81 10.7 B LT 0.8 9.7 A LT 0.91 22.8 C LT 0.88 21.1 C LT 0.96 21.2 C LT 0.88 18.2 B Int. 0.66 16.8 B Int. 0.57 16.4 B Int. 0.74 20.8 C Int. 0.65 19.6 B Int. 0.74 13.3 B Int. 0.65 11.8 B Int. 0.88 27.2 C Int. 0.79 21.2 C Int. 0.88 22.2 C Int. 0.79 18.9 B Main Street and Lawton Street Eastbound - Lawton Street L 0.02 23.1 C L 0.08 25.2 C L 0.02 43.8 D L 0.12 21.7 C L 0.04 33.4 C L 0.12 19.3 B L 0.04 23.5 C L 0.14 18.3 B L 0.04 22.3 C L 0.14 16.9 B Northbound - Main Street T 0.59 3.4 A T 0.59 3.7 A T 0.68 3.3 A T 0.68 3.6 A T 0.68 3.4 A T 0.68 3.3 A T 0.83 6.8 A T 0.82 7.9 A T 0.84 6.3 A T 0.82 7.9 A Int. 0.37 4.4 A Int. 0.40 6.6 A Int. 0.43 5.2 A Int. 0.46 5.9 A Int. 0.44 4.8 A Int. 0.46 5.3 A Int. 0.53 7.5 A Int. 0.56 9.0 A Int. 0.52 7.0 A Int. 0.56 8.9 A Main Street and North Avenue (6) Eastbound - North Avenue LT 0.53 27.1 C LT 0.51 23.9 C LT 0.56 25.4 C LT 0.54 21.9 C LT 0.56 13.7 B LT 0.54 13.7 B LT 0.62 28.8 C LT 0.70 28.3 C LT 0.59 9.9 A LT 0.70 33.3 C Westbound - North Avenue TR 0.28 26.1 C TR 0.26 21.5 C TR 0.29 26.9 C TR 0.28 21.2 C TR 0.29 24.9 C TR 0.28 22.0 C TR 0.29 25.4 C TR 0.26 17.5 B TR 0.27 23.4 C TR 0.26 17.5 B Northbound - Main Street LTR 0.66 4.7 A LTR 0.72 10.8 B LTR 0.75 5.3 A LTR 0.82 12.6 B LTR 0.75 6.4 A LTR 0.82 11.7 B LTR 0.91 10.1 B LTR 0.97 22.5 C LTR 0.94 12.3 B LTR 0.97 22.3 C Int. 0.60 13.0 B Int. 0.64 15.1 B Int. 0.67 12.6 B Int. 0.71 15.7 B Int. 0.67 10.5 B Int. 0.71 13.4 B Int. 0.79 15.8 B Int. 0.86 23.4 C Int. 0.79 13.1 B Int. 0.86 24.5 C Main Street and Locust Avenue/Le Count Place Eastbound - Le Count Place L 0.12 7.6 A L 0.40 9.8 A L 0.22 7.8 A L 0.74 19.2 B L 0.22 25.9 C L 0.61 51.7 D L 0.41 10.3 B L 1.20 120.2 F L 0.41 33.6 C L 1.07 69.3 E T 0.07 6.9 A T 0.15 5.7 A T 0.07 5.6 A T 0.17 5.8 A T 0.07 21.8 C T 0.14 38.4 D T 0.08 5.6 A T 0.20 9.4 A T 0.08 25.5 C T 0.18 7.5 A Westbound - Locust Avenue TR 0.33 26.1 C TR 0.22 24.4 C TR 0.35 26.4 C TR 0.23 24.6 C TR 0.35 26.4 C TR 0.20 19.8 B TR 0.35 26.3 C TR 0.23 24.5 C TR 0.35 26.3 C TR 0.21 21.7 C Northbound - Main Street LTR 0.61 11.2 B LTR 0.53 7.4 A LTR 0.69 10.8 B L 0.23 7.4 A LTR 0.69 9.8 A L 0.26 9.9 A LTR 0.80 11.3 B L 0.35 9.6 A LTR 0.80 13.4 B L 0.38 10.9 B TR 0.49 7.9 A TR 0.55 12.1 B TR 0.53 9.9 A TR 0.57 11.3 B Int. 0.50 13.4 B Int. 0.48 9.7 A Int. 0.55 12.9 B Int. 0.59 11.4 B Int. 0.55 13.4 B Int. 0.58 20.8 C Int. 0.64 13.0 B Int. 0.80 34.9 C Int. 0.64 16.8 B Int. 0.79 24.5 C Main Street and Franklin Avenue Westbound - Franklin Avenue R 0.19 26.7 C R 0.06 24.9 C R 0.23 27.3 C R 0.09 25.4 C R 0.23 27.3 C R 0.09 25.4 C R 0.26 27.8 C R 0.13 25.9 C R 0.24 23.5 C R 0.13 25.9 C Northbound - Main Street TR 0.57 7.4 A TR 0.55 10.9 B TR 0.64 8.6 A TR 0.65 14.8 B TR 0.64 7.6 A TR 0.65 8.9 A TR 0.71 9.9 A TR 0.77 18.6 B TR 0.78 14.2 B TR 0.77 17.9B Int. 0.44 9.7 A Int. 0.37 11.9 B Int. 0.49 10.7 B Int. 0.45 15.5 B Int. 0.49 9.8 A Int. 0.45 10.0 B Int. 0.55 11.8 B Int. 0.54 19.0 B Int. 0.55 15.2 B Int. 0.54 18.4B Main Street and Harrison Street Eastbound - Harrison Street L 0.12 21.7 C L 0.20 17.6 B L 0.13 22.2 C L 0.24 20.0 C L 0.13 18.9 B L 0.24 34.5 C L 0.15 24.2 C L 0.38 27.9 C L 0.11 22.2 C L 0.38 30.8 C Northbound - Main Street LT 0.59 4.3 A LT 0.52 3.2 A LT 0.65 4.6 A LT 0.61 4.2 A LT 0.65 4.2 A LT 0.61 2.2 A LT 0.72 5.3 A LT 0.73 5.8 A LT 0.94 21.1 C LT 0.73 5.6 A Int. 0.43 5.8 A Int. 0.41 5.5 A Int. 0.48 6.2 A Int. 0.49 6.7 A Int. 0.48 5.5 A Int. 0.49 7.3 A Int. 0.53 7.1 A Int. 0.61 10.3 B Int. 0.53 21.2 C Int. 0.61 10.7 B Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service. (1) Phase I includes Avalon II, Bluegill, Parcel 1A, and M Squared Projects (2) Data sourced from Traffic Signal Optimization Analysis for Huguenot Street and Main Street Corridor Traffic Optimization Study, June 2005 (Prepared by Schoor DePalma) (3) Consists of simple signal retimings and phase changes to Schoor DePalma Optimized Timings. (4) Phase II also includes Church/Division and LeCount SquareProjects (5) The southbound left turn volumes resulted in the left lane operating as a defacto left turn lane. Since Synchro is not able to properly model a defacto left turn lane in a left-thru configuration, the southbound approach was analyzed as 1 left turn lane and 1 thru lane for the Phase 2 AM and Phase 2 AM optimized conditions, as per Synchro instruction. (6) Eastbound PM protected left turn changed from lag to lead to match AM configuration during Phase I optimized condition. Eastbound AM protected left turn changed from lag to lead to match PM configuration during Phase 2 optimized condition. (7) The southbound left turn volumes resulted in the left lane operating as a defacto left turn lane. Since Synchro is not able to properly model a defacto left turn lane in a left-thru configuration, the southbound approach was analyzed as 1 left turn lane and 1 thru lane for the Phase 2 AM and Phase 2 AM optimized conditions, as per Synchro instruction. The PM eastbound protected left turn was changed from lead to lag to match the AM configuration in Phase I and Phase 2 optimized condition. New Rochelle Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Table 3-2 (Continued) Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections 123456 7 8 910 2005 Existing Optimized Conditions 2007 City Signal Timings Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (3) 2007 City Signal Timings Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (3) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Intersection Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Main Street and Echo Ave./River St. Eastbound - River Street L 0.80 53.8 D L 0.60 16.5 B L 0.86 60.6 E L 0.64 18.2 B L 0.82 53.2 D L 0.63 21.9 C L 0.89 66.4 E L 0.66 19.2 B L 0.68 53.6 D L 0.66 19.4 B T 0.31 11.0 B T 0.59 11.2 B T 0.33 11.6 B T 0.61 12.0 B T 0.32 8.9 A T 0.64 16.1 B T 0.33 13.3 B T 0.62 12.6 B T 0.34 8.4 A T 0.62 13.0 B Westbound - Echo Avenue TR 0.63 30.6 C TR 0.26 24.5 C TR 0.66 31.5 C TR 0.29 24.8 C TR 0.66 31.4 C TR 0.34 31.7 C TR 0.68 32.0 C TR 0.30 25.0 C TR 0.87 48.0 D TR 0.30 25.0 C Northbound - Main Street L 0.61 16.9 B L 0.44 15.7 B L 0.69 18.5 B L 0.66 20.3 C L 0.71 19.5 B L 0.61 21.6 C L 0.83 25.6 C L 1.07 72.6 E L 0.81 16.7 B L 1.07 73.0 E T 0.59 14.7 B T 0.59 17.4 B T 0.64 14.9 B T 0.65 18.1 B T 0.65 15.9 B T 0.61 19.8 B T 0.69 16.7 B T 0.74 22.3 C T 0.67 10.4 B T 0.74 22.7 C R 0.04 4.5 A R 0.08 5.4 A R 0.05 4.1 A R 0.09 6.3 A R 0.05 6.1 A R 0.08 11.2 B R 0.05 5.1 A R 0.10 10.4 B R 0.05 5.5 A R 0.10 11.4 B Int. 0.71 23.4 C Int. 0.59 16.3 B Int. 0.78 24.5 C Int. 0.64 17.7 B Int. 0.76 23.9 C Int. 0.63 21.0 C Int. 0.85 26.9 C Int. 0.82 31.4 C Int. 0.80 26.2 C Int. 0.82 31.8 C Main Street and Stephenson Blvd. Eastbound - Stephenson Blvd. LTR 0.34 35.4 D LTR 0.15 31.8 C LTR 0.35 35.8 D LTR 0.15 31.9 C LTR 0.35 35.8 D LTR 0.15 31.9 C LTR 0.36 36.0 D LTR 0.15 31.9 C LTR 0.35 34.0 C LTR 0.15 31.9 C R 0.04 48.1 D R 0.04 48.2 D R 0.04 48.1 D R 0.04 48.2 D R 0.04 48.1 D R 0.04 48.2 D R 0.04 48.2 D R 0.05 48.2 D R 0.04 48.1 D R 0.05 48.2 D Westbound - Driveway LTR 0.07 30.7 C LTR 0.01 29.9 C LTR 0.07 30.8 C LTR 0.01 29.9 C LTR 0.07 30.8 C LTR 0.01 29.9 C LTR 0.07 30.8 C LTR 0.01 29.9 C LTR 0.07 29.3 C LTR 0.01 29.9 C Northbound - Main Street LTR 0.51 7.2 A LTR 0.59 7.6 A LTR 0.72 10.1 B LTR 0.68 9.0 A LTR 0.72 9.1 A LTR 0.68 8.6 A LTR 0.78 11.4 B LTR 0.78 11.0 B LTR 0.81 10.7 B LTR 0.78 11.0 B Southbound - Main Street LTR 0.37 14.4 B LTR 0.52 15.4 B LTR 0.39 14.8 B LTR 0.57 16.0 B LTR 0.39 14.6 B LTR 0.57 1.4 A LTR 0.44 15.5 B LTR 0.63 17.7 B LTR 0.46 16.5 B LTR 0.63 17.7 B Int. 0.46 13.7 B Int. 0.46 13.9 B Int. 0.61 14.5 B Int. 0.52 14.7 B Int. 0.61 13.8 B Int. 0.52 7.6 A Int. 0.66 15.4 B Int. 0.60 16.2 B Int. 0.66 15.2 B Int. 0.60 16.2 B Main Street and Le Fevres Lane Westbound - Le Fevres Lane LR 0.03 23.9 C LR 0.04 24.0 C LR 0.03 24.0 C LR 0.04 24.0 C LR 0.03 24.0 C LR 0.04 24.0 C LR 0.03 24.0 C LR 0.04 24.0 C LR 0.03 24.0 C LR 0.04 24.0 C Northbound - Main Street TR 0.56 24.8 C TR 0.38 24.3 C TR 0.60 28.1 C TR 0.42 24.0 C TR 0.60 9.5 A TR 0.42 16.4 B TR 0.64 27.6 C TR 0.48 23.3 C TR 0.64 8.5 A TR 0.48 23.3 C Southbound - Main Street LT 0.36 2.6 A LT 0.49 2.2 A LT 0.38 2.6 A LT 0.53 2.3 A LT 0.38 2.9 A LT 0.53 1.4 A LT 0.43 2.9 A LT 0.59 2.9 A LT 0.43 3.8 A LT 0.59 2.9 A Int. 0.37 16.7 B Int. 0.32 12.3 B Int. 0.39 18.7 B Int. 0.35 12.3 B Int. 0.39 7.3 A Int. 0.35 8.4 A Int. 0.41 18.2 B Int. 0.39 12.5 B Int. 0.41 6.9 A Int. 0.39 12.5 B Main Street and Stonelea Place Eastbound - Stonelea Place LR 0.04 25.4 C LR 0.02 25.1 C LR 0.04 25.4 C LR 0.02 25.1 C LR 0.04 25.4 C LR 0.02 25.1 C LR 0.04 25.4 C LR 0.02 25.1 C LR 0.04 25.4 C LR 0.02 25.1 C Northbound - Main Street LT 0.57 3.3 A LT 0.41 2.0 A LT 0.62 2.6 A LT 0.45 2.3 A LT 0.62 3.9 A LT 0.45 4.0 A LT 0.66 3.3 A LT 0.52 2.8 A LT 0.66 4.0 A LT 0.52 2.8 A Southbound - Main Street TR 0.31 4.1 A TR 0.45 4.3 A TR 0.33 4.1 A TR 0.49 4.4 A TR 0.33 6.9 A TR 0.49 0.7 A TR 0.37 4.4 A TR 0.54 4.9 A TR 0.37 7.1 A TR 0.54 4.9 A Int. 0.39 4.3 A Int. 0.30 3.6 A Int. 0.42 3.8 A Int. 0.32 3.8 A Int. 0.42 5.6 A Int. 0.32 2.5 A Int. 0.44 4.3 A Int. 0.36 4.2 A Int. 0.44 5.8 A Int. 0.36 4.3 A Main Street and Cherry Avenue Eastbound - Old Boston Post Rd. L 0.05 35.0 C L 0.05 35.1 D L 0.03 34.8 C L 0.06 35.1 D L 0.03 34.8 C L 0.06 35.1 D L 0.04 34.8 C L 0.06 35.1 D L 0.04 34.8 C L 0.06 35.1 D TR 0.02 34.6 C TR 0.01 34.5 C TR 0.02 34.6 C TR 0.01 34.5 C TR 0.02 34.6 C TR 0.01 34.5 C TR 0.02 34.6 C TR 0.01 34.5 C TR 0.02 34.6 C TR 0.01 34.5 C Westbound - Cherry Avenue LR 0.04 34.1 C LR 0.03 33.9 C LR 0.03 34.0 C LR 0.03 33.9 C LR 0.03 34.0 C LR 0.03 33.9 C LR 0.04 34.0 C LR 0.03 33.9 C LR 0.04 34.0 C LR 0.03 33.9 C Northbound - Main Street TR 0.67 6.8 A TR 0.45 1.5 A TR 0.72 8.4 A TR 0.50 1.6 A TR 0.72 3.6 A TR 0.50 11.5 B TR 0.77 10.5 B TR 0.58 3.1 A TR 0.77 4.1 A TR 0.58 3.1 A Southbound - Main Street LT 0.41 11.3 B LT 0.61 11.9 B LT 0.45 11.5 B LT 0.67 12.6 B LT 0.45 11.6 B LT 0.67 12.5 B LT 0.50 12.2 B LT 0.74 13.7 B LT 0.50 12.3 B LT 0.74 13.7 B Int. 0.37 9.2 A Int. 0.33 7.9 A Int. 0.39 10.1 B Int. 0.37 8.3 A Int. 0.39 7.2 A Int. 0.37 12.5 B Int. 0.41 11.7 B Int. 0.40 9.4 A Int. 0.41 7.8 A Int. 0.40 9.4 A Main Street and Premium Point Rd/Sunhaven Drive Eastbound - Sunhaven Drive LTR 0.21 27.0 C LTR 0.26 27.8 C LTR 0.22 27.1 C LTR 0.27 27.9 C LTR 0.22 27.1 C LTR 0.27 27.9 C LTR 0.22 27.2 C LTR 0.27 28.0 C LTR 0.22 27.2 C LTR 0.27 28.0 C Westbound - Premium Point Road LTR 0.02 24.4 C LTR 0.02 24.5 C LTR 0.02 24.4 C LTR 0.02 24.5 C LTR 0.02 24.4 C LTR 0.02 24.5 C LTR 0.02 24.4 C LTR 0.02 24.5 C LTR 0.02 24.4 C LTR 0.02 24.5 C Northbound - Main Street LTR 0.58 3.3 A LTR 0.43 1.6 A LTR 0.64 3.9 A LTR 0.48 2.4 A LTR 0.64 2.5 A LTR 0.48 1.5 A LTR 0.68 5.0 A LTR 0.55 3.6 A LTR 0.68 2.9 A LTR 0.55 3.6 A Southbound - Main Street LTR 0.31 3.7 A LTR 0.48 3.6 A LTR 0.34 3.8 A LTR 0.53 3.7 A LTR 0.34 3.8 A LTR 0.53 3.7 A LTR 0.38 4.0 A LTR 0.58 3.8 A LTR 0.38 4.0 A LTR 0.58 3.8 A Int. 0.45 5.4 A Int. 0.40 4.9 A Int. 0.48 5.7 A Int. 0.43 5.2 A Int. 0.48 4.9 A Int. 0.43 4.8 A Int. 0.52 6.3 A Int. 0.47 5.6 A Int. 0.52 5.1 A Int. 0.47 5.6 A Main Street and Emerson Avenue Westbound - Emerson Avenue LR 0.11 25.5 C LR 0.09 25.3 C LR 0.11 25.6 C LR 0.10 25.4 C LR 0.11 25.6 C LR 0.10 25.4 C LR 0.12 25.6 C LR 0.10 25.4 C LR 0.12 25.6 C LR 0.10 25.4 C Northbound - Main Street TR 0.53 4.3 A TR 0.39 4.9 A TR 0.57 4.8 A TR 0.43 4.8 A TR 0.57 2.1 A TR 0.43 3.0 A TR 0.60 5.2 A TR 0.49 4.8 A TR 0.60 2.2 A TR 0.49 4.8 A Southbound - Main Street LT 0.30 11.6 B LT 0.47 13.5 B LT 0.33 11.9 B LT 0.51 14.2 B LT 0.33 11.9 B LT 0.51 14.2 B LT 0.37 12.3 B LT 0.57 15.1 B LT 0.37 12.3 B LT 0.57 15.1 B Int. 0.37 7.7 A Int. 0.33 10.1 B Int. 0.40 8.1 A Int. 0.36 10.3 B Int. 0.40 6.4 A Int. 0.36 9.5 A Int. 0.43 8.6 A Int. 0.40 10.7 B Int. 0.43 6.7 A Int. 0.40 10.7 B Huguenot Street and Centre Avenue Eastbound - Centre Avenue TR 0.45 35.3 D TR 0.20 30.9 C TR 0.47 35.8 D TR 0.23 31.4 C TR 0.45 34.7 C TR 0.23 31.4 C TR 0.48 35.9 D TR 0.23 31.4 C TR 0.34 24.9 C TR 0.23 31.4 C Westbound - Centre Avenue L 0.17 23.0 C L 0.20 26.4 C L 0.19 23.1 C L 0.23 26.8 C L 0.18 20.6 C L 0.21 30.0 C L 0.24 25.1 C L 0.32 29.5 C L 0.16 19.1 B L 0.32 24.9 C T 0.32 25.4 C T 0.32 28.9 C T 0.34 25.4 C T 0.34 29.0 C T 0.33 22.0 C T 0.34 30.4 C T 0.34 27.0 C T 0.34 30.5 C T 0.26 16.3 B T 0.34 25.7 C Southbound - Huguenot Street LTR 0.36 9.1 A LTR 0.64 11.7 B LTR 0.40 7.9 A LTR 0.74 12.2 B LTR 0.41 10.9 B LTR 0.74 9.0 A LTR 0.43 7.9 A LTR 0.84 14.8 B LTR 0.53 14.1 B LTR 0.84 14.8 B Int. 0.39 18.0 B Int. 0.51 16.2 B Int. 0.42 17.2 B Int. 0.58 16.4 B Int. 0.42 17.9 B Int. 0.58 14.3 B Int. 0.44 17.6 B Int. 0.64 18.5 B Int. 0.42 16.8 B Int. 0.64 17.7 B Huguenot Street and Division Street Eastbound - Division Street T 0.25 21.2 C T 0.32 22.1 C T 0.28 21.5 C T 0.36 22.6 C T 0.28 21.5 C T 0.36 22.6 C T 0.28 21.6 C T 0.39 23.0 C T 0.28 21.6 C T 0.39 23.0 C R 0.18 20.7 C R 0.36 23.4 C R 0.16 20.5 C R 0.39 24.0 C R 0.16 20.5 C R 0.39 24.0 C R 0.17 20.6 C R 0.42 24.6 C R 0.17 20.6 C R 0.42 24.6 C Southbound - Huguenot Street LT 0.33 4.2 A LT 0.62 7.1 A LT 0.41 4.6 A LT 0.77 9.3 A LT 0.41 9.0 A LT 0.77 13.8 B LT 0.44 5.0 A LT 0.87 14.1 B LT 0.44 7.2 A LT 0.87 15.1 B Int. 0.29 12.7 B Int. 0.50 13.4 B Int. 0.35 12.2 B Int. 0.60 14.4 B Int. 0.35 14.6 B Int. 0.60 17.3 B Int. 0.37 12.4 B Int. 0.67 17.4 B Int. 0.37 13.6 B Int. 0.67 18.1 B Huguenot Street and Memorial Hwy. Westbound - Memorial Highway LT 0.34 23.5 C LT 0.20 28.7 C LT 0.38 26.3 C LT 0.28 31.9 C LT 0.38 21.8 C LT 0.28 26.3 C LT 0.39 26.1 C LT 0.30 29.9 C LT 0.39 22.4 C LT 0.30 29.9 C Southbound - Huguenot Street TR 0.34 9.3 A TR 0.51 12.0 B TR 0.38 10.0 B TR 0.63 14.9 B TR 0.38 5.5 A TR 0.63 7.3 A TR 0.40 10.0 B TR 0.71 14.4 B TR 0.40 6.4 A TR 0.71 12.1 B Int. 0.34 15.7 B Int. 0.40 16.6 B Int. 0.38 17.3 B Int. 0.50 19.5 B Int. 0.38 12.8 B Int. 0.50 12.5 B Int. 0.40 17.1 B Int. 0.56 18.4 B Int. 0.40 13.5 B Int. 0.56 16.7 B Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service. (1) Phase I includes Avalon II, Bluegill, Parcel 1A, and M Squared Projects (2) Data sourced from Traffic Signal Optimization Analysis for Huguenot Street and Main Street Corridor Traffic Optimization Study, June 2005 (Prepared by Schoor DePalma) (3) Consists of simple signal retimings and phase changes to Schoor DePalma Optimized Timings. (4) Phase II also includes Church/Division and LeCount SquareProjects (5) The southbound left turn volumes resulted in the left lane operating as a defacto left turn lane. Since Synchro is not able to properly model a defacto left turn lane in a left-thru configuration, the southbound approach was analyzed as 1 left turn lane and 1 thru lane for the Phase 2 AM and Phase 2 AM optimized conditions, as per Synchro instruction. (6) Eastbound PM protected left turn changed from lag to lead to match AM configuration during Phase I optimized condition. Eastbound AM protected left turn changed from lag to lead to match PM configuration during Phase 2 optimized condition. (7) The southbound left turn volumes resulted in the left lane operating as a defacto left turn lane. Since Synchro is not able to properly model a defacto left turn lane in a left-thru configuration, the southbound approach was analyzed as 1 left turn lane and 1 thru lane for the Phase 2 AM and Phase 2 AM optimized conditions, as per Synchro instruction. The PM eastbound protected left turn was changed from lead to lag to match the AM configuration in Phase I and Phase 2 optimized condition. New Rochelle Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Table 3-2 (Continued) Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections 123456 7 8 9 10 2005 Existing Optimized Conditions 2007 City Signal Timings Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (3) 2007 City Signal Timings Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (3) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Intersection Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Huguenot Street and Lawton Street Southbound - Huguenot Street LT 0.22 0.1 A LT 0.36 0.3 A LT 0.25 0.2 A LT 0.43 0.3 A LT 0.25 0.2 A LT 0.43 0.3 A LT 0.26 0.2 A LT 0.48 0.4 A LT 0.26 0.2 A LT 0.47 0.4 A Int. 0.22 0.1 A Int. 0.36 0.3 A Int. 0.25 0.2 A Int. 0.43 0.3 A Int. 0.25 0.2 A Int. 0.43 0.3 A Int. 0.26 0.2 A Int. 0.48 0.4 A Int. 0.26 0.2 A Int. 0.47 0.4 A Huguenot Street and North Avenue Eastbound - North Avenue T 0.33 25.3 C T 0.33 25.4 C T 0.38 26.0 C T 0.38 26.1 C T 0.38 26.0 C T 0.38 26.1 C T 0.51 28.1 C T 0.53 28.4 C T 0.51 28.1 C T 0.53 28.4 C R 0.18 23.9 C R 0.17 23.8 C R 0.26 25.0 C R 0.34 26.3 C R 0.26 25.0 C R 0.34 26.3 C R 0.28 25.4 C R 0.36 26.7 C R 0.28 25.4 C R 0.36 26.7 C Westbound - North Avenue L 0.40 7.1 A L 0.61 18.2 B L 0.41 8.7 A L 0.64 22.8 C L 0.41 19.3 B L 0.64 28.4 C L 0.52 21.8 C L 0.82 54.8 D L 0.52 21.6 C L 0.82 32.9 C T 0.45 5.2 A T 0.39 3.5 A T 0.34 4.1 A T 0.29 3.2 A T 0.34 15.9 B T 0.29 2.7 A T 0.40 4.8 A T 0.34 3.4 A T 0.40 2.1 A T 0.34 8.2 A Southbound - Huguenot Street T 0.35 11.7 B T 0.42 9.8 A T 0.40 12.0 B T 0.52 13.5 B T 0.40 11.9 B T 0.52 11.9 B T 0.43 12.0 B T 0.64 14.7 B T 0.43 17.7 B T 0.64 14.0 B R 0.20 12.8 B R 0.39 12.4 B R 0.30 6.2 A R 0.63 22.7 C R 0.30 6.3 A R 0.63 8.2 A R 0.46 10.6 B R 1.06 69.4 E R 0.46 15.5 B R 1.06 50.3 D Int. 0.40 14.1 B Int. 0.51 13.7 B Int. 0.41 13.5 B Int. 0.63 17.9 B Int. 0.41 16.1 B Int. 0.63 14.6 B Int. 0.49 15.6 B Int. 0.96 32.8 C Int. 0.49 17.8 B Int. 0.96 26.9 C Huguenot Street and Lecount Place Eastbound - Driveway TR 0.07 22.4 C TR 0.45 28.4 C TR 0.08 28.7 C TR 0.43 26.6 C TR 0.07 22.4 C TR 0.48 29.0 C TR 0.08 25.1 C TR 0.71 49.5 D Westbound - Lecount Place LT 0.43 12.8 B LT 0.49 12.6 B LT 0.55 17.1 B LT 1.21 132.9 F LT 0.58 27.9 C LT 0.87 51.8 D LT 0.76 28.4 C LT 1.89 426.5 F LT 0.58 27.3 C LT 1.05 75.9 E Southbound - Huguenot Street LT 0.30 7.1 A LT 0.44 8.8 A LTR 0.34 12.2 B LT 0.54 13.5 B LTR 0.34 9.6 A LT 0.67 14.4 B LTR 0.39 11.8 B LT 0.69 15.2 B LTR 0.49 11.7 B LT 0.85 28.0 C Int. 0.35 8.1 A Int. 0.46 9.3 A Int. 0.42 13.6 B Int. 0.81 33.0 C Int. 0.43 13.7 B Int. 0.76 21.4 C Int. 0.54 15.5 B Int. 1.17 87.5 F Int. 0.53 15.4 B Int. 0.94 38.3D Huguenot Street and Harrison Street Westbound - Harrison Street L 0.32 17.8 B L 0.48 24.3 C L 0.33 17.7 B L 0.50 24.2 C L 0.33 22.0 C L 0.50 20.1 C L 0.35 18.1 B L 0.58 26.3 C L 0.35 17.5 B L 0.58 34.9 C Southbound - Huguenot Street LT 0.30 6.8 A LT 0.37 6.1 A LT 0.34 17.9 B LT 0.44 17.4 B LT 0.34 9.5 A LT 0.44 8.1 A LT 0.42 19.5 B LT 0.54 19.3 B LT 0.42 3.5 A LT 0.54 19.2 B Int. 0.30 8.4 A Int. 0.41 9.0 A Int. 0.34 17.9 B Int. 0.47 18.4 B Int. 0.34 11.1 B Int. 0.47 9.9 A Int. 0.40 19.4 B Int. 0.55 20.3 C Int. 0.40 5.1 A Int. 0.55 21.4 C Huguenot Street and Cedar Street Eastbound - Cedar Street T 0.06 19.6 B T 0.07 23.5 C T 0.13 19.9 B T 0.13 24.0 C T 0.13 5.0 A T 0.11 5.0 A T 0.18 20.0 C T 0.18 23.9 C T 0.18 12.4 B T 0.18 12.5 B R 0.58 29.6 C R 0.72 37.9 D R 0.58 10.9 B R 0.62 9.5 A R 0.78 35.2 D R 0.94 52.5 D R 0.78 18.9 B R 0.94 30.7 C Southbound - Huguenot Street LT 0.20 14.4 B LT 0.25 5.1 A LT 0.21 13.7 B LT 0.27 4.9 A LT 0.21 12.2 B LT 0.31 17.1 B LT 0.24 12.7 B LT 0.31 4.6 A LT 0.24 17.2 B LT 0.31 4.6 A Int. 0.14 15.4 B Int. 0.17 8.5 A Int. 0.38 21.2 C Int. 0.47 21.1 C Int. 0.38 10.8 B Int. 0.47 12.6 B Int. 0.48 24.0 C Int. 0.59 28.9 C Int. 0.48 17.3 B Int. 0.59 17.6 B Huguenot Street and River Street Eastbound - River Street T 0.30 6.1 A T 0.31 10.3 B T 0.31 6.1 A T 0.32 9.9 A T 0.29 8.2 A T 0.32 7.8 A T 0.32 5.9 A T 0.32 9.1 A T 0.30 6.1 A T 0.32 26.3 C Westbound - River Street L 0.49 18.4 B L 0.10 12.2 B L 0.53 20.9 C L 0.11 18.8 B L 0.49 23.2 C L 0.11 18.0 B L 0.55 23.3 C L 0.11 23.0 C L 0.51 24.8 C L 0.11 23.1 C T 0.92 32.2 C T 0.58 15.9 B T 1.01 49.8 D T 0.76 25.6 C T 0.95 44.4 D T 0.76 25.4 C T 1.13 92.4 F T 1.10 86.6 F T 1.06 71.8 E T 1.10 86.6 F Southbound - Huguenot Street L 0.20 3.5 A L 0.57 6.8 A L 0.21 3.7 A L 0.59 7.4 A L 0.22 5.7 A L 0.59 7.9 A L 0.22 4.2 A L 0.60 7.7 A L 0.23 8.1 A L 0.60 7.7 A TR 0.30 1.3 A TR 0.38 2.9 A TR 0.33 1.9 A TR 0.42 3.4 A TR 0.34 4.0 A TR 0.42 2.6 A TR 0.37 3.0 A TR 0.47 4.0 A TR 0.39 7.1 A TR 0.47 4.0 A Int. 0.60 14.0 B Int. 0.57 7.9 A Int. 0.66 20.6 C Int. 0.67 10.8 B Int. 0.66 20.1 C Int. 0.67 10.1 B Int. 0.74 36.5 D Int. 0.84 30.2 C Int. 0.74 31.0 C Int. 0.84 33.1 C Huguenot Street and Jackson Street Eastbound - Jackson Street R 0.07 19.4 B R 0.13 20.1 C R 0.08 19.4 B R 0.15 20.3 C R 0.08 19.4 B R 0.15 20.3 C R 0.10 19.8 B R 0.16 20.4 C R 0.10 19.8 B R 0.16 20.4 C Southbound - Huguenot Street T 0.24 3.0 A T 0.40 6.9 A T 0.26 3.0 A T 0.43 8.4 A T 0.26 6.5 A T 0.43 6.0 A T 0.29 3.1 A T 0.47 10.5 B T 0.29 10.1 B T 0.47 10.5 B Int. 0.17 5.2 A Int. 0.28 7.9 A Int. 0.18 5.1 A Int. 0.30 9.3 A Int. 0.18 8.1 A Int. 0.30 7.0 A Int. 0.20 5.1 A Int. 0.33 11.2 B Int. 0.20 11.3 B Int. 0.33 11.2 B Anderson Street and North Avenue (7) Eastbound - North Avenue LT 0.38 11.0 B LT 0.85 13.3 B L 1.04 120.7 F L 1.27 203.2 F L 0.31 28.4 C L 0.35 30.1 C L 2.16 580.1 F L 2.04 526.7 F L 0.53 15.6 B L 0.46 13.9 B T 0.49 12.0 B T 0.52 13.8 B T 0.38 4.0 A T 0.40 6.0 A T 0.55 12.2 B T 0.71 17.4 B T 0.48 5.9 A T 0.55 8.4 A Westbound - North Avenue TR 0.39 23.1 C TR 0.44 24.4 C TR 0.44 23.3 C TR 0.48 24.2 C TR 0.49 23.9 C TR 0.55 22.5 C TR 0.51 23.0 C TR 0.53 24.0 C TR 0.61 40.1 D TR 0.51 19.4 B Southbound - Anderson Street LR 0.09 58.4 E LR 0.07 57.9 E LR 0.09 58.4 E LR 0.07 54.9 D LR 0.12 14.4 B LR 0.09 5.3 A LR 0.09 54.3 D LR 0.07 50.2 D LR 0.10 8.4 A LR 0.10 62.6 E Int. 0.24 20.4 C Int. 0.26 21.2 C Int. 0.34 32.4 C Int. 0.37 44.2 D Int. 0.33 16.7 B Int. 0.35 16.7 B Int. 0.46 122.6 F Int. 0.51 101.4 F Int. 0.37 22.7 C Int. 0.40 16.2 B Anderson Street and Lecount Place Eastbound - Lecount Place TR 0.09 48.9 D LT 0.27 46.1 D TR 0.13 31.8 C TR 0.42 34.9 C TR 0.13 15.2 B TR 0.56 17.9 B LTR 0.27 37.1 D LTR 0.54 37.5 D LTR 0.27 13.4 B LTR 0.61 25.8 C Westbound - Lecount Place LT 0.31 19.9 B TR 0.37 23.3 C LT 0.37 21.6 C LT 0.35 27.8 C LT 0.37 12.3 B LT 0.49 25.4 C LTR 0.52 24.8 C LTR 0.49 37.2 D LTR 0.52 16.4 B LTR 0.56 37.2 D Northbound - Anderson Street LR 0.26 56.0 E LR 0.34 63.6 E LR 0.40 35.9 D LR 0.51 39.2 D LR 0.40 12.1 B LR 0.32 53.8 D LTR 0.88 40.8 D LTR 1.05 73.1 E LTR 0.88 36.5 D LTR 0.82 70.6 E LTR 0.13 36.4 D LTR 1.11 133.0 F LTR 0.13 36.4 D LTR 0.85 62.1 E Int. 0.29 34.0 C Int. 0.36 39.0 D Int. 0.38 27.5 C Int. 0.45 33.4 C Int. 0.38 12.9 B Int. 0.45 28.4 C Int. 0.63 32.7 C Int. 0.70 63.4 E Int. 0.63 22.7 C Int. 0.70 45.3 D Harrison Street and Cedar Street Eastbound - Harrison Street TR 0.12 93.8 F TR 0.10 59.8 E TR 0.12 94.1 F TR 0.10 59.2 E TR 0.12 25.3 C TR 0.12 26.6 C TR 0.13 96.6 F TR 0.11 61.4 E TR 0.13 29.3 C TR 0.13 27.8 C Westbound - Harrison Street LT 0.08 12.7 B LT 0.06 11.8 B LT 0.08 12.0 B LT 0.07 12.0 B LT 0.08 8.4 A LT 0.09 12.6 B LT 0.10 11.8 B LT 0.07 11.0 B LT 0.10 13.9 B LT 0.09 27.4 C Northbound - Driveway L 0.09 29.4 C L 0.30 32.6 C L 0.09 29.5 C L 0.33 33.0 C L 0.09 29.5 C L 0.31 31.2 C L 0.10 29.6 C L 0.41 34.5 C L 0.10 29.6 C L 0.37 31.8 C R 0.01 28.5 C R 0.01 28.5 C R 0.01 28.5 C R 0.03 28.8 C R 0.01 28.5 C R 0.03 27.3 C R 0.03 28.7 C R 0.13 30.0 C R 0.03 28.7 C R 0.13 28.1 C Southbound - Cedar Street L 0.08 37.9 D L 0.16 48.8 D L 0.09 38.2 D L 0.17 48.4 D L 0.09 23.7 C L 0.13 18.3 B L 0.09 39.7 D L 0.24 50.0 D L 0.09 25.0 C L 0.22 33.0 C LTR 0.31 41.9 D LTR 0.16 48.8 D LTR 0.37 43.5 D LTR 0.17 48.4 D LTR 0.37 26.7 C LTR 0.13 18.3 B LTR 0.57 50.1 D LTR 0.28 50.7 D LTR 0.57 33.7 C LTR 0.25 33.5 C R 0.03 71.4 E R 0.04 115.5 F R 0.03 72.2 E R 0.04 112.6 F R 0.03 15.1 B R 0.04 10.1 B R 0.03 73.4 E R 0.04 116.3 F R 0.03 19.3 B R 0.04 30.5 C Int. 0.16 58.8 E Int. 0.18 48.4 D Int. 0.18 58.5 E Int. 0.19 46.6 D Int. 0.18 22.5 C Int. 0.19 22.9 C Int. 0.24 59.1 E Int. 0.25 45.4 D Int. 0.24 27.5 C Int. 0.25 30.1 C Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service. (1) Phase I includes Avalon II, Bluegill, Parcel 1A, and M Squared Projects (2) Data sourced from Traffic Signal Optimization Analysis for Huguenot Street and Main Street Corridor Traffic Optimization Study, June 2005 (Prepared by Schoor DePalma) (3) Consists of simple signal retimings and phase changes to Schoor DePalma Optimized Timings. (4) Phase II also includes Church/Division and LeCount SquareProjects (5) The southbound left turn volumes resulted in the left lane operating as a defacto left turn lane. Since Synchro is not able to properly model a defacto left turn lane in a left-thru configuration, the southbound approach was analyzed as 1 left turn lane and 1 thru lane for the Phase 2 AM and Phase 2 AM optimized conditions, as per Synchro instruction. (6) Eastbound PM protected left turn changed from lag to lead to match AM configuration during Phase I optimized condition. Eastbound AM protected left turn changed from lag to lead to match PM configuration during Phase 2 optimized condition. (7) The southbound left turn volumes resulted in the left lane operating as a defacto left turn lane. Since Synchro is not able to properly model a defacto left turn lane in a left-thru configuration, the southbound approach was analyzed as 1 left turn lane and 1 thru lane for the Phase 2 AM and Phase 2 AM optimized conditions, as per Synchro instruction. The PM eastbound protected left turn was changed from lead to lag to match the AM configuration in Phase I and Phase 2 optimized condition. New Rochelle Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Table 3-2 (Continued) Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections 123456 7 8 9 10 2005 Existing Optimized Conditions 2007 City Signal Timings Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (3) 2007 City Signal Timings Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (3) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Intersection Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Raddison Place and River Street Westbound - River Street T 0.39 6.9 A T 0.25 6.6 A T 0.42 6.6 A T 0.31 5.6 A T 0.47 22.4 C T 0.31 6.8 A T 0.46 6.1 A T 0.42 5.0 A T 0.46 7.0 A T 0.42 5.0 A Northbound - Raddison Place L 0.31 12.3 B L 0.42 13.2 B L 0.34 13.4 B L 0.51 16.1 B L 0.32 3.2 A L 0.51 16.3 B L 0.36 15.4 B L 0.59 18.2 B L 0.36 10.4 B L 0.59 33.0 C R 0.30 0.4 A R 0.30 0.5 A R 0.31 0.5 A R 0.32 0.5 A R 0.31 0.4 A R 0.32 0.4 A R 0.32 0.4 A R 0.32 0.4 A R 0.32 0.4 A R 0.32 0.4 A Int. 0.35 6.8 A Int. 0.35 7.8 A Int. 0.39 6.9 A Int. 0.39 8.4 A Int. 0.39 12.8 B Int. 0.39 9.0 A Int. 0.42 7.1 A Int. 0.49 8.6 A Int. 0.42 6.4 A Int. 0.49 13.6 B Cross St/Palmer Ave. and River St Westbound - River Street LT 0.47 22.7 C LT 0.24 13.5 B LT 0.51 23.4 C LT 0.28 14.1 B LT 0.51 19.0 B LT 0.28 14.1 B LT 0.55 23.9 C LT 0.35 13.7 B LT 0.46 18.2 B LT 0.35 13.7 B Southbound - Palmer Avenue T 0.08 10.6 B T 0.19 22.9 C T 0.09 10.7 B T 0.22 23.1 C T 0.09 10.7 B T 0.22 23.1 C T 0.11 10.8 B T 0.25 23.5 C T 0.13 14.2 B T 0.25 23.5 C R 0.55 17.0 B R 0.40 26.8 C R 0.57 17.7 B R 0.49 28.7 C R 0.57 17.7 B R 0.49 28.7 C R 0.59 18.1 B R 0.58 31.2 C R 0.65 23.9 C R 0.58 31.2 C Int. 0.52 18.8 B Int. 0.30 19.9 B Int. 0.55 19.2 B Int. 0.36 20.4 C Int. 0.55 17.0 B Int. 0.36 20.4 C Int. 0.57 19.5 B Int. 0.44 20.4 C Int. 0.56 19.0 B Int. 0.44 20.4 C Cross Street and Cedar Street Eastbound - Cedar Street TR 0.54 22.5 C TR 0.51 22.0 C TR 0.59 23.4 C TR 0.58 23.0 C TR 0.63 25.9 C TR 0.69 30.1 C TR 0.69 25.3 C TR 0.68 24.9 C TR 0.72 27.1 C TR 0.68 24.9 C Northbound - Commerce Drive R 0.01 43.8 D R 0.75 71.8 E R 0.01 43.8 D R 0.88 89.5 F R 0.01 38.6 D R 0.45 37.9 D R 0.01 43.8 D R 0.99 113.4 F R 0.01 49.4 D R 0.66 52.8 D Southbound - Cross Street L 0.16 21.9 C L 0.25 22.9 C L 0.18 21.8 C L 0.28 23.4 C L 0.20 21.4 C L 0.36 15.5 B L 0.21 21.9 C L 0.32 24.0 C L 0.17 32.2 C L 0.41 14.5 B LT 0.16 22.4 C LT 0.25 23.9 C LT 0.18 22.4 C LT 0.28 24.5 C LT 0.20 22.1 C LT 0.36 17.5 B LT 0.22 22.7 C LT 0.32 25.3 C LT 0.18 32.8 C LT 0.41 16.9 B Int. 0.34 22.7 C Int. 0.44 27.0 C Int. 0.37 23.3 C Int. 0.50 29.1 C Int. 0.37 25.3 C Int. 0.52 27.6 C Int. 0.43 24.9 C Int. 0.58 31.8 C Int. 0.43 28.2 C Int. 0.60 24.9 C Clinton Place and North Avenue Eastbound - North Avenue LTR 0.30 9.9 A LTR 0.36 13.8 B LTR 0.18 7.4 A LTR 0.38 13.0 B LTR 0.18 7.2 A LTR 0.37 12.0 B LTR 0.23 5.5 A LTR 0.53 8.9 A LTR 0.27 18.8 B LTR 0.53 8.9 A Westbound - North Avenue LTR 0.18 10.6 B LTR 0.23 17.0 B LTR 0.21 10.8 B LTR 0.24 17.2 B LTR 0.21 10.8 B LTR 0.24 16.6 B LTR 0.22 10.9 B LTR 0.27 17.5 B LTR 0.26 16.9 B LTR 0.27 17.5 B Northbound - Clinton Place LTR 0.20 22.1 C LTR 0.15 17.8 B LTR 0.19 22.1 C LTR 0.16 17.7 B LTR 0.19 14.7 B LTR 0.16 18.7 B LTR 0.03 19.0 B LTR 0.06 36.3 D LTR 0.02 9.7 A LTR 0.06 36.3 D Southbound - Clinton Place LTR 0.14 26.1 C LTR 0.11 18.1 B LTR 0.32 28.9 C LTR 0.11 18.2 B LTR 0.32 28.9 C LTR 0.11 18.8 B LTR 0.32 29.1 C LTR 0.12 18.3 B LTR 0.25 20.6 C LTR 0.12 18.3 B Int. 0.26 12.8 B Int. 0.26 15.5 B Int. 0.25 14.0 B Int. 0.27 15.2 B Int. 0.25 13.1 B Int. 0.27 14.7 B Int. 0.26 12.0 B Int. 0.33 13.0 B Int. 0.26 18.2 B Int. 0.33 13.0 B Clinton Place and Church Street Westbound - Church Street LTR 0.34 6.0 A LTR 0.30 10.6 B LTR 0.35 6.1 A LTR 0.32 10.7 B LTR 0.40 9.9 A LTR 0.32 8.9 A TR 0.47 9.9 A TR 0.48 17.5 B TR 0.47 9.7 A TR 0.48 17.5 B Northbound - Clinton Place LT 0.20 30.4 C LT 0.13 24.9 C LT 0.21 30.6 C LT 0.13 24.2 C LT 0.18 27.5 C LT 0.13 12.9 B R 0.02 0.6 A R 0.03 0.1 A R 0.02 0.6 A R 0.03 0.2 A R 0.02 0.2 A R 0.03 0.2 A Southbound - Clinton Place LTR 0.19 34.6 C LTR 0.16 19.0 B LTR 0.21 20.2 C LTR 0.17 19.0 B LTR 0.18 20.4 C LTR 0.17 6.1 A LR 0.31 27.0 C LR 0.46 17.9 B LR 0.31 26.5 C LR 0.46 18.1 B Int. 0.29 16.6 B Int. 0.23 14.7 B Int. 0.30 13.4 B Int. 0.25 14.6 B Int. 0.30 14.9 B Int. 0.25 8.3 A Int. 0.41 14.6 B Int. 0.47 17.6 B Int. 0.41 14.3 B Int. 0.47 17.7 B Bonnefoy Place and Church Street Eastbound - Church Street LT 0.05 9.5 A LT 0.07 13.7 B LT 0.05 9.9 A LT 0.07 14.4 B LT 0.05 13.0 B LT 0.07 19.1 B LT 0.04 15.4 B LT 0.06 29.3 C LT 0.04 12.9 B LT 0.06 29.4 C Westbound - Church Street TR 0.19 0.4 A TR 0.15 1.1 A TR 0.20 0.4 A TR 0.16 1.1 A TR 0.20 0.8 A TR 0.16 2.3 A TR 0.22 0.4 A TR 0.18 0.9 A TR 0.22 1.2 A TR 0.18 0.9 A Southbound - Bonnefoy Place LR 0.12 38.5 D LR 0.10 38.3 D LR 0.12 38.6 D LR 0.11 38.4 D LR 0.12 38.6 D LR 0.10 37.5 D LR 0.13 38.7 D LR 0.11 38.4 D LR 0.13 38.7 D LR 0.11 38.4 D Int. 0.18 6.6 A Int. 0.14 8.7 A Int. 0.19 6.7 A Int. 0.15 8.7 A Int. 0.19 7.3 A Int. 0.15 10.1 B Int. 0.20 6.7 A Int. 0.17 9.1 A Int. 0.20 7.2 A Int. 0.17 9.2 A Prospect Street and Church Street Eastbound - Church Street TR 0.07 1.5 A TR 0.06 1.8 A TR 0.07 1.6 A TR 0.06 1.8 A TR 0.07 1.7 A TR 0.06 8.4 A TR 0.06 0.6 A TR 0.05 1.2 A TR 0.06 0.6 A TR 0.05 1.2 A Westbound - Church Street LT 0.37 16.7 B LT 0.29 15.4 B LT 0.39 16.9 B LT 0.30 15.6 B LT 0.39 16.9 B LT 0.31 16.3 B LT 0.38 16.8 B LT 0.33 16.2 B LT 0.38 16.8 B LT 0.33 16.2 B Northbound - Prospect Street L 0.10 37.3 D L 0.09 31.7 C L 0.10 37.2 D L 0.10 31.6 C L 0.10 27.2 C L 0.09 27.4 C L 0.23 40.1 D L 0.27 34.0 C L 0.23 26.6 C L 0.27 34.0 C R 0.04 52.2 D R 0.07 24.4 C R 0.04 51.3 D R 0.08 24.1 C R 0.04 23.8 C R 0.07 12.1 B R 0.07 73.0 E R 0.10 38.1 D R 0.07 29.8 C R 0.10 38.1 D Int. 0.25 19.4 B Int. 0.19 16.4 B Int. 0.26 19.4 B Int. 0.20 16.5 B Int. 0.26 15.8 B Int. 0.20 15.0 B Int. 0.29 26.8 C Int. 0.25 22.8 C Int. 0.29 18.0 B Int. 0.25 22.8 C Prospect Street and Division Street S. Eastbound - Division Street South LTR 0.19 4.6 A LTR 0.32 9.8 A LTR 0.20 5.5 A LTR 0.35 10.6 B LTR 0.20 5.6 A LTR 0.34 5.4 A LTR 0.30 4.2 A LTR 0.47 13.7 B LTR 0.30 3.8 A LTR 0.47 13.7 B Northbound - Prospect Street TR 0.02 15.5 B TR 0.10 19.1 B TR 0.03 15.5 B TR 0.11 19.2 B TR 0.03 15.5 B TR 0.11 19.8 B TR 0.05 15.8 B TR 0.14 19.5 B TR 0.05 15.8 B TR 0.14 19.5 B Southbound - Prospect Street LT 0.03 19.3 B LT 0.04 17.2 B LT 0.03 19.3 B LT 0.04 17.1 B LT 0.03 12.4 B LT 0.04 14.4 B LT 0.05 19.7 B LT 0.09 15.2 B LT 0.05 12.6 B LT 0.09 15.2 B Int. 0.11 7.5 A Int. 0.22 12.4 B Int. 0.12 8.3 A Int. 0.24 12.9 B Int. 0.12 7.5 A Int. 0.24 9.2 A Int. 0.17 7.8 A Int. 0.32 15.0 B Int. 0.17 6.6 A Int. 0.32 15.0 B Total Number of Approaches with 5 9 8 10 0 0 11 18 1 9 LOS E or F (LOS A through D is considered acceptable in urban areas). Total Number of intersections with 101000 2300 overall LOS E or F (LOS A through D is considered acceptable in urban areas). Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service. (1) Phase I includes Avalon II, Bluegill, Parcel 1A, and M Squared Projects (2) Data sourced from Traffic Signal Optimization Analysis for Huguenot Street and Main Street Corridor Traffic Optimization Study, June 2005 (Prepared by Schoor DePalma) (3) Consists of simple signal retimings and phase changes to Schoor DePalma Optimized Timings. (4) Phase II also includes Church/Division and LeCount SquareProjects (5) The southbound left turn volumes resulted in the left lane operating as a defacto left turn lane. Since Synchro is not able to properly model a defacto left turn lane in a left-thru configuration, the southbound approach was analyzed as 1 left turn lane and 1 thru lane for the Phase 2 AM and Phase 2 AM optimized conditions, as per Synchro instruction. (6) Eastbound PM protected left turn changed from lag to lead to match AM configuration during Phase I optimized condition. Eastbound AM protected left turn changed from lag to lead to match PM configuration during Phase 2 optimized condition. (7) The southbound left turn volumes resulted in the left lane operating as a defacto left turn lane. Since Synchro is not able to properly model a defacto left turn lane in a left-thru configuration, the southbound approach was analyzed as 1 left turn lane and 1 thru lane for the Phase 2 AM and Phase 2 AM optimized conditions, as per Synchro instruction. The PM eastbound protected left turn was changed from lead to lag to match the AM configuration in Phase I and Phase 2 optimized condition. 0 0 30 187 259 346 193 400 HUGUENOT STREET

65 382 145 298 9 88 1337 423 219 517 662 696 855 PALMER AVENUE 153 60 69 123 62 473 241 278 17 208

84 768 25

100 202 451 144 358 CROSS STREET 20 65 38 390 79 ANDERSON ST. 673 922 66 793 678 38 0 NEW 12 0 43 ROC 16 0 CITY 479

CENTRE AVENUE CENTRE DIVISION STREET HIGHWAY MEMORIAL STREET LAWTON AVENUE NORTH 443 61 34 RIVER STREET 15 142 464 RADISSON PLACE CEDAR STREET 3 7 3 261 79 298 267 178 225 42 39 992 60 54

DRIVEWAY 482

17 PLACE LeCOUNT 2 138 220 261 129 521 152 52 391 108 860 847 803 974 1021 1101 792 935 1028 JACKSON STREET 81 110 97 60 108 29 72 817 517 277 95 MAIN STREET MAIN STREET 221 398 723

1 156 94 96 46 80 191 MAPLE 150 164 152 218 108 126 315 HUGUENOT STREET AVENUE AVENUE PINTARD AVENUE CHURCH STREET LOCUST AVENUE FRANKLIN 170

162 715 1ST 1ST

JONES STREET BURLING JOYCE WASHINGTON 145 76 4 41

8.30.07 GROVE

GLEN N 40 GARDEN PALMER R 116

HILL H HIGHLAND HIGHLAND

O 4

CEDAR STREET D 30 CR ACORN

E E S R S 12 CE ENE L

N WA T CEDAR HOMESTEAD I 95 FL FIR O ROCKDALE 0 500 FEET W E KINGS MONROE R FOUNTAIN PLACE

RADISON 1 LYONS SHERMAN SCALE 89 22

BEECHWOOD WEBSTER

LECOUNT A

C E M

O Y E

HARRISON HARRISON L RIVER HERTFORD

L E E L LAWTON LAWTON HARRISON

PINE U 287 R M M L 260

B D I O

U PRATT R V 118 RHODES

BIRCH CLIFF S R A S

STEPHENSON STEPHENSON I R

A E

WESTCHESTER E GRANT L ADAMS P JACKSON T

H I E

L HARDING 386

I P

G PINTARD PINTARD FOUNTAIN LINCOLN

PC RAILROAD EVERETT H 112 MERTON STONELEA 745

L W RIA ST A MADISON 1066

DU Y 53

WOODLAND WOODLAND POST IN N BOSTO

VILLUS HUGUENOT OLD ALLARD ALLARD LAUR MAIN STREET

EL LEROY

EVANS EVANS MAPLE MAPLE

MAIN ECHO WEYMAN WEYMAN

JOHN CLINTON 491 281

CHERRY LE FEVRE FEVRE LE

SHEA AVENUE DRAKE DRAKE LAFAYETTE HUNTINGTON H I MORAN LIBERTY G BONNEFOY H PREMIUM BAYARD V E

LAUREL LAUREL I

NORTH NORTH E

PROSPECT LOCUST E W

DIVISION DIVISION ECHO ECHO BAYVIEW S S E A O WOODBURY V N IE LINDEN W 43 32 86 33 45 52 137 15 139 WEBSTER AVENUE CLIFF STREET BEECHWOOD AVENUE 15

MAIN STREET 70 201 14 40 214 2 28 96 AVENUE NORTH 696 CHURCH STREET 565 557 769 463 10

757 862 31 817 88 14 33 80 80 47 28 42 26 23 73 35 70 43 27 14 4 62 0 22 25 14 35 37 22 88 94 69 44 DRAKE 111 AVENUE ALLARD AVENUE AVENUE 27 CLINTON PLACE DRIVEWAY 15 63 20 24 WOODLAND

BONNEFOY 284 217

4 PLACE

297 CHURCH STREET CHURCH 42 16 92 71 4 62 32 45

16 38 DIVISION STREET DIVISION 242 7 173 17 8 4 281 226 44 6 14 2 11 70 4 58 KINGS HIGHWAY SB I-95 RAMPS STEPHENSON BLVD. STONELEA PLACE GAS STATION DRIVEWAY CLEVELAND AVENUE OLD BOSTON ROAD POST MAIN STREET SUNHAVEN DRIVE 13 21 258 196 114 29 610 31 523 265 4 23 576 43 42 8 500 776 278 590 528 464 580 455 20 25 969 594 1026 12 28 578 509 960 514 313 2 1000 8 948 772 3 0 361 232 279 13 13 40 4 3 38 1005 11 22 8 50 14 PROSPECT MAIN STREET 7 8 1 1 2 2 5 4 4 3 AVENUE 7 7 11 13 45 35 1 LANE 11 DINER 18 16 POINT 277 355 257 AVENUE AVENUE 296 AVENUE AVENUE NB I-95 RAMPS WEYMAN CHERRY PREMIUM Le FEVRE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY EMERSON WOODSIDE DRIVEWAY Figure 3-2 2005 Existing Traffic Volumes NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS AM Peak Hour (8:00 - 9:00 AM) 0 0 38 70 271 438 159 401 HUGUENOT STREET

147 853 95 474 0 11 1330 707 178 892 987 801 1152 PALMER AVENUE 270 173 114 268 0 369 464 430 181 237

80 572 34

204 139 241 220 310 CROSS STREET 36 192 40 414 101 ANDERSON ST. 760 1215 80 606 806 30 0 NEW 2 0 34 ROC 49 0 CITY 763

CENTRE AVENUE CENTRE DIVISION STREET HIGHWAY MEMORIAL STREET LAWTON AVENUE NORTH 452 28 20 RIVER STREET 30 157 500 RADISSON PLACE CEDAR STREET 8 4 4 184 156 328 288 284 164 95 146 649 173 142

DRIVEWAY 679

4 PLACE LeCOUNT 2 111 187 320 136 591 169 52 400 100 842 853 700 920 1021 1096 754 795 954 JACKSON STREET 79 50 79 64 195 22 96 1166 717 200 31 MAIN STREET MAIN STREET 142 664 1201

1 437 53 48 37 84 35 69 75 MAPLE 173 128 210 109 193 HUGUENOT STREET AVENUE AVENUE PINTARD AVENUE CHURCH STREET LOCUST AVENUE FRANKLIN 32 254

449 1ST

JONES STREET BURLING JOYCE WASHINGTON 50 92 4 52

8.30.07 GROVE

GLEN N 140 GARDEN PALMER R 33

HILL H HIGHLAND

O 0

CEDAR STREET D 84 CR ACORN

E E

SC RE S 17

EN NEWAL T CEDAR HOMESTEAD I 95 FL FIR O ROCKDALE 0 500 FEET W E KINGS MONROE R FOUNTAIN PLACE RADISON LYONS SHERMAN SCALE 10 62 33

BEECHWOOD WEBSTER

A LECOUNT

C E M

O Y E

HARRISON L RIVER HERTFORD

L E E L LAWTON HARRISON

PINE U 538 R M M L 299

B D I O

U PRATT R V 193 RHODES

BIRCH CLIFF S R A S

STEPHENSON I R

A E

WESTCHESTER E GRANT L ADAMS P JACKSON T

H I E

L HARDING 282

I P

G PINTARD FOUNTAIN LINCOLN

PC RAILROAD EVERETT H 105 MERTON STONELEA 748

L W RIA ST A MADISON 933 DU Y 96

IN WOODLAND N POST BOSTO

VILLUS HUGUENOT OLD ALLARD LAUR MAIN STREET

EL LEROY

EVANS MAPLE

MAIN ECHO WEYMAN

JOHN CLINTON 199 169

CHERRY LE FEVRE LE

SHEA AVENUE DRAKE LAFAYETTE HUNTINGTON H I MORAN LIBERTY G BONNEFOY H PREMIUM BAYARD V E

LAUREL I

NORTH E

PROSPECT LOCUST E W

R DIVISION

BAYVIEW ECHO S S E A O WOODBURY V N IE LINDEN W 71 56 96 46 41 41 188 20 110 WEBSTER AVENUE CLIFF STREET BEECHWOOD AVENUE 16

MAIN STREET 74 389 26 34 186 5 18 104 AVENUE NORTH 826 CHURCH STREET 671 730 757 607 25

816 922 26 916 78 34 14 124 126 48 59 90 20 16 64 35 35 19 32 19 30 36 1 22 28 27 56 46 29 84 76 47 22 70 DRAKE AVENUE ALLARD AVENUE AVENUE 22 CLINTON PLACE DRIVEWAY 35 27 20 39 WOODLAND

BONNEFOY 174 197 PLACE 19

207 CHURCH STREET CHURCH 37 11 36 117 0 160 61 38

16 20 DIVISION STREET DIVISION 423 2 374 11 3 2 323 268 25 1 4 1 18 55 6 75 KINGS HIGHWAY SB I-95 RAMPS STEPHENSON BLVD. STONELEA PLACE GAS STATION DRIVEWAY CLEVELAND AVENUE OLD BOSTON ROAD POST MAIN STREET SUNHAVEN DRIVE 18 52 392 260 132 61 869 19 774 269 3 18 857 38 67 26 782 556 408 742 541 514 635 602 58 24 678 826 703 7 26 851 805 689 833 209 28 679 9 657 555 0 2 192 324 421 19 1 72 10 2 16 682 4 5 2 51 11 PROSPECT MAIN STREET 9 3 6 4 8 3 6 3 8 5 2 AVENUE 1 5 10 13 28 41 22 LANE DINER 20 POINT 372 458 371 10 AVENUE AVENUE 202 AVENUE AVENUE NB I-95 RAMPS WEYMAN CHERRY PREMIUM Le FEVRE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY EMERSON WOODSIDE DRIVEWAY Figure 3-3 2005 Existing Traffic Volumes 1 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS PM Peak Hour (5:00 - 6:00 PM) NOTE 1: Includes Existing Traffic, Growth Factor and Phase I Development Traffic

LA SALLE LAFAYETTE LAWN LYNETTE

MAY 4 4TH BURLING

9.10.07 WASHINGTON N UNION I 95 PALMER 3RD ACORN EVERGREEN WALNUT HIGH BEECHWOOD 2ND GRAND GARDEN GRIFFEN 1ST JONES WARREN COTTAGE HOMESTEAD FIR PETERSVILLE BADEAU MEMORIAL RENEWAL PALMER CHARLES GROVE RHODES BELMONT CEMETERY MONROE SHERMAN KINGS LYONS SUNHAVEN

BEECHWOOD WALNUT WARREN CEDAR GLEN C HALLIGAN STONELEA RE RADISSON S ODELL BRIDGE HERTFORD C MECHANIC ENT R WILSON E P HARDING O PRATT GRANT RHODES O R LINCOLN DEARBORN O I 95 D HARDING P C R LA HILL N ZA A SUNHAVEN LDS A SYCAMORE ADAMS N ROCKDALE JACKSON E MERTON RIVER P

HIGHLAND S

RONALDS L MADISON OST LECOUNT P HARRISON FLOWER FOUNTAIN TON

STEPHENSON S WEBSTER RELYEA D BO LINCOLN OL HUGUENOT PELHAMSIDE PINE MEMORIAL WESTCHESTER PREMIUM LAWTON BOSTON POST EMERSON MORAN CHERRY ND A W HIGHVIEW VEL CLIFF VIE E EA L BIRCH S C CHESTER MAIN E N R O EVERETT HUNTINGTON H LAR T GAIL LE FEVRE CENTRE LAFAYETTE W LEROY EVANS A MARVIN CLINTON H

LAUREL PINTARD R A G ECHO VILLUS SHEA A

DIVISION BONNEFOY BAYVIEW

FRANKLIN

CHURCH PC RAILROAD INDUSTRIAL MAPLE PROSPECT D EC General Traffic Conditions: WEYMAN DRAKE ATUR NORTH ALLARD JOHN WOODLAND LIBERTY LOCUST OVERALL LOS Acceptable for Downtown Urban Areas 5 - Intersection Approach Operating at LOS E or F SOUNDVIEW A C E 1 - Intersections with an Overall LOS E or F B D F 3 - Intersections Where the Queue Length Exceeds Storage Capacity 0 500 1000 FEET 2005 Existing Optimized (Signal) Conditions - AM Peak Hour1

SCALE NOTE 1: Corresponds to Column 1 on Table 3-2 (LOS) and 3-3 (Queue Length) Queue Length

HIGH BEECHWOOD UNION GARDEN GRIFFEN JONES PEMBROKE HOMESTEAD FIR N RENEWAL PALMER 1ST BADEAU PALMER CHARLES LA SALLE BELMONT GROVE RHODES CEMETERY MEMORIAL MONROE SHERMAN KINGS LYONS SUNHAVEN

WALNUT WARREN GLEN 2ND C CEDAR R RADISSON E BRIDGE S ODELL HERTFORD C MECHANIC BEECHWOOD ENT WILSON R STONELEA E

HARDING P

PRATT GRANT O R I 95 LINCOLN D PETERSVILLE HARDING O O RHODES PL R A C HILL N ZA A ADAMS A SUNHAVEN LDS SYCAMORE N ROCKDALE JACKSON E MERTON RIVER P

HIGHLAND S I RONALDS L MADISON OST LECOUNT P HARRISON N FLOWER FOUNTAIN STO WEBSTER RELYEA D BO LINCOLN OL

MEMORIAL HUGUENOT PELHAMSIDE PINE WESTCHESTER LAWTON BOSTON POST

EMERSON MORAN STEPHENSON D CHERRY PREMIUM N A W HIGHVIEW L CLIFF IE EVE AV L BIRCH E S STER C CHE MAIN E N R O EVERETT HUNTINGTON H RD T AILLA LAFAYETTE LE FEVRE W G LEROY EVANS A H INDUSTRIAL MARVIN CLINTON

LAUREL PINTARD R A G VILLUS SHEA A BONNEFOY BAYVIEW PC RAILROAD INDUSTRIAL

PROSPECT ECHO DIVISION D MAPLE E WOODLAND C AT R FRANKLIN U

CHURCH JOHN ALLARD LIBERTY

LOCUST WEYMAN DRAKE SOUNDVIEW NORTH BAYARD HICKORY General Traffic Conditions: Generally Acceptable CENTRE DAVIS UNION OR LAUREL TON MAN LINDEN DAVIS ACACIA SUT (More Congestion Compared to the AM Peak Hour) OVERALL LOS 9 - IntersectionWOODBURY Approach Operating at LOS E or F

PARK A C E 0 - Intersections with an Overall LOS E or F B D F 7 - Intersections Where the Queue Length Exceeds Storage Capacity 0 500 1000 FEET 2005 Existing Optimized (Signal) Conditions - PM Peak Hour2 NOTE 2: Corresponds to Column 2 on Table 3-2 (LOS) and 3-3 (Queue Length) SCALE Queue Length

Figure 3-4 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS 2005 Existing Optimized Conditions - Overall Intersection LOS Chapter 3: Traffic the LOS conditions at the study area intersections for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. In summary, the City Signal Timing Study demonstrates that when the timings are implemented in the field, intersections operate at acceptable LOS conditions.

VEHICULAR QUEUES Based on the Synchro analysis, vehicle queuing does not pose a significant problem along the study area roadways in the existing conditions during the AM peak hour, and access along study area roadways does not appear to be restricted by vehicle queues. However, during the PM peak hour, there would be occasional blockages at several intersection approaches, mostly along the Main Street corridor. It should be noted that these blockages may exceed the link capacities at the intersection approaches, and generally clear in one-to-two signal cycles. Of the 128 intersection approaches analyzed, only 3 intersection approaches were found to have queue lengths that exceed the link’s capacity in the AM peak hour. However, in the PM peak hour 8 approaches have queue lengths that exceed the link’s capacity. The majority of these 8 intersections are located outside the study area boundaries near the I-95 interchange and Weyman Avenue. The northbound Main Street approaches at Memorial Highway and North Avenue would also have queue lengths that exceed the capacity. The results of queuing analysis for the study area intersection approaches are presented in Table 3-3. (A graphical depiction of queuing conditions at the study area intersection approaches for both the AM and PM peak hours is also presented in Figure 3-4.) In summary, the existing traffic conditions are generally at acceptable queue conditions.

D. 2007 FUTURE (“NO BUILD”) CONDITIONS

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The 2007 Future traffic conditions expected in the study area were ascertained based on the traffic from general population growth (i.e., “background growth”); and traffic from the Phase I and Phase II development projects in the study area. The Phase I developments are Avalon Phase II, Parcel 1A, 543 Main Street/Bluegill, and Palladium/M Squared. The Phase II developments are LeCount Square and Church/Division. Based on guidance from the City of New Rochelle, a 2 percent overall growth factor was applied to the 2005 existing traffic volumes. The traffic generated by the future Phase I and Phase II development projects was estimated based on data contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition and the relevant environmental studies (when available). Table 3-4 summarizes the total vehicular trips generated by the Phase I and Phase II development projects during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The traffic generated by the proposed developments was assigned to the roadway network based on the existing travel patterns in the area.

3-5 09/20/07

New Rochelle Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Table 3-3 Queue Lengths

2005 Existing Optimized Conditions 2007 Schoor DePalma Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (3) 2007 Schoor DePalma Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (3) Queue Length (ft.)(5)/(car length)(6) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length)

AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall Link Capacity (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection Intersection Approach (ft.) lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS Main Street and Cleveland Avenue Cleveland Avenue Eastbound 110 55 3 B 39 2 B 57 3 B 40 2 B 57 3 A 40 2 A 57 3 B 40 2 B 57 3 A 40 2 B Main Street Northbound 570 163 8 227 11 182 9 141 7 182 9 141 7 216 11 176 9 216 11 176 9 Main Street Southbound 351 131 7 ** ** 140 7 286 14 75 4 94 5 155 8 ** ** 57 3 255 13 Main Street and SB I-95 Ramps SB I-95 Ramps Eastbound 1000 183 9 490 25 193 10 522 26 187 9 336 17 198 10 537 27 198 10 436 22 Driveway Westbound 100 9 0 B 20 1 B 9 0 B 20 1 B 9 0 A 14 1 B 9 0 B 20 1 C 9 0 A 17 1 C Main Street Northbound 351 248 12 139 7 295 15 194 10 49 2 111 6 348 17 273 14 57 3 266 13 Main Street Southbound 547 4 0 16 1 11 1 22 1 10 1 242 12 16 1 40 2 0 0 346 17

Main Street and NB I-95 Ramps NB I-95 Ramps Westbound 950 25 1 B 44 2 B 27 1 B 46 2 C 27 1 A 46 2 B 27 1 C 47 2 C 26 1 C 44 2 C Main Street Northbound 547 301 15 434 22 352 18 482 24 120 6 203 10 405 20 544 27 274 14 432 22 Main Street Southbound 704 200 10 308 15 206 10 346 17 188 9 158 8 372 19 411 21 461 23 530 27

Main Street and Weyman Avenue Driveway Eastbound 35 32 2 21 1 32 2 21 1 34 2 21 1 32 2 21 1 32 2 22 1 Weyman Avenue Westbound 161 ** ** B ** ** C ** ** B ** ** C ** ** B ** ** C ** ** B ** ** C ** ** B ** ** C Main Street Northbound 704 74 4 73 4 97 5 106 5 133 7 293 15 134 7 148 7 108 5 271 14 Main Street Southbound 326 99 5 242 12 136 7 311 16 150 8 ** ** 188 9 ** ** 218 11 ** **

Main Street and Kings Highway Kings Highway Eastbound 620 320 16 378 19 345 17 398 20 281 14 344 17 375 19 435 22 310 16 371 19 Driveway Westbound 86 36 2 B 41 2 C 36 2 B 41 2 C 32 2 C 37 2 C 36 2 C 43 2 C 33 2 B 38 2 D Main Street Northbound 326 24 1 37 2 26 1 51 3 61 3 198 10 42 2 172 9 123 6 272 14 Main Street Southbound 382 45 2 50 3 47 2 65 3 167 8 158 8 50 3 97 5 160 8 376 19

Main Street and Allard Avenue Allard Avenue Westbound 539 46 2 B 54 3 B 47 2 B 56 3 B 47 2 A 56 3 B 48 2 B 57 3 B 48 2 B 64 3 A Main Street Northbound 382 152 8 243 12 215 11 304 15 206 10 183 9 275 14 ** ** 307 15 262 13 Main Street Southbound 300 246 12 300 15 273 14 300 15 67 3 210 11 ** ** ** ** 76 4 191 10

Main Street and Cliff Street/Drake Avenue Cliff Street Eastbound 255 180 9 ** ** 191 10 ** ** 166 8 255 13 206 10 ** ** 170 9 ** ** Drake Avenue Westbound 516 195 10 B 166 8 C 211 11 C 175 9 C 180 9 B 171 9 C 225 11 C 192 10 C 183 9 A 174 9 C Main Street Northbound 291 46 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** 290 15 262 13 ** ** ** ** 6 0 ** ** Main Street Southbound 461 33 2 40 2 36 2 49 2 38 2 226 11 38 2 51 3 206 10 ** **

Main Street and Beechwood/Woodland Avenues Beechwood Avenue Eastbound 1395 144 7 136 7 149 7 142 7 149 7 142 7 151 8 145 7 149 7 151 8 Woodland Avenue Westbound 590 242 12 C 133 7 B 258 13 B 139 7 B 238 12 B 139 7 C 266 13 B 141 7 D 253 13 C 148 7 C Main Street Northbound 461 365 18 298 15 ** ** 341 17 172 9 409 20 ** ** 409 20 233 12 ** ** Main Street Southbound 399 101 5 285 14 115 6 335 17 93 5 325 16 126 6 ** ** 181 9 ** **

Main Street and Webster Avenue Webster Avenue Eastbound 321 320 16 ** ** ** ** ** ** 275 14 293 15 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Driveway Westbound 55 62 3 B 92 5 B 64 3 B 97 5 C 57 3 B 84 4 C 65 3 B 101 5 D 64 3 B 97 5 D Main Street Northbound 399 66 3 120 6 96 5 156 8 125 6 244 12 125 6 308 15 160 8 347 17 Main Street Southbound 342 80 4 152 8 88 4 188 9 162 8 102 5 97 5 268 13 52 3 288 14

Notes: LOS = Level of Service. ** Queue Length Exceeds Intersection Storage Capacity N.A. Not Available (Not computed in the Schoor Depalma study -Traffic Signal Optimization Analysis for Huguenot and Main Street Corridor Traffic Optimization Study, June 2005) (1) Phase I includes Avalon II, Bluegill, Parcel 1A, and Palladium Projects (2) Data sourced from Traffic Signal Optimization Analysis for Huguenot Street and Main Street Corridor Traffic Optimization Study, June 2005 (Prepared by Schoor DePalma) (3) Consists of simple signal retimings and phase changes to Schoor DePalma Optimized Timings. (4) Phase II also includes Church/Division, LeCount Square, and "100% Corner" Projects (5) 95th Percentile Queue as calculated by Synchro (Queue length that occurs 95 percent of the time during red cycles) (6) Queue length expressed in number of cars (Each car occupies approximately 20 feet of queue length) New Rochelle Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Table 3-3 (Continued) Queue Lengths

2005 Existing Optimized Conditions 2007 Schoor DePalma Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (3) 2007 Schoor DePalma Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (3) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length)

AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall Link Capacity (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection Intersection Approach (ft.) lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS Main Street/Huguenot Avenue and Pintard Avenue Driveway Eastbound 112 19 1 25 1 19 1 25 1 19 1 25 1 19 1 25 1 19 1 25 1 Pintard Street Westbound 246 109 5 B 62 3 A 114 6 B 64 3 A 112 6 B 64 3 A 116 6 B 64 3 A 116 6 B 64 3 A Main Street Northbound 342 192 10 137 7 201 10 204 10 173 9 118 6 244 12 183 9 240 12 174 9 Huguenot Avenue Southbound 662 64 3 52 3 69 3 58 3 134 7 50 3 87 4 81 4 269 13 67 3

Main Street and Maple Avenue Maple Avenue Westbound 465 93 5 A 0 0 A 120 6 A 0 0 A 120 6 B 0 0 A 142 7 A 16 1 A 142 7 B 16 1 A Main Street Northbound 595 30 2 22 1 33 2 23 1 328 16 270 14 33 2 23 1 461 23 23 1

Main Street and Centre Avenue Centre Avenue Eastbound 414 243 12 B 215 11 B 287 14 C 369 18 C 230 12 B 282 14 B 362 18 C 394 20 D 226 11 B 235 12 C Centre Avenue Westbound 243 ** ** 243 12 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Main Street Northbound 487 363 18 205 10 427 21 324 16 98 5 300 15 ** ** 407 20 243 12 409 20

Main Street and Division Street South Division Street South Eastbound 602 322 16 C 335 17 C 330 17 C 324 16 C 193 10 B 145 7 B 387 19 B 322 16 C 203 10 B 322 16 C Main Street Northbound 477 112 6 151 8 123 6 205 10 177 9 191 10 126 6 203 10 265 13 163 8

Main Street and Church Street/Memorial Hwy. Church Street Westbound 338 257 13 B 245 12 B 273 14 C 260 13 B 183 9 B 250 13 B ** ** C ** ** C 217 11 C ** ** B Main Street Northbound 264 425 21 ** ** 610 31 ** ** 171 9 161 8 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Main Street and Lawton Street Lawton Street Eastbound 764 13 1 A 50 3 A 20 1 A 54 3 A 45 2 A 48 2 A 32 2 A 58 3 A 20 1 A 58 3 A Main Street Northbound 212 44 2 40 2 45 2 42 2 50 3 43 2 118 6 142 7 100 5 142 7

Main Street and North Avenue North Avenue Eastbound 453 121 6 B 112 6 B 118 6 B 108 5 B 59 3 B 60 3 B 140 7 B 150 8 C 58 3 B 247 12 C North Avenue Westbound 403 121 6 71 4 127 6 74 4 74 4 57 3 124 6 35 2 127 6 35 2 Main Street Northbound 304 13 1 ** ** 15 1 ** ** 197 10 ** ** 27 1 130 7 ** ** 129 6

Main Street and Locust Avenue/Le Count Place Le Count Place Eastbound 437 19 1 B 42 2 A 22 1 B 192 10 B 96 5 B 306 15 C 42 2 B ** ** C 146 7 B ** ** C Locust Avenue Westbound 393 165 8 107 5 172 9 112 6 172 9 97 5 172 9 112 6 172 9 102 5 Main Street Northbound 289 230 12 103 5 244 12 145 7 175 9 177 9 ** ** 139 7 256 13 143 7

Main Street and Franklin Avenue Franklin Avenue Westbound 300 87 4 A 27 1 B 107 5 B 51 3 B 107 5 A 51 3 B 121 6 B 69 3 B 117 6 B 69 3 B Main Street Northbound 412 120 6 291 15 189 9 397 20 341 17 211 11 257 13 ** ** ** ** ** **

Main Street and Harrison Street Harrison Street Eastbound 337 61 3 A 80 4 A 66 3 A 98 5 A 38 2 A 115 6 A 77 4 A 165 8 B 62 3 C 158 8 B Main Street Northbound 244 72 4 40 2 79 4 80 4 68 3 33 2 93 5 100 5 ** ** 94 5

2005 Existing Optimized Conditions 2007 Schoor DePalma Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (3) 2007 Schoor DePalma Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (3) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length)

AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall AM Peak Hour Overall PM Peak Hour Overall Link Capacity (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection (ft.) (car Intersection Intersection Approach (ft.) lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS lengths) LOS Main Street and Echo Avenue/River Street River Street Eastbound 375 231 12 C 260 13 B 268 13 C 300 15 B 253 13 C ** ** C 290 15 C 327 16 C 258 13 C 327 16 C Echo Avenue Westbound 337 294 15 108 5 316 16 120 6 315 16 130 7 330 17 127 6 ** ** 127 6 Main Street Northbound 730 273 14 238 12 317 16 323 16 246 12 378 19 548 27 ** ** 356 18 ** **

Main Street and Stephenson Blvd. Stephenson Boulevard Eastbound 651 126 6 B 68 3 B 131 7 B 70 4 B 131 7 B 70 4 A 133 7 B 70 4 B 133 7 B 70 4 B Driveway Westbound 115 39 2 14 1 41 2 14 1 41 2 14 1 41 2 14 1 44 2 14 1 Main Street Northbound 741 126 6 103 5 177 9 112 6 189 9 101 5 182 9 120 6 163 8 119 6 Main Street Southbound 716 298 15 444 22 325 16 483 24 290 15 12 1 366 18 535 27 312 16 535 27

Main Street and Le Fevres Lane Le Fevres Lane Westbound 562 27 1 B 30 2 B 28 1 B 31 2 B 28 1 A 31 2 A 28 1 B 31 2 B 28 1 A 31 2 B Main Street Northbound 716 432 22 334 17 521 26 372 19 261 13 286 14 557 28 440 22 292 15 440 22 Main Street Southbound 482 23 1 17 1 24 1 18 1 26 1 10 1 28 1 35 2 48 2 35 2

Main Street and Stonlea Place Stonlea Place Eastbound 148 32 2 A 21 1 A 32 2 A 21 1 A 32 2 A 21 1 A 32 2 A 22 1 A 32 2 A 22 1 A Main Street Northbound 482 26 1 12 1 9 0 16 1 30 2 33 2 9 0 20 1 28 1 20 1 Main Street Southbound 519 29 1 42 2 31 2 45 2 61 3 2 0 37 2 70 4 70 4 70 4

Main Street and Cherry Ave./Old Boston Post Rd. Old Boston Post Road Eastbound 368 29 1 33 2 24 1 34 2 24 1 34 2 24 1 34 2 24 1 34 2 Cherry Avenue Westbound 246 27 1 A 22 1 A 24 1 B 22 1 A 24 1 A 22 1 B 25 1 B 22 1 A 25 1 A 22 1 A Main Street Northbound 519 95 5 7 0 132 7 7 0 33 2 110 6 164 8 51 3 32 2 51 3 Main Street Southbound 288 111 6 195 10 137 7 243 12 85 4 105 5 197 10 ** ** 98 5 ** **

Main Street and Premium Point Rd/Sunhaven Dr. Sunhaven Drive Eastbound 210 93 5 112 6 96 5 116 6 96 5 116 6 99 5 119 6 99 5 119 6 Premium Point Road Westbound 1673 18 1 A 22 1 A 18 1 A 22 1 A 18 1 A 22 1 A 18 1 A 22 1 A 18 1 A 22 1 A Main Street Northbound 288 42 2 14 1 37 2 28 1 7 0 9 0 37 2 41 2 8 0 41 2 Main Street Southbound 227 31 2 36 2 33 2 38 2 33 2 38 2 38 2 41 2 38 2 41 2

Main Street and Emerson Avenue Emerson Avenue Westbound 229 60 3 A 54 3 B 62 3 A 56 3 B 62 3 A 56 3 A 63 3 A 56 3 B 63 3 A 56 3 B Main Street Northbound 227 66 3 53 3 80 4 55 3 26 1 38 2 80 4 61 3 31 2 61 3 Main Street Southbound 232 131 7 228 11 145 7 ** ** 145 7 ** ** 166 8 ** ** 166 8 ** **

Huguenot Street and Centre Street Centre Street Eastbound 222 209 10 B 97 5 B 220 11 B 109 5 B 216 11 B 109 5 B ** ** B 110 6 B 185 9 B 110 6 B Centre Street Westbound 414 176 9 197 10 174 9 202 10 133 7 224 11 176 9 199 10 106 5 184 9 Huguenot Street Southbound 500 148 7 336 17 125 6 327 16 143 7 128 6 132 7 462 23 138 7 462 23

Huguenot Street and Division Street Division Street Eastbound 211 124 6 B 165 8 B 136 7 B 188 9 B 136 7 B 188 9 B 138 7 B 208 10 B 138 7 B 208 10 B Huguenot Street Southbound 266 31 2 84 4 38 2 108 5 123 6 229 11 48 2 252 13 111 6 250 13

Huguenot Street and Memorial Hwy. Memorial Highway Westbound 680 132 7 B 97 5 B 158 8 B 131 7 B 106 5 B 93 5 B 150 8 B 120 6 B 124 6 B 120 6 B Huguenot Street Southbound 280 92 5 280 14 100 5 403 20 87 4 180 9 98 5 ** ** 90 5 ** **

2005 Existing Optimized Conditions 2007 Schoor DePalma Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (3) 2007 Schoor DePalma Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (3) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length)

Huguenot Street and North Avenue North Avenue Eastbound 395 155 8 B 156 8 B 178 9 B 181 9 B 178 9 B 181 9 B 247 12 B 256 13 C 247 12 B 256 13 C North Avenue Westbound 414 29 1 85 4 42 2 98 5 67 3 131 7 74 4 234 12 92 5 130 7 Huguenot Street Southbound 363 124 6 313 16 84 4 186 9 100 5 129 6 99 5 ** ** 170 9 197 10

Huguenot Street and Lecount Place Driveway Eastbound N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 44 2 227 11 50 3 220 11 44 2 244 12 46 2 279 14 Lecount Place Westbound 392 107 5 A 91 5 A 204 10 B ** ** C 234 12 B 323 16 C 381 19 B ** ** F 202 10 B ** ** D Huguenot Street Southbound 586 54 3 76 4 247 12 156 8 160 8 164 8 254 13 447 22 168 8 532 27

Huguenot Street and Harrison Street Harrison Street Westbound 435 98 5 A 275 14 A 102 5 B 286 14 B 143 7 B 154 8 A 112 6 B 327 16 C 134 7 A 292 15 C Huguenot Street Southbound 286 60 3 63 3 229 11 279 14 125 6 169 8 284 14 ** ** 48 2 ** **

Huguenot Street and Cedar Street Cedar Street Eastbound 332 41 2 B 43 2 A ** ** C ** ** C 275 14 B 205 10 B ** ** C ** ** C 123 6 B ** ** B Huguenot Street Southbound 478 63 3 0 0 63 3 0 0 81 4 101 5 67 3 30 2 134 7 30 2

Huguenot Street and River Street River Street Eastbound 540 70 4 B 150 8 A 75 4 C 138 7 B 43 2 C 85 4 B 77 4 D 126 6 C 95 5 C 156 8 C River Street Westbound 375 744 37 252 13 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Huguenot Street Southbound 245 16 1 171 9 16 1 199 10 72 4 234 12 52 3 221 11 62 3 221 11

Huguenot Street and Jackson Street Jackson Street Eastbound 329 23 1 A 68 3 A 34 2 A 75 4 A 34 2 A 75 4 A 48 2 A 80 4 B 48 2 B 80 4 B Huguenot Street Southbound 217 26 1 95 5 27 1 118 6 52 3 65 3 29 1 144 7 55 3 144 7

Anderson Street and North Avenue North Avenue Eastbound 414 83 4 C 81 4 C 231 12 C 289 14 D 153 8 B 179 9 B ** ** F ** ** F 161 8 C 126 6 B North Avenue Westbound 453 158 8 187 9 183 9 207 10 191 10 198 10 207 10 220 11 276 14 192 10 Anderson Street Southbound 323 104 5 88 4 108 5 90 5 26 1 28 1 108 5 92 5 19 1 85 4

Anderson Street and Lecount Place Lecount Place Eastbound 81 116 6 C ** ** D 121 6 C ** ** C ** ** B ** ** C ** ** C ** ** E 74 4 C ** ** D Lecount Place Westbound 437 163 8 238 12 214 11 269 13 178 9 172 9 319 16 396 20 154 8 401 20 Anderson Street Northbound 323 132 7 165 8 117 6 131 7 171 9 179 9 116 6 132 7 323 16 ** ** Driveway Southbound N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 50 3 391 20 50 3 335 17

Harrison Street and Cedar Street Harrison Street Eastbound 435 102 5 84 4 106 5 85 4 47 2 70 4 114 6 93 5 66 3 56 3 Harrison Street Westbound 337 38 2 E 33 2 D 34 2 E 29 1 D 27 1 C 31 2 C 32 2 E 23 1 D 13 1 C 42 2 C Driveway Northbound N.A. 51 3 142 7 54 3 153 8 54 3 148 7 58 3 186 9 58 3 180 9 Cedar Street Southbound 121 ** ** 100 5 ** ** 103 5 106 5 58 3 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

2005 Existing Optimized Conditions 2007 Schoor DePalma Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase I (1) Optimized Timings (3) 2007 Schoor DePalma Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (2) 2007 AKRF Phase II (4) Optimized Timings (3) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length) Queue Length (ft.)/(car length)

Cross St/Palmer Ave. and River St River Street Westbound 450 204 10 B 98 5 B 222 11 B 98 5 C 119 6 B 90 5 C 254 13 B 133 7 C 153 8 B 133 7 C Palmer Avenue Southbound 1234 286 14 155 8 309 15 155 8 309 15 69 3 326 16 277 14 366 18 277 14

Cross Street and Cedar Street Cedar Street Eastbound 424 255 13 C 238 12 C 285 14 C 238 12 C 301 15 C 319 16 C 350 18 C 342 17 C 363 18 C 342 17 C Cross Street Southbound 298 98 5 159 8 108 5 159 8 106 5 161 8 125 6 200 10 148 7 39 2 Commerce Drive Northbound 241 N.A. N.A. 209 10 N.A. N.A. 209 10 N.A. N.A. 182 9 0 0 ** ** 0 0 213 11

Clinton Place and North Avenue North Avenue Eastbound 403 91 5 97 5 36 2 97 5 37 2 94 5 28 1 73 4 80 4 73 4 North Avenue Westbound 357 62 3 B 83 4 B 70 4 B 83 4 B 70 4 B 87 4 B 74 4 B 95 5 B 96 5 B 95 5 B Clinton Place Northbound 490 58 3 104 5 65 3 104 5 114 6 88 4 23 1 56 3 16 1 56 3 Clinton Place Southbound 229 64 3 52 3 128 6 52 3 128 6 55 3 132 7 55 3 108 5 55 3

Clinton Place and Church Street Church Street Westbound 226 72 4 B 82 4 B 82 4 B 82 4 B 107 5 B 63 3 A ** ** B ** ** B ** ** B ** ** B Clinton Place Northbound 262 92 5 96 5 96 5 96 5 110 6 61 3 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Clinton Place Southbound 490 94 5 95 5 74 4 95 5 69 3 14 1 101 5 255 13 118 6 255 13

Bonnefoy Place and Church Street Church Street Eastbound 226 22 1 A 32 2 A 24 1 A 32 2 A 28 1 A 45 2 B 39 2 A 51 3 A 35 2 A 51 3 A Church Street Westbound 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bonnefoy Place Southbound 419 46 2 41 2 47 2 41 2 47 2 42 2 47 2 42 2 47 2 42 2

Prospect Street and Church Street Church Street Eastbound 166 4 0 B 5 0 B 4 0 B 5 0 B 4 0 B 28 1 B 2 0 C 3 0 C 2 0 B 3 0 C Church Street Westbound 182 178 9 133 7 182 9 133 7 182 9 144 7 182 9 152 8 182 9 152 8 Prospect Street Northbound 272 40 2 32 2 42 2 32 2 37 2 28 1 75 4 80 4 69 3 80 4

Prospect Street and Division Street S. Division Street South Eastbound 371 16 1 A 121 6 B 22 1 A 121 6 B 23 1 A 39 2 A 15 1 A 328 16 B 19 1 A 329 16 B Prospect Street Northbound 434 23 1 60 3 23 1 60 3 23 1 63 3 38 2 78 4 38 2 78 4 Prospect Street Southbound 272 20 1 22 1 21 1 22 1 14 1 16 1 28 1 34 2 17 1 34 2

Total # of approaches with queue lengths that exceed link capacity: 388 124 817281124 Total # of intersection with queue lengths that exceed link capacity: 378 114 715241119 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

Table 3-4 Phase I and Phase II Trip Generation Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total Total In Trips Out Trips Trips In Trips Out Trips Trips Phase I Parcel 1A 187 83 270 253 262 515 Avalon 2 site driveway (1) 26 76 102 73 47 120 total new trips (2) 12 38 50 106 56 162 543 Main Street/Bluegill 20 24 44 47 45 92 Palladium/M Squared 7 29 36 20 13 33 Phase I Total (3) 226 174 400 426 376 802 Phase II Church/Division (4) 92 166 258 246 194 440 LeCount Square 582 224 806 516 823 1,339 Phase II Total 674 390 1,064 762 1,017 1,779

Total new trips, 900 564 1,464 1,188 1,393 2,581 Phase I & Phase II

Notes: (1) Includes only trips entering or leaving the new site driveway (2) Includes net gain in trips to project network after adjusting for changes between 2000 and 2005 projects, and accounting for loss of commuter parking in existing project garages. (3) Includes total new trips entering project network from Avalon 2 (4) Includes primary trips only, not passby trips

Phase I Development The 2007 Future Traffic Volumes for the Phase I development scenario are shown in Figures 3-5 and 3-6 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Figure 3-7 shows the results of capacity analysis for the overall intersection conditions; whereas Table 3-2 presents in detail the LOS conditions expected at the study area intersections after the completion of Phase I developments for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. In general, the study area intersections would be able to accommodate the increase in traffic levels in the Phase I development scenario—with minor revisions to the signal phasing plans recommended in the City Signal Timing Study (to be implemented by the City of New Rochelle). All intersections would operate acceptably at overall LOS D or better. Phase II Development The 2007 Future Traffic Volumes for the Phase II development scenario are shown in Figures 3- 8 and 3-9 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Figure 3-10 shows the results of capacity analysis for the overall intersection conditions. Table 3-2 presents in detail the LOS conditions expected at the study area intersections after the completion of Phase II developments for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

09/20/07 3-6

Table 3-6 2007 Additional 690,000 sq. ft. Developments (1) Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections 2007 AKRF Phase II (2) Optimized Timings (3) 2007 AKRF Additional 690,000 sq. ft. Developments (1) Timings 2007 AKRF Additional 690,000 sq. ft. Developments (1) Timings with Mitigation AM PM AM PM AM PM Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Intersection Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Group Ratio (seconds) LOS Main Street & Kings Highway Eastbound LT 0.77 52.1 D LT 0.84 57.0 E LT 0.76 51.0 D LT 0.84 57.0 E R 0.30 16.6 B R 0.24 36.2 D R 0.32 16.8 B R 0.24 36.2 D Westbound LTR 0.05 30.4 C LTR 0.06 29.1 C LTR 0.05 30.4 C LTR 0.06 29.1 C No mitigation required Northbound LTR 0.64 9.0 A LTR 0.87 19.5 B LTR 0.71 10.3 B LTR 0.95 25.2 C Southbound LTR 0.51 12.1 B LTR 0.77 28.7 C LTR 0.57 13.3 B LTR 0.97 43.4 D Int. 0.68 16.2 B Int. 0.86 28.7 C Int. 0.72 16.7 B Int. 0.92 36.1 D Main Street & North Avenue (4) Eastbound LT 0.59 9.9 A LT 0.70 33.3 C LT 0.99 11.5 B LT 0.87 44.3 D LT 0.99 19.3 B LT 0.87 55.0 D Westbound TR 0.27 23.4 C TR 0.26 17.5 B TR 0.33 25.4 C TR 0.29 19.2 B TR 0.33 25.4 C TR 0.29 19.2 B Northbound LTR 0.94 12.3 B LTR 0.97 22.3 C LTR 1.24 124.4 F LTR 1.31 161.9 F L 0.92 17.5 B L 0.94 31.1 C TR 0.76 8.9 A TR 0.81 18.3 B Int. 0.79 13.1 B Int. 0.86 24.5 C Int. 1.01 92.4 F Int. 1.01 94.7 F Int. 0.82 14.9 B Int. 0.91 29.9 C Main St. & Locust Ave./Lecount Pl. (5) Eastbound L 0.41 33.6 C L 1.07 69.3 E L 0.41 32.9 C L 1.07 73.0 E L 1.02 54.9 D T 0.08 25.5 C T 0.18 7.5 A T 0.08 24.7 C T 0.18 8.5 A T 0.17 7.4 A Westbound TR 0.35 26.3 C TR 0.21 21.7 C TR 0.36 26.5 C TR 0.25 22.2 CNo mitigation required TR 0.24 20.9 C Northbound LTR 0.80 13.4 B L 0.38 10.9 B LTR 0.87 15.4 B L 0.38 12.4 B L 0.39 9.6 A TR 0.57 11.3 B TR 0.71 14.5 B TR 0.73 11.7 B Int. 0.64 16.8 B Int. 0.79 24.5 C Int. 0.68 18.2 B Int. 0.87 25.8 C Int. 0.86 20.3 C Huguenot Street & North Ave. (6) Eastbound T 0.51 28.1 C T 0.53 28.4 C T 0.56 29.1 C T 0.62 30.4 C T 0.56 29.1 C T 0.73 37.4 D R 0.28 25.4 C R 0.36 26.7 C R 0.86 46.5 D R 0.77 39.7 D R 0.85 45.7 D R 0.86 52.8 D Westbound L 0.52 21.6 C L 0.82 32.9 C L 1.37 219.9 F L 1.72 371.2 F L 0.76 38.3 D L 0.63 24.7 C T 0.40 2.1 A T 0.34 8.2 A T 0.61 1.0 A T 0.55 6.1 A T 1.03 52.6 D T 0.83 12.3 B Southbound T 0.43 17.7 B T 0.64 14.0 B T 0.51 23.0 C T 0.67 15.6 B T 0.51 23.0 C T 0.75 18.6 B R 0.46 15.5 B R 1.06 50.3 D R 0.65 19.4 B R 1.19 101.1 F R 0.61 18.9 B R 1.02 32.1 C Int. 0.49 17.8 B Int. 0.96 26.9 C Int. 1.02 41.0 D Int. 1.23 40.9 D Int. 0.83 34.1 C Int. 0.96 26.8 C Huguenot Street & Lecount Place Eastbound TR 0.08 25.1 C TR 0.71 49.5 D TR 0.08 25.1 C TR 0.71 49.6 D Westbound LT 0.58 27.3 C LT 1.05 75.9 E LT 0.58 28.1 C LT 1.05 75.9 E No mitigation required Southbound LTR 0.49 11.7 B LT 0.85 28.0 C LTR 0.59 15.4 B LT 0.90 30.6 C Int. 0.53 15.4 B Int. 0.94 38.3 D Int. 0.58 17.9 B Int. 0.96 39.8 D Huguenot Street & River Street (7) Eastbound T 0.30 6.1 A T 0.32 26.3 C T 0.30 6.7 A T 0.32 26.2 C T 0.29 6.5 A T 0.29 18.1 B Westbound L 0.51 24.8 C L 0.11 23.1 C L 0.51 24.9 C L 0.11 24.0 C L 0.48 24.0 C L 0.09 17.3 B T 1.06 71.8 E T 1.10 86.6 F T 1.09 82.7 F T 1.16 107.6 F T 1.05 67.7 E T 1.03 50.4 D Southbound L 0.23 8.1 A L 0.60 7.7 A L 0.23 9.4 A L 0.60 8.6 A L 0.24 10.0 A L 0.68 12.8 B TR 0.39 7.1 A TR 0.47 4.0 A TR 0.49 9.6 A TR 0.52 5.3 A TR 0.51 10.0 B TR 0.58 7.8 A Int. 0.74 31.0 C Int. 0.84 33.1 C Int. 0.80 34.3 C Int. 0.87 39.9 D Int. 0.80 29.4 C Int. 0.87 23.0 C Anderson Street & North Avenue (8) Eastbound L 0.53 15.6 B L 0.46 13.9 B L 0.64 25.2 C L 0.62 21.6 C L 0.82 35.1 D T 0.48 5.9 A T 0.55 8.4 A T 0.55 6.9 A T 0.66 10.6 B T 0.55 6.9 A No mitigation required Westbound TR 0.61 40.1 D TR 0.51 19.4 B TR 1.08 73.7 E TR 0.85 25.0 C TR 0.92 42.0 D Southbound LR 0.10 8.4 A LR 0.10 62.6 E LR 0.10 11.4 B LR 0.10 62.6 E LR 0.10 19.8 B Int. 0.37 22.7 C Int. 0.40 16.2 B Int. 0.55 46.7 D Int. 0.55 21.0 C Int. 0.54 30.8 C Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, DefL = Defacto Left Turn; LOS = Level of Service. (1) Beyond Phase I and Phase II Developments. Includes two 690,000 sq. ft. mixed residential and office/retail use for a total of 1,380,000 sq. ft. (2) Phase II also includes Church/Division and LeCount SquareProjects (3) Consists of simple signal retimings and phase changes to City Optimized Timings. (4) Geometric changes at Main Street and North Avenue: AM/PM Daylight Northbound approach to provide a dedicated left turn lane, resulting in a 1L 2TR configuration for the NB approach. (5) Signal timing changes at Main Street and Locust Ave./Lecount Place: P.M. Increase E/W by 2 seconds Decrease NB by 2 seconds (6) Geometric changes at Huguenot Street and North Avenue: AM/PM Restripe Westbound approach to provide 1 left turn lane, 1 shared left turn/through lane, and 1 through lane. Signal timing changes at Huguenot Street and North Avenue: P.M. Increase WB left/SB right by 11 seconds Decrease E/W by 6 seconds Decrease SB by 5 seconds (7) Signal timing changes at Huguenot Street and River Street: A.M. Increase E/W by 2 seconds Reduce SB by 2 seconds P.M. Increase E/W by 4 seconds Reduce SB by 4 seconds (8) Signal timing changes at Anderson Street and North Avenue: A.M. Increase E/W by 6 seconds Reduce EB lag phase by 6 seconds 42 26 31 196 237 380 224 457 HUGUENOT STREET

69 473 128 344 56 92 1461 474 248 615 743 755 913 PALMER AVENUE 167 62 72 128 65 492 273 311 18 31

216 819 26

109 214 106 499 150 408 CROSS STREET 21 94 40 406 123 ANDERSON ST. 792 959 81 845 725 40 0 NEW 41 0 45 ROC 17 3 CITY 498

CENTRE AVENUE CENTRE DIVISION STREET HIGHWAY MEMORIAL STREET LAWTON AVENUE NORTH 461 63 57 RIVER STREET 16 167 519 RADISSON PLACE CEDAR STREET 3 7 3 274 98 311 359 185 265 46 68 62 1072 DRIVEWAY 536 56 26 PLACE LeCOUNT 2 18 145 278 308 175 618 174 54 407 112 950 962 915 1102 1183 1266 909 1020 1144 JACKSON STREET 84 114 101 65 112 30 75 948 563 288 99 MAIN STREET MAIN STREET 233 439 777

1 162 98 51 83 100 199 MAPLE 156 171 159 227 112 131 328 HUGUENOT STREET AVENUE AVENUE PINTARD AVENUE CHURCH STREET LOCUST AVENUE FRANKLIN 178

169 784 1ST 1ST

JONES STREET BURLING JOYCE WASHINGTON 154 79 4 43

8.30.07 GROVE

GLEN N 43 GARDEN PALMER R 137

HILL H HIGHLAND HIGHLAND

O 4

CEDAR STREET D 31 CR ACORN

E E S R S 6 CE ENE L

N WA T CEDAR HOMESTEAD I 95 FL FIR O ROCKDALE 0 500 FEET W E KINGS MONROE R FOUNTAIN PLACE

RADISON 4 LYONS SHERMAN SCALE 93 23

BEECHWOOD WEBSTER

LECOUNT A

C E M

O Y E

HARRISON HARRISON L RIVER HERTFORD

L E E L LAWTON LAWTON HARRISON

PINE U 299 R M M L 271

B D I O

U PRATT R V 127 RHODES

BIRCH CLIFF S R A S

STEPHENSON STEPHENSON I R

A E

WESTCHESTER E GRANT L ADAMS P JACKSON T

H I E

L HARDING 441

I P

G PINTARD PINTARD FOUNTAIN LINCOLN

PC RAILROAD EVERETT H 120 MERTON STONELEA 810

L W RIA ST A MADISON 1180

DU Y 55

WOODLAND WOODLAND POST IN N BOSTO

VILLUS HUGUENOT OLD ALLARD ALLARD LAUR MAIN STREET

EL LEROY

EVANS EVANS MAPLE MAPLE

MAIN ECHO WEYMAN WEYMAN

JOHN CLINTON 511 292

CHERRY LE FEVRE FEVRE LE

SHEA AVENUE DRAKE DRAKE LAFAYETTE HUNTINGTON H I MORAN LIBERTY G BONNEFOY H PREMIUM BAYARD V E

LAUREL LAUREL I

NORTH NORTH E

PROSPECT LOCUST E W

DIVISION DIVISION ECHO ECHO BAYVIEW S S E A O WOODBURY V N IE LINDEN W 45 33 89 34 47 54 143 16 145 WEBSTER AVENUE CLIFF STREET BEECHWOOD AVENUE 16

MAIN STREET 73 209 15 42 223 2 29 100 AVENUE NORTH 759 CHURCH STREET 623 615 855 517 10

843 952 33 905 92 15 34 83 83 49 29 44 27 24 76 36 73 45 28 15 4 65 23 26 15 36 38 23 92 10 98 72 46 DRAKE 115 AVENUE ALLARD AVENUE AVENUE 28 CLINTON PLACE DRIVEWAY 16 66 21 25 WOODLAND

BONNEFOY 295 229

4 PLACE

309 CHURCH STREET CHURCH 44 17 96 74 4 68 33 47

17 40 DIVISION STREET DIVISION 252 7 182 18 8 4 292 240 46 6 15 2 11 73 4 60 KINGS HIGHWAY SB I-95 RAMPS STEPHENSON BLVD. STONELEA PLACE GAS STATION DRIVEWAY CLEVELAND AVENUE OLD BOSTON ROAD POST MAIN STREET SUNHAVEN DRIVE 14 22 276 204 119 30 660 32 566 281 4 24 624 45 44 8 534 846 303 655 594 509 653 503 21 26 1043 643 1102 12 29 626 555 1034 560 330 2 1075 8 1021 842 3 0 376 241 294 14 14 42 4 3 40 1081 11 23 8 52 15 PROSPECT MAIN STREET 7 8 1 1 2 2 5 4 4 3 AVENUE 7 7 11 14 47 36 1 LANE 11 DINER 19 17 POINT 292 369 272 AVENUE AVENUE 287 AVENUE AVENUE NB I-95 RAMPS WEYMAN CHERRY PREMIUM Le FEVRE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY EMERSON WOODSIDE DRIVEWAY Figure 3-5 2007 Phase I Traffic Volumes NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS AM Peak Hour (8:00 - 9:00 A M)1 NOTE 1: Includes Existing Traffic, Growth F actor and Phase I Development Traffic 191 95 47 76 269 493 230 463 HUGUENOT STREET

157 1037 118 634 177 11 1504 854 246 1098 1216 957 1271 PALMER AVENUE 298 180 119 279 0 384 520 484 188 249 100

88 677 35

215 186 275 229 353 CROSS STREET 37 295 24 431 151 ANDERSON ST. 948 1264 123 712 882 31 2 NEW 8 0 35 ROC 51 26 CITY 794

CENTRE AVENUE CENTRE DIVISION STREET HIGHWAY MEMORIAL STREET LAWTON AVENUE NORTH 470 29 26 RIVER STREET 31 223 550 RADISSON PLACE CEDAR STREET 8 4 4 191 189 342 354 295 171 106 266 800 180 DRIVEWAY 811 148 11 PLACE LeCOUNT 2 4 117 256 363 206 700 178 54 416 104 970 992 830 1087 1185 1263 877 861 1141 JACKSON STREET 82 52 83 72 203 23 100 1416 795 208 32 MAIN STREET MAIN STREET 149 740 1299

1 455 55 50 38 87 42 72 78 MAPLE 179 137 218 113 205 HUGUENOT STREET AVENUE AVENUE PINTARD AVENUE CHURCH STREET LOCUST AVENUE FRANKLIN 33 269

592 1ST 1ST

JONES STREET BURLING JOYCE WASHINGTON 53 96 4 54

8.30.07 GROVE

GLEN N 151 GARDEN PALMER R 36

HILL H HIGHLAND HIGHLAND

O 0

CEDAR STREET D 87 CR ACORN

E E S R S 47 CE ENE L

N WA T CEDAR HOMESTEAD I 95 FL FIR O ROCKDALE 0 500 FEET W E KINGS MONROE R FOUNTAIN PLACE

RADISON LYONS SHERMAN SCALE 11 65 34

BEECHWOOD WEBSTER

LECOUNT A

C E M

O Y E

HARRISON HARRISON L RIVER HERTFORD

L E E L LAWTON LAWTON HARRISON

PINE U 560 R M M L 311

B D I O

U PRATT R V 230 RHODES

BIRCH CLIFF S R A S

STEPHENSON STEPHENSON I R

A E

WESTCHESTER E GRANT L ADAMS P JACKSON T

H I E

L HARDING 418

I P

G PINTARD PINTARD FOUNTAIN LINCOLN

PC RAILROAD EVERETT H 110 MERTON STONELEA 829

L W RIA ST A MADISON 1118

DU Y 100

WOODLAND WOODLAND POST IN N BOSTO

VILLUS HUGUENOT OLD ALLARD ALLARD LAUR MAIN STREET

EL LEROY

EVANS EVANS MAPLE MAPLE

MAIN ECHO WEYMAN WEYMAN

JOHN CLINTON 207 176

CHERRY LE FEVRE FEVRE LE

SHEA AVENUE DRAKE DRAKE LAFAYETTE HUNTINGTON H I MORAN LIBERTY G BONNEFOY H PREMIUM BAYARD V E

LAUREL LAUREL I

NORTH NORTH E

PROSPECT LOCUST E W

DIVISION DIVISION ECHO ECHO BAYVIEW S S E A O WOODBURY V N IE LINDEN W 74 58 100 48 43 43 196 21 114 WEBSTER AVENUE CLIFF STREET BEECHWOOD AVENUE 17

MAIN STREET 77 405 27 35 194 5 19 108 AVENUE NORTH 964 CHURCH STREET 803 864 882 737 26

943 1053 27 1047 82 35 15 129 131 50 61 94 21 17 67 36 36 20 33 20 31 37 1 23 29 28 58 48 30 87 79 49 23 73 DRAKE AVENUE ALLARD AVENUE AVENUE 23 CLINTON PLACE DRIVEWAY 36 28 21 42 WOODLAND

BONNEFOY 184 211 PLACE 20

218 CHURCH STREET CHURCH 39 11 37 122 0 172 63 40

17 21 DIVISION STREET DIVISION 440 2 392 11 3 2 336 279 26 1 4 1 19 57 6 78 KINGS HIGHWAY SB I-95 RAMPS STEPHENSON BLVD. STONELEA PLACE GAS STATION DRIVEWAY CLEVELAND AVENUE OLD BOSTON ROAD POST MAIN STREET SUNHAVEN DRIVE 19 54 417 271 137 63 953 20 887 290 3 19 941 40 70 27 887 651 497 848 648 621 755 721 60 25 756 908 782 7 27 934 887 768 916 221 29 757 9 735 650 0 2 200 337 447 20 1 75 10 2 17 761 4 5 2 53 11 PROSPECT MAIN STREET 9 3 6 4 8 3 6 3 8 5 2 AVENUE 1 5 10 14 29 43 23 LANE DINER 21 POINT 396 477 395 10 AVENUE AVENUE 213 AVENUE AVENUE NB I-95 RAMPS WEYMAN CHERRY PREMIUM Le FEVRE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY EMERSON WOODSIDE DRIVEWAY Figure 3-6 2007 Phase I Traffic Volumes NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS PM Peak Hour (5:00 - 6:00 PM)1 NOTE 1: Includes Existing Traffic, Growth Factor and Phase I Development Traffic LA SALLE LAFAYETTE LAWN LYNETTE

D MAY 4 4TH BURLING R A

9.10.07 WASHINGTON UNION I 95 PALMER N 3RD N ACORN E P EVERGREEN IS WALNUT L HIGH BEECHWOOD 2ND GRAND GARDEN GRIFFEN 1ST JONES WARREN COTTAGE HOMESTEAD FIR PETERSVILLE BADEAU MEMORIAL RENEWAL PALMER CHARLES GROVE RHODES BELMONT CEMETERY MONROE SHERMAN KINGS LYONS SUNHAVEN

BEECHWOOD WALNUT WARREN CEDAR GLEN C HALLIGAN STONELEA RE RADISSON S ODELL BRIDGE HERTFORD C MECHANIC ENT R WILSON E P HARDING O PRATT GRANT RHODES O R I 95 LINCOLN DEARBORN HARDING O PLA C HILL N JEF ZA A FERS SUNHAVEN LDS ON SYCAMORE ADAMS ROCKDALE JACKSON MERTON RIVER HIGHLAND T RONALDS MADISON POS LECOUNT HARRISON FLOWER FOUNTAIN TON

STEPHENSON S WEBSTER RELYEA D BO

LINCOLN OL MEMORIAL HUGUENOT PELHAMSIDE PINE WESTCHESTER LAWTON BOSTON POST PREMIUM EMERSON MORAN CHERRY ND A HIGHVIEW L CLIFF EVE L BIRCH C CHESTER MAIN

EVERETT HUNTINGTON LAR S GAIL LE FEVRE CENTRE LAFAYETTE EVANS E LEROY AVIEW AGAR MARVIN CLINTON

LAUREL PINTARD

VILLUS SHEA ECHO SHORE

DIVISION BONNEFOY BAYVIEW

FRANKLIN

CHURCH PC RAILROAD INDUSTRIAL MAPLE PROSPECT D EC WEYMAN DRAKE ATUR NORTH

ALLARD JOHN WOODLAND LIBERTY LOCUST General Traffic Conditions: Acceptable OVERALL LOS 0 - Intersection Approach Operating at LOS E or F SOUNDVIEW A C E 0 - Intersections with an Overall LOS E or F 1 B D F 4 - Intersections Where the Queue Length Exceeds Storage Capacity 0 500 1000 FEET 2007 Phase I with Reoptimization Signal Timings - AM Peak Hour NOTE 1: Corresponds to Column 5 on Table 3-2 (LOS) and 3-3 (Queue Length) SCALE Queue Length

HIGH BEECHWOOD UNION GARDEN GRIFFEN JONES PEMBROKE HOMESTEAD FIR N RENEWAL PALMER 1ST BADEAU PALMER CHARLES LA SALLE BELMONT GROVE RHODES CEMETERY MEMORIAL MONROE SHERMAN KINGS LYONS SUNHAVEN

WALNUT WARREN 2ND CEDAR GLEN CR E BRIDGE RADISSON S ODELL HERTFORD C MECHANIC BEECHWOOD ENT WILSON R STONELEA E

HARDING P

PRATT GRANT O R I 95 LINCOLN D PETERSVILLE HARDING O O RHODES PL R A C HILL N ZA A ADAMS A SUNHAVEN LDS SYCAMORE N ROCKDALE JACKSON E MERTON RIVER P

HIGHLAND S I RONALDS L MADISON OST LECOUNT P HARRISON N FLOWER FOUNTAIN STO WEBSTER RELYEA D BO LINCOLN OL

MEMORIAL HUGUENOT PELHAMSIDE PINE WESTCHESTER LAWTON BOSTON POST

LAUREL PINTARD R A G VILLUS SHEA A BONNEFOY BAYVIEW PC RAILROAD INDUSTRIAL

PROSPECT ECHO DIVISION D MAPLE E WOODLAND C AT R FRANKLIN U

CHURCH JOHN ALLARD LIBERTY

LOCUST WEYMAN DRAKE SOUNDVIEW NORTH BAYARD HICKORY CENTRE DAVIS UNION OR LAUREL TON MAN LINDEN DAVIS ACACIA SUT General Traffic Conditions: Acceptable OVERALL LOS 0 - IntersectionWOODBURY Approach Operating at LOS E or F

PARK A C E 0 - Intersections with an Overall LOS E or F 2 B D F 7 - Intersections Where the Queue Length Exceeds Storage Capacity 0 500 1000 FEET 2007 Phase I with Reoptimization Signal Timings - PM Peak Hour NOTE 2: Corresponds to Column 6 on Table 3-2 (LOS) and 3-3 (Queue Length) SCALE Queue Length

Figure 3-7 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS 2007 Phase I with Reoptimization - Overall Intersection LOS 42 26 32 199 243 387 223 619 HUGUENOT STREET

70 516 131 451 57 93 1712 518 242 651 782 800 998 PALMER AVENUE 170 64 95 211 66 502 335 374 18 31

306 884 27

141 218 108 512 153 485 CROSS STREET 21 137 40 458 257 ANDERSON ST. 1085 978 106 911 771 40 17 NEW 150 0 46 ROC 17 27 CITY 508

CENTRE AVENUE CENTRE DIVISION STREET HIGHWAY MEMORIAL STREET LAWTON AVENUE NORTH 470 65 RIVER STREET 16 182 160 597 RADISSON PLACE CEDAR STREET 3 7 3 279 100 289 389 233 271 52 129 64 1173 DRIVEWAY 612 57 26 PLACE LeCOUNT 2 18 147 282 387 292 836 250 55 415 115 1090 1102 1043 1259 1365 1552 1099 1101 1278 JACKSON STREET 86 117 114 42 130 31 76 1220 639 294 101 MAIN STREET MAIN STREET 255 512 857

1 166 51 100 102 203 MAPLE 159 204 162 226 115 124 337 187 HUGUENOT STREET AVENUE AVENUE PINTARD AVENUE CHURCH STREET LOCUST AVENUE FRANKLIN 186

172 879 1ST 1ST

JONES STREET BURLING JOYCE WASHINGTON 174 81 4 44

8.30.07 GROVE

GLEN N 48 GARDEN PALMER R 212

HILL H HIGHLAND HIGHLAND

O 4

CEDAR STREET D 32 CR ACORN

E E S R S 39 CE ENE L

N WA T CEDAR HOMESTEAD I 95 FL FIR O ROCKDALE 0 500 FEET W E KINGS MONROE R FOUNTAIN PLACE

RADISON LYONS SHERMAN SCALE 13 94 23

BEECHWOOD WEBSTER

LECOUNT A

C E M

O Y E

HARRISON HARRISON L RIVER HERTFORD

L E E L LAWTON LAWTON HARRISON

PINE U 305 R M M L 276

B D I O

U PRATT R V 151 RHODES

BIRCH CLIFF S R A S

STEPHENSON STEPHENSON I R

A E

WESTCHESTER E GRANT L ADAMS P JACKSON T

H I E

L HARDING 530

I P

G PINTARD PINTARD FOUNTAIN LINCOLN

PC RAILROAD EVERETT H 131 MERTON STONELEA 872

L W RIA ST A MADISON 1306

DU Y 56

WOODLAND WOODLAND POST IN N BOSTO

VILLUS HUGUENOT OLD ALLARD ALLARD LAUR MAIN STREET

EL LEROY

EVANS EVANS MAPLE MAPLE

MAIN ECHO WEYMAN WEYMAN

JOHN CLINTON 521 298

CHERRY LE FEVRE FEVRE LE

SHEA AVENUE DRAKE DRAKE LAFAYETTE HUNTINGTON H I MORAN LIBERTY G BONNEFOY H PREMIUM BAYARD V E

LAUREL LAUREL I

NORTH NORTH E

PROSPECT LOCUST E W

DIVISION DIVISION ECHO ECHO BAYVIEW S S E A O WOODBURY V N IE LINDEN W 46 34 91 35 48 55 145 16 148 WEBSTER AVENUE CLIFF STREET BEECHWOOD AVENUE 27

MAIN STREET 108 227 15 42 227 839 2 30 102 AVENUE NORTH 700 691 993 591 8

980 1092 26 1044 93 0 35 85 85 50 30 45 28 76 16 36 0 76 23 27 15 37 39 23 93 11 73 47 CHURCH STREET DRAKE 100 118 AVENUE ALLARD AVENUE AVENUE 29 CLINTON PLACE DRIVEWAY 16 67 25 WOODLAND

BONNEFOY 430 245 PLACE 17

323 CHURCH STREET CHURCH 28 27 98 75 4 69 47 88

17 40 DIVISION STREET DIVISION 257 7 188 18 8 4 298 257 47 6 15 2 12 74 4 62 KINGS HIGHWAY SB I-95 RAMPS STEPHENSON BLVD. STONELEA PLACE GAS STATION DRIVEWAY CLEVELAND AVENUE OLD BOSTON ROAD POST MAIN STREET SUNHAVEN DRIVE 24 22 298 208 121 31 737 33 628 292 4 24 701 46 45 8 580 958 344 765 703 571 776 572 41 59 1109 720 1170 13 30 703 630 1100 635 338 2 1142 8 1087 954 3 0 383 246 306 14 14 70 4 3 40 1148 12 23 8 53 15 PROSPECT MAIN STREET 7 8 1 1 2 2 5 4 4 3 AVENUE 7 7 12 14 48 37 1 LANE 12 DINER 19 17 POINT 298 377 290 AVENUE AVENUE 281 AVENUE AVENUE NB I-95 RAMPS WEYMAN CHERRY PREMIUM Le FEVRE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY EMERSON WOODSIDE DRIVEWAY Figure 3-8 2007 Phase II Traffic Volumes NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS AM Peak Hour (8:00 - 9:00 AM)1 NOTE 1: Includes Existing Traffic, Growth Factor, Phase I Development Traffic, and Phase II Development Traffic 191 95 47 77 275 527 223 638 HUGUENOT STREET

160 1217 120 957 177 12 1763 1030 227 1256 1375 1124 1666 PALMER AVENUE 304 184 195 367 0 392 592 556 192 420 100 859 36

125 219 189 291 233 410 CROSS STREET 38 342 42 590 242 ANDERSON ST. 1260 1289 151 895 982 32 101 NEW 71 0 36 ROC 52 166 CITY 810

CENTRE AVENUE CENTRE DIVISION STREET HIGHWAY MEMORIAL STREET LAWTON AVENUE NORTH 480 30 RIVER STREET 32 239 124 612 RADISSON PLACE CEDAR STREET 8 4 4 195 193 343 368 452 174 125 435 184 1068 DRIVEWAY 1023151 11 PLACE LeCOUNT 2 4 120 259 434 319 1011 248 55 424 106 1130 1152 945 1222 1330 1526 1061 933 1373 JACKSON STREET 84 53 127 57 215 23 102 1732 892 212 33 MAIN STREET MAIN STREET 171 836 1406

1 464 56 51 39 89 40 73 MAPLE 218 140 210 108 220 198 HUGUENOT STREET AVENUE AVENUE PINTARD AVENUE CHURCH STREET LOCUST AVENUE FRANKLIN 34 309

855 1ST 1ST

JONES STREET BURLING JOYCE WASHINGTON 73 98 4 55

8.30.07 GROVE

GLEN N 188 GARDEN PALMER R 104

HILL H HIGHLAND HIGHLAND

O 0

CEDAR STREET D 89 CR ACORN

E E S R S 185 CE ENE L

N WA T CEDAR HOMESTEAD I 95 FL FIR O ROCKDALE 0 500 FEET W E KINGS MONROE R FOUNTAIN PLACE

RADISON LYONS SHERMAN SCALE 13 66 35

BEECHWOOD WEBSTER

LECOUNT A

C E M

O Y E

HARRISON HARRISON L RIVER HERTFORD

L E E L LAWTON LAWTON HARRISON

PINE U 571 R M M L 317

B D I O

U PRATT R V 372 RHODES

BIRCH CLIFF S R A S

STEPHENSON STEPHENSON I R

A E

WESTCHESTER E GRANT L ADAMS P JACKSON T

H I E

L HARDING 678

I P

G PINTARD PINTARD FOUNTAIN LINCOLN

PC RAILROAD EVERETT H 113 MERTON STONELEA 941

L W RIA ST A MADISON 1349

DU Y 102

WOODLAND WOODLAND POST IN N BOSTO

VILLUS HUGUENOT OLD ALLARD ALLARD LAUR MAIN STREET

EL LEROY

EVANS EVANS MAPLE MAPLE

MAIN ECHO WEYMAN WEYMAN

JOHN CLINTON 211 179

CHERRY LE FEVRE FEVRE LE

SHEA AVENUE DRAKE DRAKE LAFAYETTE HUNTINGTON H I MORAN LIBERTY G BONNEFOY H PREMIUM BAYARD V E

LAUREL LAUREL I

NORTH NORTH E

PROSPECT LOCUST E W

DIVISION DIVISION ECHO ECHO BAYVIEW S S E A O WOODBURY V N IE LINDEN W 75 59 102 49 44 44 200 21 117 WEBSTER AVENUE CLIFF STREET BEECHWOOD AVENUE 25

MAIN STREET 220 423 28 36 197 1179 5 19 110 AVENUE NORTH 1014 1077 1039 946 23

1102 1214 17 1208 84 9 15 132 134 51 63 96 21 188 28 10 0 48 1 23 30 29 59 49 31 89 81 50 23 74 CHURCH STREET DRAKE AVENUE ALLARD AVENUE AVENUE 23 CLINTON PLACE DRIVEWAY 37 29 42 WOODLAND

BONNEFOY 332 226 PLACE 28

245 CHURCH STREET CHURCH 22 18 38 124 0 176 81 90

17 21 DIVISION STREET DIVISION 449 2 400 12 3 2 343 298 27 1 4 1 19 58 6 80 KINGS HIGHWAY SB I-95 RAMPS STEPHENSON BLVD. STONELEA PLACE GAS STATION DRIVEWAY CLEVELAND AVENUE OLD BOSTON ROAD POST MAIN STREET SUNHAVEN DRIVE 44 55 433 276 140 65 1053 20 1062 314 3 19 1040 40 71 28 1054 776 657 976 774 790 896 912 78 67 866 1008 893 7 28 1034 986 878 1015 226 30 868 10 844 775 0 2 204 344 475 20 1 100 11 2 17 871 4 5 2 54 12 PROSPECT MAIN STREET 3 6 4 8 3 6 3 8 5 2 AVENUE 1 5 11 10 14 30 44 23 LANE DINER 21 POINT 406 486 416 30 AVENUE AVENUE 206 AVENUE AVENUE NB I-95 RAMPS WEYMAN CHERRY PREMIUM Le FEVRE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY EMERSON WOODSIDE DRIVEWAY Figure 3-9 2007 Phase II Traffic Volumes NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS PM Peak Hour (5:00 - 6:00 PM)1 NOTE 1: Includes Existing Traffic, Growth Factor, Phase I Development Traffic and Phase II Development Traffic LA SALLE LAFAYETTE LAWN LYNETTE

D MAY 4 4TH BURLING R WASHINGTON A 9.10.07 UNION I 95 PALMER N 3RD N ACORN E P EVERGREEN IS WALNUT L HIGH BEECHWOOD 2ND GRAND GARDEN GRIFFEN 1ST JONES WARREN COTTAGE HOMESTEAD FIR PETERSVILLE BADEAU MEMORIAL RENEWAL PALMER CHARLES GROVE RHODES BELMONT CEMETERY MONROE SHERMAN KINGS LYONS SUNHAVEN

STEPHENSON S WEBSTER RELYEA D BO LINCOLN L HUGUENOT O PELHAMSIDE PINE WESTCHESTER MEMORIAL LAWTON BOSTON POST PREMIUM EMERSON MORAN CHERRY ND A HIGHVIEW L CLIFF EVE L BIRCH C CHESTER MAIN

EVERETT HUNTINGTON LAR S GAIL LE FEVRE CENTRE LAFAYETTE EVANS E LEROY AVIEW AGAR MARVIN CLINTON

LAUREL PINTARD

VILLUS SHEA ECHO SHORE

DIVISION BONNEFOY BAYVIEW

FRANKLIN

CHURCH PC RAILROAD INDUSTRIAL MAPLE PROSPECT D EC WEYMAN DRAKE ATUR NORTH

ALLARD JOHN WOODLAND LIBERTY LOCUST General Traffic Conditions: Generally Acceptable OVERALL LOS 1 - Intersection Approach Operating at LOS E or F SOUNDVIEW A C E 0 - Intersections with an Overall LOS E or F 1 B D F 11 - Intersections Where the Queue Length Exceeds Storage Capacity 0 500 1000 FEET 2007 Phase II with Reoptimization Signal Timings - AM Peak Hour NOTE 1: Corresponds to Column 9 on Table 3-2 (LOS) and 3-3 (Queue Length) SCALE Queue Length

HIGH BEECHWOOD UNION GARDEN GRIFFEN JONES PEMBROKE HOMESTEAD FIR N RENEWAL PALMER 1ST BADEAU PALMER CHARLES LA SALLE BELMONT GROVE RHODES CEMETERY MEMORIAL MONROE SHERMAN KINGS LYONS SUNHAVEN

WALNUT WARREN 2ND CEDAR GLEN CR E BRIDGE RADISSON S ODELL HERTFORD C MECHANIC BEECHWOOD ENT WILSON R STONELEA E

HARDING P

PRATT GRANT O R I 95 LINCOLN D PETERSVILLE HARDING O O RHODES PL R A C HILL N ZA A ADAMS A SUNHAVEN LDS SYCAMORE N ROCKDALE JACKSON E MERTON RIVER P

HIGHLAND S I RONALDS L MADISON OST LECOUNT P HARRISON N FLOWER FOUNTAIN STO WEBSTER RELYEA D BO LINCOLN OL

MEMORIAL HUGUENOT PELHAMSIDE PINE WESTCHESTER LAWTON BOSTON POST

EMERSON MORAN STEPHENSON D CHERRY PREMIUM N A HIGHVIEW L CLIFF EVE L BIRCH STER C CHE MAIN

EVERETT HUNTINGTON ARD S AILL LAFAYETTE LE FEVRE G LEROY EVANS E AVIEW AGAR INDUSTRIAL MARVIN CLINTON

LAUREL PINTARD

VILLUS SHEA SHORE BONNEFOY BAYVIEW PC RAILROAD INDUSTRIAL

PROSPECT ECHO DIVISION D MAPLE E WOODLAND C AT R FRANKLIN U

CHURCH JOHN ALLARD 2 LIBERTY General Traffic Conditions: Marginally Unacceptable

LOCUST WEYMAN DRAKE SOUNDVIEW NORTH NOTE 2: The Study Area as a whole can be characterized as marginally BAYARD HICKORY CENTRE unacceptable. However, certain approach movements within the Study DAVIS UNION OR LAUREL TON MAN Area would operate unacceptable during peak rush hour conditions. LINDEN DAVIS ACACIA SUT WOODBURY

OVERALL LOS 9 - Intersection Approach Operating at LOS E or F (5 - with Physical Improvements to the PARK A C E Intersections of Main Street and Kings Highway) 3 B D F 0 - Intersections with an Overall LOS E or F 0 500 1000 FEET 2007 Phase II with Reoptimization Signal Timings - PM Peak Hour 19 - Intersections Where the Queue Length Exceeds Storage Capacity NOTE 3: Corresponds to Column 10 on Table 3-2 (LOS) and 3-3 (Queue Length) SCALE Queue Length

Figure 3-10 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown DDensity Bonus SGEIS 2007 Phase II with Reoptimization - Overall Intersection LOS Chapter 3: Traffic

VEHICULAR QUEUES In the Future 2007 conditions, for the Phase I development scenario, vehicle queuing would remain similar to the Existing Conditions for both the AM and PM peak hours if signal timing changes are implemented. For the Phase II development scenario, the total number of intersection approaches experiencing vehicular queues exceeding link capacities would increase to 11 and 24 approaches, during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The vehicular queues are generally cleared in one-to-two signal cycles. In general the links where capacity would be exceeded in the PM peak hour are at various locations along Main Street between the I-95 interchange and Franklin Avenue. A second area of congestion would be in the vicinity of New Roc City. The results of queuing analysis for the study area intersection approaches are presented in Table 3-3. (A graphical depiction of queuing conditions at the study area intersection approaches for both the AM and PM peak hours is also presented in Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-10, respectively.)

E. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT (“BUILD CONDITION”) The DGEIS for the initial DDB Overlay Zoning District evaluated projected traffic operating conditions from new development in the DB, DMU, and DMUR Zoning Districts. The Proposed Action would increase potential density only in the DMUR. This traffic analysis includes projected traffic volumes from development made possible by the initial DDB Overlay Zoning District and the additional traffic volumes projected from the additional development under the Proposed Action. This cumulate analysis represents a reasonable worst-case scenario. The land-use build-out analysis contained in Chapter 2 indicates that approximately 378 units of new housing could be developed in the DB zoning district at full build-out (that is, over an indefinite time period). Since this theoretical full build-out depends on a number of different factors (e.g., real estate market conditions, demand for new residential units, and individual property owner decisions) and would be geographically dispersed throughout the downtown area (see Figure 2-3), it was determined that this component of the Build condition would be modeled through use of an overall growth factor to represent likely development levels by the 2007 analysis year. It should be noted that, as time progresses and new development comes on-line, property owners seeking to apply the density bonuses of the DDB may find that traffic capacity is constrained and that additional mitigation is required. This analysis focuses on the City’s best estimate of likely build-out conditions and not the theoretical maximum build-out as it was determined that that amount of development was not realistic. Under the Proposed Action, an additional 1,380,000 square feet of development could potentially be located on two parcels (each 690,000 square feet): one parcel located just east of Huguenot Street between Lawton Street and North Avenue and the other parcel located just east of North Avenue, south of Garden Street. Following the criteria of the proposed DDB zoning, each development could consist of approximately 40 percent residential and 60 percent office/retail use. This would translate into approximately 276 dwelling units, 354,000 square feet of office space and approximately 60,000 square feet of retail space. In order to determine the effect of this additional development on traffic conditions in the study area, a micro-scale analysis for sensitive locations was performed, which included the following seven intersections: • Main Street and Kings Highway; 3-7 09/20/07

Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

• Main Street and North Avenue; • Huguenot Street and River Street; • Huguenot Street and North Avenue; • Huguenot Street and LeCount Place; • Anderson Street and North Avenue; and • Main Street and LeCount Place. The traffic generated by the 1,380,000 square feet of projected development under the Proposed Action was estimated based on data contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition. (It should be noted that a 20 percent credit for mass transit was applied to the office and residential trip generation rates to account for the availability of commuter train and bus service in Downtown New Rochelle while a 40 percent credit (10 percent mass transit, 30 percent diverted link/pass-by) was applied to the retail trips.) The trip generation rates and the total number of trips generated by each of the additional 690,000 square feet of developments is summarized in Table 3-5 for both the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The traffic generated by the additional development was assigned to the roadway network based on the existing travel patterns in the area. Table 3-5 Trip Generation for each 690,000 square foot Development1

Development Peak Total No. No. ‘In’ No. ‘Out’ Component Development Size Hour Trips2 Trips Trips

AM 439 386 53 Office Space 354,000 sf PM 422 72 350

AM 246 118 128 Retail 60,000 sf PM 181 101 79

Residential High- AM 75 17 59 276 Dwelling Units Rise Apartments PM 88 55 33

AM 760 521 239 (1520)3 (1042)3 (478)3 Total PM 690 227 463 (1380)3 (454)3 (926)3

Notes: (1) Beyond Phase I and Phase II Developments. This building program will be constructed at two locations: one located just east of Huguenot Street between Lawton Street and North Avenue and the other located just east of North Avenue, south of Garden Street. (2) A 20 percent mass transit credit was applied to the office and residential trips. A 40 percent credit (10 percent mass transit, 30 percent diverted link/pass-by) was applied to the retail trips. (3) Total for both developments

As presented in Table 3-6, the study area intersections would be able to accommodate the increase in traffic levels due to the additional development. However, signal timing adjustments

09/20/07 3-8

Chapter 3: Traffic would be required at the Huguenot Street intersections of River Street and North Avenue, the intersection of Main Street and Locust Avenue/Lecount Place, and the intersection of Anderson Street and North Avenue. Restriping the westbound North Avenue approach at Huguenot Street to provide 1 left turn lane, 1 shared left turn/through lane, and 1 through lane would be required. In addition, “daylighting”, which consists of the removal of between 3 to 5 parking spaces near an intersection, would be required on the northbound approach of Main Street at North Avenue to provide a dedicated left turn lane during both the AM and PM peak hours. With these mitigation measures acceptable operating conditions would be achieved. It should be noted that the micro-scale analysis evaluated each intersection on an isolated basis, without accounting for network-wide optimization of signal timing or intersection offsets. In general, it is expected that operations on most heavily used approaches at these intersections will improve once system-wide coordination is implemented.

F. TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS Table 3-7 summarizes the most recent three years of available traffic accident data in the study area compiled from the NYSDOT records for the period of June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2002. A review of these data shows that the intersection of Huguenot Street and North Avenue has the highest number of accidents (38) during this time period. Approximately half of these accidents (19) were vehicle-to-vehicle accidents. Approximately half (11) of the vehicle-to-vehicle accidents were right-angle collisions between northbound and westbound vehicles as a result of drivers disregarding traffic control devices. Most of the remaining accidents at this location were classified as non-reportable. An accident is considered to be non-reportable by NYSDOT if there was no personal injury and either: (a) no motorist report was filed; (b) no dollar value of damage was entered on the accident report; or (c) the amount of vehicular damage did not exceed a specified amount ($1,000). The remainder of accidents at this location were either vehicle-to-pedestrian (2) or vehicle-to-object (1) accidents. Two other study area intersections experienced 20 or more accidents during this time period: Main Street and North Avenue (22) and Main Street and Centre Avenue (20). At the intersection of Main Street and North Avenue, there was an approximately even split between vehicle-to-vehicle accidents, vehicle-to- pedestrian accidents, and non-reportable accidents. Of the approximately 399 intersection accidents that occurred during this time period, 31 (approximately 8 percent) were vehicle-to-pedestrian accidents. The largest number of vehicle- to-pedestrian accidents (7) occurred at the intersection of Main Street and North Avenue. NON-INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS A summary of the available study area non-intersection accident data compiled from the NYSDOT records for the period of June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2002 is shown in Table 3-7. The non-intersection accident data refers to accidents that occurred on roadway segments between intersections. Based on these accident data records, the highest number of non- intersection accidents occurred along Main Street between Allard Avenue and Kings Highway. Approximately 9 accidents occurred along this segment of Main Street over the 4-year (1999- 2002) period studied. Approximately half of the accidents at this location were vehicle-to- vehicle accidents (5). The remaining accidents were classified as vehicle-pedestrian (2) and non-reportable (2) accidents. No outstanding accident trends were observed from these data as

3-9 09/20/07

Table 3-7 Accident Data Summary Intersection Locations No. of Accidents (1999-2002)* 1999 2000 2001 2002 4-year Total (1999 - 2002)* Vehicle- Vehicle- Vehicle- Other** Non- Total Vehicle- Vehicle- Vehicle- Other** Non- Total Vehicle- Vehicle- Vehicle- Other** Non- Total Vehicle- Vehicle- Vehicle- Other** Non- Total Vehicle- Vehicle- Vehicle- Other** Non- Total Intersection Vehicle Pedestrian Object Reportable Vehicle Pedestrian Object Reportable Vehicle Pedestrian Object Reportable Vehicle Pedestrian Object Reportable Vehicle Pedestrian Object Reportable Main Street (U.S. Route 1) and Cleveland Avenue 0 3 3 0 0 300003 Main Street and Southbound I-95 Ramps 5 5 213 3115 1 1 11001214 Main Street and Northbound I-95 Ramps 1 1 123 314 0 500038 Main Street and Weyman Avenue 213 1 1 1 1 1 1 400026 Main Street and Kings Highway 314 41 16 527 0 12100417 Main Street and Allard Avenue 2 2 21 126 4 4 2 2 10101214 Main Street and Cliff Street/Drake Avenue 112 314 1 1 112 500049 Main Street and Beechwood/Woodland Avenues 11 2 3115 224 0 6110311 Main Street and Webster Avenue 2 2 52 310 112 2 2 10200416 Main Street/Huguenot Avenue and Pintard Avenue 1 1 1113 2114 1 1 311229 Main Street and Maple Avenue 224 213 2 2 0 420039 Main Street and Centre Avenue 246 31 26 21 47 1 1 82001020 Main Street and Division Street South 112 31 4 21 14 0 6110210 Main Street and Church Street/Memorial Highway 2 2 4 4 123 0 700029 Main Street and Lawton Street 1 1 224 224 1 1 4010510 Main Street and North Avenue 33 39 12 14 41 16 11 13 9700622 Main Street and Locust Avenue/Le Count Place 2237 1 1 3 3 1 1 6002412 Main Street and Franklin Avenue 0 2 2 1 1 0 300003 Main Street and Harrison Street 1 1 0 112 1 1 210014 Main Street and Echo Avenue/River Street 213 235 12 36 0 5200714 Main Street and Stephenson Boulevard 1 1 123 2 2 1 1 500027 Main Street and Le Fevres Lane 11 2 112 1 1 0 301015 Main Street and Stonelea Place 0 1 1 1 1 0 110002 Main Street and Cherry Avenue/Old Boston Post Road 1 1 1 1 213 0 200125 Main Street and Premium Point Road/Sunhaven Drive 2 2 1 1 213 0 300036 Main Street and Emerson Avenue 0 1 1 0 0 000011 Huguenot Street and Centre Avenue 145 516 111 25 112 7111818 Huguenot Street and Division Street 1 1 314 134 0 400149 Huguenot Street and Memorial Highway 213 235 156 2 2 7000916 Huguenot Street and Lawton Street 2 2 1 1 0 213 230016 Huguenot Street and North Avenue 81514 4711 52 411 2 2 19 2 1 0 16 38 Huguenot Street and Le Count Place 1113 0 0 123 200136 Huguenot Street and Harrison Street 112 1 1 11 2 0 210025 Huguenot Street and Cedar Street 1 1 1113 5 5 1 1 7001210 Huguenot Street and River Street 1 1 527 213 314 11001315 Huguenot Street and Jackson Street 1 1 0 0 0 000101 Harrison Street and Cedar Street 0 0 0 1 1 001001 Cross Street/Palmer Avenue and River Street 3148 1 1 5 5 1 1 9010515 North Avenue and Clinton Place 11 2 21 14 2 2 0 520018 Clinton Place and Church Street 1 1 0 0 123 200024 Church Street and Prospect Street 0 0 1 1 0 000101 Total 50 10 3 5 39 107 70 10 3 4 42 129 70 9 1 4 40 124 24 2 2 1 10 39 214 31 9 14 131 399 Source: NYSDOT Notes: *Accident Data for June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2002. ** Other category includes accidents reported as "other" by NYSDOT, as well as collisions with bicyclists. Table 3-7 (Continued) Accident Data Summary: Non-Intersection Locations No. of Accidents (1999-2002)* 1999 2000 2001 2002 4-year Total (1999 - 2002)* Vehicle- Vehicle- Vehicle- Other*** Non- Total Vehicle- Vehicle- Vehicle- Other*** Non- Total Vehicle- Vehicle- Vehicle- Other*** Non- Total Vehicle- Vehicle- Vehicle- Other*** Non- Total Vehicle- Vehicle- Vehicle- Other*** Non- Total Non-Intersection** Vehicle Pedestrian Object Reportable Vehicle Pedestrian Object Reportable Vehicle Pedestrian Object Reportable Vehicle Pedestrian Object Reportable Vehicle Pedestrian Object Reportable Huguenot Street between Centre Avenue and Division Street 0 3 3 2 2 1 1 200046 Huguenot Street between Division Street and Memorial Highway 1 1 0 1 1 0 100012 Huguenot Street between Memorial Highway and Lawton Street 0 1 1 0 0 000011 Huguenot Street between Lawton Street and North Avenue 112 1 1 1 1 1 1 400015 Huguenot Street between North Avenue and Le Count Place 0 112 1 1 0 200013 Huguenot Street between Lecount Place and Harrison Street 1 1 0 0 0 000011 Huguenot Street between Harrison Street and Cedar Street 1 1 0 0 0 100001 Huguenot Street between Cedar Street and River Street 0 1 1 0 1 1 100012 Huguenot Street between River Street and Jackson Street 1 1 11 2 0 1 1 110024 Main Street between River Street and Harrison Street 112 1 1 2 2 0 300115 Main Street between Harrison Street and Franklin Avenue 0 0 1 1 1 1 200002 Main Street between Locust Avenue/Le Count Place and North Avenue 0 0 112 0 100012 Main Street between North Avenue and Lawton Street 0 1 1 0 1 1 100012 Main Street between Lawton Street and Church Street 0 1 1 1 1 0 100012 Main Street between Church Street and Division Street South 0 0 1 1 0 010001 Main Street between Division Street South and Centre Avenue 112 1 1 1 1 1 1 210025 Main Street between Centre Avenue and Maple Avenue 1 1 1 1 134 1 1 210047 Main Street between Maple Avenue and Pintard Avenue 1 1 0 1 1 0 000022 Main Street between Pintard Avenue and Webster Avenue 3 3 1 1 1 1 213 500038 Main Street between Webster Avenue and Beechwood/Woodland Avenues 3 3 3 3 11 2 0 410038 Main Street between Beechwood/Woodland Avenues and Cliff Street/Drake 1 1 0 1 1 0 100012 Avenue Main Street between Cliff Street/Drake Avenue and Allard Avenue 112 2 2 112 1 1 400037 Main Street between Allard Avenue and Kings Highway 1 1 213 21 14 1 1 520029 Main Street between Kings Highway and Weyman Avenue 2 2 213 1 1 0 500016 Main Street between Wesyman Avenue and Northbound I-95 ramp 0 0 1 1 0 100001 Main Street between Northbound I-95 ramp and Southbound I-95 ramp 123 1 1 11 2 0 301026 Main Street between Southbound I-95 ramp and Cleveland Avenue 0 11 2 112 123 301037

Harrison Street between Huguenot Street and Main Street 0 112 1 1 0 110013 Cedar Street between Huguenot Street and Harrison Street 1 1 1 1 0 0 200002 Main Street between River Street and Stephenson Boulevard 21 3 11 2 0 213 520018 Main Street between Stephenson Blvd and Le Fevre Lane 11 2 0 1 1 0 210003 Main Street between Stonelea Place and Cherry Avenue 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 200024 Cedar Street between Palmer Avenue and Huguenot Street 0 1 1 1 1 0 200002 Total 20 3 0 0 11 34 20 3 1 1 12 37 21 3 1 0 12 37 8 2 0 0 11 21 69 11 2 1 46 129 Source: NYSDOT Notes: *Accident Data for June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2002. **Non-Intersection accident data refers to accidents that occurred on roadway segments between intersections. *** Other category includes accidents reported as "other" by NYSDOT, as well as collisions with bicyclist. Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS the manner and conditions under which these accidents occurred varied. The other roadway segments in the study area experienced 8 or less accidents over this time period. Of the approximately 129 non-intersection accidents that occurred during this time period, 69 (approximately 53 percent) were vehicle-to-vehicle accidents and 11 (approximately 9 percent) were vehicle-to-pedestrian accidents. None of the road segments experienced a significant number of accidents. The highest number of vehicle-to-vehicle accidents occurred along the following road segments: Main Street between Pintard Avenue and Webster Avenue, Allard Avenue and Kings Highway, Kings Highway and Weyman Avenue, and River Street and Stephenson Boulevard (5 along each segment). The highest number of vehicle-to-pedestrian accidents occurred along the following road segments: Allard Avenue and Kings Highway, and River Street and Stephenson Boulevard (2 along each segment).

G. PARKING

EXISTING CONDITIONS In January 2007, Urbitran Associates in association with Chance Management, produced a Comprehensive Parking Study on behalf of the City of New Rochelle. The study found that significant parking availability exists in all areas except in the on-street environment from Division Street to North Avenue between Huguenot and Main Street and at the Library South and Library Lots. While the current inventory of public parking is generally sufficient to satisfy existing activity within the downtown, there is an observed preference for parking closer to the center of downtown, hence the lack of on-street parking. As one progresses further from the core, utilization rates drop at public parking facilities. If new growth occurs in the downtown area, it is likely that demand for the more centrally located facilities will increase.

FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION As the downtown continues to develop, the provision of private on-site parking will continue to be the primary method of satisfying demand from large developments. In addition, there will be a need to provide additional municipal parking to accommodate new commercial and residential parking demand. This is especially so as houses and apartments in residential neighborhoods south of the downtown area continue to turn over to younger couples and families who have more cars than the older residents who are moving out. Specifically, parking should be distributed throughout the downtown with many lots within easy walking distance of shopping, entertainment and other downtown uses. While the City’s parking inventory is sufficient to handle existing demand and short-term future needs, there will be a need to provide additional parking at distributed locations throughout the downtown, especially within the Inner Core.

FUTURE WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION In the future with the Proposed Action, large developments would be required to accommodate additional parking needs generated by the incremental development. Parking would generally be provided onsite. However, similar to the future without the proposed action, parking should be distributed throughout the downtown with many lots within easy walking distance of shopping, entertainment and other downtown uses that would result from the build out of the Proposed Action. In order to encourage convenient public access to parking within the downtown, the

09/20/07 3-10

Chapter 3: Traffic

DDB includes FAR bonuses for the provision of extra parking, improvement to or replacement of an existing parking facility, and provision of public access between Main Street and public or private parking facilities.

H. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The traffic study reveals that there appears to be sufficient capacity in the downtown network to accommodate Phase I and Phase II development, as well as traffic generated by additional development under the Proposed Action. It should be noted that the study area intersections would be able to accommodate the increase in traffic levels from the Phase I development with minor revisions to the signal phasing plans recommended in the City Signal Timing Study (to be implemented by the City of New Rochelle). All intersections would operate acceptably at overall LOS D or better. From an overall LOS standpoint, the study area intersections would be able to accommodate the increase in traffic levels from the Phase II development with minor revisions to the signal phasing and timing plans. All intersections would operate acceptably at overall LOS D or better. However, there would be some intersection approaches within the study area where long queues and delays would occur and these locations can be considered to operate at marginally unacceptable to unacceptable conditions during peak rush hour conditions. Under the Build Condition, general traffic operating conditions would be at acceptable levels during both the AM and PM peak hour conditions, with physical and signal timing changes as outlined in Table 3-6. In the downtown area typical traffic mitigation measures such as removal of on-street parking or road widenings, while effective, may not, in most cases, be feasible due to the existing development pattern. A successful downtown will have traffic congestion and it becomes necessary to consider alternative strategies for managing traffic flow. The City has recently purchased components of a centralized computer system to monitor traffic signals throughout the downtown area. Full implementation of that system is pending additional funds and replacement of the existing traffic signal system. Once this system is installed and operating, the City will be able to better manage traffic operating conditions and adjust signal timing on a real-time basis to account for unexpected congestion or special event conditions. With this system in place, some of the unacceptable conditions identified in this analysis will be improved, although some others may still be considered unacceptable. With the full capital investment, the City must also invest in additional resources to fund ongoing system operation and maintenance. Other measures that might be considered include providing high visibility crosswalks, installation of pedestrian countdown signals and/or audible pedestrian signals which would make the downtown a more pedestrian-friendly environment or providing incentives to commuters to use other means of transportation such as the County bus system. Thus, the Proposed Action may generate traffic that would require minor mitigation measures (e.g. signal timing changes or removal of limited on-street parking) but that would not create significant adverse impacts. Implementation of a managed traffic system would improve the overall operating conditions beyond any minor mitigation measures. Future development within the downtown will be reviewed with respect to specific traffic impacts (using this traffic impact study as a base) and any project-specific mitigation will be identified and implemented as needed. Ï

3-11 09/20/07

Chapter 4: Visual Impact and Shadow Assessments

A. INTRODUCTION This chapter provides visual impact and shadow assessments to evaluate the potential impacts of the Proposed Action on the downtown’s visual, historic, and open space resources.

B. SHADOW ASSESSMENT This analysis considers the Proposed Action’s potential to cast new shadows on public areas and historic resources within the study area. This analysis includes the Church Division, LeCount Square, Garden Street, and Lawton-North sites which are the sites most likely to be able to seek height up to 500 feet. A significant adverse shadow impact can occur if a project will cast a large shadow over an extended period of time onto a publicly accessible open space, historic landscape, or other historic resources with features that are dependent on sunlight. The shadow assessment (Figures 4-1 through 4-5) for each site shows the incremental increase in shadow length from existing to proposed conditions during representative dates from each of the four seasons. The maximum height of each of these sites under the current density bonus is 390 feet, under proposed conditions the maximum height would be 500 feet (an increase of 110 feet). The shadow assessments do not show, or take into account, any existing shadows cast by buildings within the downtown. Shadows cast by the existing buildings (ranging in height from one- or two-stories to 390 feet) are consistent with any downtown area and are not notable for significant impacts on pedestrian conditions or open space or historic resources. The longest shadow a building can cast at any time of the year is 4.3 times the building’s height. Using this factor, the longest shadow that would be cast by any building would be 2,150 feet long, which would be an increase of 473 feet from existing conditions. This shadow would occur at the beginning and end of the day on December 21, when shadows are longest. At all other times of the year, shadows are shorter. This is because the angle at which the sun’s rays strike the earth varies throughout the year (due to the tilt of the earth’s axis), so that during the summer, the sun is higher in the sky and the shadows are shorter than during winter. Midday shadows are always shorter than those at other times of the day because the sun is highest in the sky at this time. Winter shadows, although longest, move the most quickly along their paths because of the earth’s tilt. The dates of interest for this analysis coincide with the Spring and Fall Equinox and the Winter and Summer Solstice. Additional analysis days include the two days between the Equinox and the Solstices. Thus, this shadow analysis considers four analysis days: December 21, June 21, March 21/September 21, and May 6/August 6. In addition to public areas on streets and sidewalks, there are 21 publicly accessible open spaces and/or historic resources located near the Study Area (see Figure 4-1, “Inventory of Resources”). The potential of each site to cast shadows on these resources is discussed below.

4-1 09/20/07 O JOYCE PL R C H BROOK ST B 1 E A A R 1 9.14.07 WINTHROP AVE 2 U D N F O P L VE R A T N TA RHODES ST ACORN TER P AT L H 16 AN MANOR PL M E 17 NEW ENGLAND THWY V 16 A R LYONS PL E FIR PL D MEMORIAL HWY M E C L STEPHENSON BLVD W 3 E A C D P L I P T R A T O R AD S P S E LINCOLN AVE S T L 1 T S W E THE BLVD M MORRIS ST E O Y S H PRATT ST W T H C AL H RI E O ST 18 EM ER M AV ROCHELLE PL E

CROSS AVE R IVE R S L T MONROE ST JACKSON ST P T N PRINCE ST TO PARK PL S G SICKLES AVE S MIN 16 M RE A T MAY ST SPRING ST D S A C RHODES ST GUION PL N E E COTTAGE PL D D R A R A

SICKLES AVE G S T RIVER ST LINCOLN ST L M LAWN AVE P E

S M MAY ST RAMADA PLZ

E O 20 L R 5 K I C A I L S H W NEW ENGLAND THWY Y

WARREN ST LOCKWOOD AVE G BURLING LN L

O GRAND ST HARRISON ST V

J O L P MAIN ST H IN N TA S UN VAN GUILDER AVE O FO N

P HARRISON ST L DIVISION ST 6 LECOUNT PL BRIDGE ST 7 UT CIR BADEAU PL AG WARREN ST R 4 R WASHINGTON AVE FA CHARLES ST 8 LAFAYETTE ST ECHO AVE

ODELL PL 19 LAWTON ST BAYVIEW AVE T RAILROAD AVE S UNION AVE W MEMORIAL HIGHWAY E VI CHARLES ST D N FRANKLIN AVE U O WALNUT ST 9 12 S

DIVISION ST

L P

R E 11 T S PARK AVE E GROVE AVE H C L T P S CLINTON PL E E A V W A E NT CE BARTELS PL Y RES 10 L C E

S DIVISION ST BONNEFOY PL NORTH AVE BUS A CHURCH ST COLUM VE

LEROY PL

CENTRE AVE 21 EUCLID PL PINE CT BROTHER ODWYER DR

HICKORY ST LOCUST AVE

HUGUENOT ST 13 PINE ST PROSPECT ST WEBSTER AVE UNION ST FAIRVIEW PL 14 SHEA PL

BEECHWOOD AVE DAVIS AVE MARVIN PL 15 PELHAM RD P IN TA R DAVIS AVE D LAUREL PL AVE TRINITY PL

WOODLAND AVE Historic Resources Legend 1. New Rochelle Heights Historic District 13. American White Cross Laboratories, ERTY Sites for Shadow Analysis 2. 473 North Ave LIB A VFormerE Knickerbocker PressPOPLAR PL

3. Bethesda Baptist Church 14. Knickerbocker Press ELM ST Downtown Study Area 4. New Rochelle Railroad Station 15. First Presbyterian Church 5. Faneuil Park/Boston Post Road Memorial Historic Sites 6. New Rochelle Post Office Open Space Resources Open Space 7. Standard Star Building 16. The Lawn 8. 5 Anderson Street 17. Weyman Gardens Open Space 1 Resource Number 9. Trinity Church 18. Lincoln Park 10. Bartel Site, Shell Interlocking Tower 19. Library Green 0 400 800 FEET 11. Terrytoons Film Studio 20. Faneuil Park 12. Pioneer Building 21. Liberty Park SCALE Figure 4-1 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Inventory of Resources O JOYCE PL R C H BROOK ST B E A A R 9.14.07 WINTHROP AVE U D

F O P L VE R A T N TA RHODES ST ACORN TER P AT L H AN MANOR PL M NEW ENGLAND THWY E 16 V A LYONS PL R E FIR PL D MEMORIAL HWY

E M C L STEPHENSON BLVD W E C D A L I P P T R A T O R AD S P S E LINCOLN AVE S T L T S W E THE BLVD M MORRIS ST E O Y S H PRATT ST W T H C AL H RI E O ST EM ER M AV ROCHELLE PL E

CROSS AVE R IVE R S L T MONROE ST JACKSON ST P T N PRINCE ST TO PARK PL S G SICKLES AVE S MIN 16 M RE A T MAY ST SPRING ST D S A C RHODES ST GUION PL N E E COTTAGE PL D D R A R A

SICKLES AVE G S T RIVER ST LINCOLN ST L M LAWN AVE P E

S M MAY ST RAMADA PLZ

E O L R K I C A I L S H W NEW ENGLAND THWY Y

WARREN ST LOCKWOOD AVE G BURLING LN L

O GRAND ST HARRISON ST V

J O L P MAIN ST H IN N TA S UN VAN GUILDER AVE O FO N

P HARRISON ST L DIVISION ST

LECOUNT PL BRIDGE ST UT CIR BADEAU PL AG WARREN ST R R WASHINGTON AVE FA

CHARLES ST

LAFAYETTE ST ECHO AVE

ODELL PL LAWTON ST

BAYVIEW AVE T RAILROAD AVE MEMORIAL HIGHWAY S UNION AVE W E VI CHARLES ST D N FRANKLIN AVE U O WALNUT ST S

DIVISION ST ALPHA PL L P

R E T S PARK AVE E GROVE AVE H C L T P S CLINTON PL E E A V W A E NT CE BARTELS PL Y RES L C E

S DIVISION ST BONNEFOY PL NORTH AVE BUS A CHURCH ST COLUM VE

LEROY PL

CENTRE AVE EUCLID PL PINE CT BROTHER ODWYER DR

HICKORY ST LOCUST AVE

HUGUENOT ST PINE ST PROSPECT ST

WEBSTER AVE UNION ST FAIRVIEW PL SHEA PL

BEECHWOOD AVE DAVIS AVE MARVIN PL

PELHAM RD

P IN TA R DAVIS AVE N D BANCKER PL LAUREL PL AVE TRINITY PL

WOODLAND AVE

Legend ERTY LIB AVE POPLAR PL

Downtown Study Area Shadow Date ELM ST Historic Sites December 21 0 400 800 FEET Subject Site March 21/September 21 500ft Shadows May 6/August 6 SCALE 390ft Shadows June 21 Open Space

Figure 4-2 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Church Division Site Shadow Analysis O JOYCE PL R C H BROOK ST B E A A R 9.14.07 WINTHROP AVE U D

F O P L VE R A T N TA RHODES ST ACORN TER P AT L H AN MANOR PL M NEW ENGLAND THWY E 16 V A LYONS PL R E FIR PL D MEMORIAL HWY

E M C L STEPHENSON BLVD W E C D A L I P P T R A T O R AD S P S E LINCOLN AVE S T L T S W E THE BLVD M MORRIS ST E O Y S H PRATT ST W T H C AL H RI E O ST EM ER M AV ROCHELLE PL E

CROSS AVE R IVE R S L T MONROE ST JACKSON ST P T N PRINCE ST TO PARK PL S G SICKLES AVE S MIN 16 M RE A T MAY ST SPRING ST D S A C RHODES ST GUION PL N E E COTTAGE PL D D R A R A

SICKLES AVE G S T RIVER ST LINCOLN ST L M LAWN AVE P E

S M MAY ST RAMADA PLZ

E O L R K I C A I L S H W NEW ENGLAND THWY Y

WARREN ST LOCKWOOD AVE G BURLING LN L

O GRAND ST HARRISON ST V

J O L P MAIN ST H IN N TA S UN VAN GUILDER AVE O FO N

P HARRISON ST L DIVISION ST

LECOUNT PL BRIDGE ST UT CIR BADEAU PL AG WARREN ST R R WASHINGTON AVE FA

CHARLES ST

LAFAYETTE ST ECHO AVE

ODELL PL LAWTON ST

BAYVIEW AVE T RAILROAD AVE MEMORIAL HIGHWAY S UNION AVE W E VI CHARLES ST D N FRANKLIN AVE U O WALNUT ST S

DIVISION ST ALPHA PL L P

R E T S PARK AVE E GROVE AVE H C L T P S CLINTON PL E E A V W A E NT CE BARTELS PL Y RES L C E

S DIVISION ST BONNEFOY PL NORTH AVE BUS A CHURCH ST COLUM VE

LEROY PL

CENTRE AVE EUCLID PL PINE CT BROTHER ODWYER DR

HICKORY ST LOCUST AVE

HUGUENOT ST PINE ST PROSPECT ST

WEBSTER AVE UNION ST FAIRVIEW PL SHEA PL

BEECHWOOD AVE DAVIS AVE MARVIN PL

PELHAM RD

P IN TA R DAVIS AVE N D BANCKER PL LAUREL PL AVE TRINITY PL

WOODLAND AVE

Legend ERTY LIB AVE POPLAR PL

Downtown Study Area Shadow Date ELM ST Historic Sites December 21 0 400 800 FEET Subject Site March 21/September 21 500ft Shadows May 6/August 6 SCALE 390ft Shadows June 21 Open Space

Figure 4-3 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS LeCount Square Site Shadow Analysis O JOYCE PL R C H BROOK ST B E A A R 9.14.07 WINTHROP AVE U D

F O P L VE R A T N TA RHODES ST ACORN TER P AT L H AN MANOR PL M NEW ENGLAND THWY E 16 V A LYONS PL R E FIR PL D MEMORIAL HWY

E M C L STEPHENSON BLVD W E C D A L I P P T R A T O R AD S P S E LINCOLN AVE S T L T S W E THE BLVD M MORRIS ST E O Y S H PRATT ST W T H C AL H RI E O ST EM ER M AV ROCHELLE PL E

CROSS AVE R IVE R S L T MONROE ST JACKSON ST P T N PRINCE ST TO PARK PL S G SICKLES AVE S MIN 16 M RE A T MAY ST SPRING ST D S A C RHODES ST GUION PL N E E COTTAGE PL D D R A R A

SICKLES AVE G S T RIVER ST LINCOLN ST L M LAWN AVE P E

S M MAY ST RAMADA PLZ

E O L R K I C A I L S H W NEW ENGLAND THWY Y

WARREN ST LOCKWOOD AVE G BURLING LN L

O GRAND ST HARRISON ST V

J O L P MAIN ST H IN N TA S UN VAN GUILDER AVE O FO N

P HARRISON ST L DIVISION ST

LECOUNT PL BRIDGE ST UT CIR BADEAU PL AG WARREN ST R R WASHINGTON AVE FA

CHARLES ST

LAFAYETTE ST ECHO AVE

ODELL PL LAWTON ST

BAYVIEW AVE T RAILROAD AVE MEMORIAL HIGHWAY S UNION AVE W E VI CHARLES ST D N FRANKLIN AVE U O WALNUT ST S

DIVISION ST ALPHA PL L P

R E T S PARK AVE E GROVE AVE H C L T P S CLINTON PL E E A V W A E NT CE BARTELS PL Y RES L C E

S DIVISION ST BONNEFOY PL NORTH AVE BUS A CHURCH ST COLUM VE

LEROY PL

CENTRE AVE EUCLID PL PINE CT BROTHER ODWYER DR

HICKORY ST LOCUST AVE

HUGUENOT ST PINE ST PROSPECT ST

WEBSTER AVE UNION ST FAIRVIEW PL SHEA PL

BEECHWOOD AVE DAVIS AVE MARVIN PL

PELHAM RD

P IN TA R DAVIS AVE N D BANCKER PL LAUREL PL AVE TRINITY PL

WOODLAND AVE

Legend ERTY LIB AVE POPLAR PL

Downtown Study Area Shadow Date ELM ST Historic Sites December 21 0 400 800 FEET Subject Site March 21/September 21 500ft Shadows May 6/August 6 SCALE 390ft Shadows June 21 Open Space

Figure 4-4 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Garden Street Site Shadow Analysis O JOYCE PL R C H BROOK ST B E A A R 9.14.07 WINTHROP AVE U D

F O P L VE R A T N TA RHODES ST ACORN TER P AT L H AN MANOR PL M NEW ENGLAND THWY E 16 V A LYONS PL R E FIR PL D MEMORIAL HWY

E M C L STEPHENSON BLVD W E C D A L I P P T R A T O R AD S P S E LINCOLN AVE S T L T S W E THE BLVD M MORRIS ST E O Y S H PRATT ST W T H C AL H RI E O ST EM ER M AV ROCHELLE PL E

CROSS AVE R IVE R S L T MONROE ST JACKSON ST P T N PRINCE ST TO PARK PL S G SICKLES AVE S MIN 16 M RE A T MAY ST SPRING ST D S A C RHODES ST GUION PL N E E COTTAGE PL D D R A R A

SICKLES AVE G S T RIVER ST LINCOLN ST L M LAWN AVE P E

S M MAY ST RAMADA PLZ

E O L R K I C A I L S H W NEW ENGLAND THWY Y

WARREN ST LOCKWOOD AVE G BURLING LN L

O GRAND ST HARRISON ST V

J O L P MAIN ST H IN N TA S UN VAN GUILDER AVE O FO N

P HARRISON ST L DIVISION ST

LECOUNT PL BRIDGE ST UT CIR BADEAU PL AG WARREN ST R R WASHINGTON AVE FA

CHARLES ST

LAFAYETTE ST ECHO AVE

ODELL PL LAWTON ST

BAYVIEW AVE T RAILROAD AVE MEMORIAL HIGHWAY S UNION AVE W E VI CHARLES ST D N FRANKLIN AVE U O WALNUT ST S

DIVISION ST ALPHA PL L P

R E T S PARK AVE E GROVE AVE H C L T P S CLINTON PL E E A V W A E NT CE BARTELS PL Y RES L C E

S DIVISION ST BONNEFOY PL NORTH AVE BUS A CHURCH ST COLUM VE

LEROY PL

CENTRE AVE EUCLID PL PINE CT BROTHER ODWYER DR

HICKORY ST LOCUST AVE

HUGUENOT ST PINE ST PROSPECT ST

WEBSTER AVE UNION ST FAIRVIEW PL SHEA PL

BEECHWOOD AVE DAVIS AVE MARVIN PL

PELHAM RD

P IN TA R DAVIS AVE N D BANCKER PL LAUREL PL AVE TRINITY PL

WOODLAND AVE

Legend ERTY LIB AVE POPLAR PL

Downtown Study Area Shadow Date ELM ST Historic Sites December 21 0 400 800 FEET Subject Site March 21/September 21 500ft Shadows May 6/August 6 SCALE 390ft Shadows June 21 Open Space

Figure 4-5 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Lawton-North Site Shadow Analysis Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

CHURCH DIVISION The closest publicly accessible open space to the Church Division site is the Library Green. Historic Resources within shadow range of this site include the New Rochelle Railroad Station, Trinity Church, the Terrytoons Film Studio, the Pioneer Building, and 5 Anderson Street (See Figures 4-1 and 4-2). In December, new shadows from the Church Division site would reach farther over the train station and onto a portion of 5 Anderson Street. As shown in Figure 4-2, the new incremental shadow would have a short duration and would affect only a small portion of each resource. During December, no new shadows would be cast on any other resources within this area. On March 21/September 21, new shadows cast in the early morning from the Church Division site would reach farther over Trinity Church and onto a portion of the Pioneer Building. No other new shadows would be cast on resources within this area on these dates. As shown in Figure 4-2, these new incremental shadows would only reach half of the Pioneer Building and a small portion of Trinity Church. In addition, the shadows would have a short duration and will be at their maximum size during early morning hours when fewer people would be utilizing these resources. As shown in Figure 4-2, on May 6/August 6 and on June 21 new shadows from the Church Division site would not reach any historic or open space resources.

LECOUNT SQUARE Historic and publicly accessible open space resources within the shadow area of LeCount Square include the New Rochelle Train Station, New Rochelle Post Office, the Standard Star Building, 5 Anderson Street, and the Library Green (see Figure 4-1).1 In December, new shadows from LeCount Square would not reach any historic or open space resources (see Figure 4-3). On March 21/September 21, new incremental shadows would reach the remaining portion of the New Rochelle Train Station, and would cover the entire building in the early morning (see Figure 4-3). Although the height increase would cast new shadows onto the train station, the shadows would have a short duration. On May 6/August 6, new shadows from LeCount Square would reach the central portion of the New Rochelle Train Station. These new incremental shadows would reach the train station in the morning and would have a short duration. In June, new shadows from LeCount Square would not reach any historic or open space resources.

GARDEN STREET Historic and publicly accessible open space resources within the shadow area of the Garden Street site include the New Rochelle Train Station and a small portion of the New Rochelle Heights Historic District (see Figure 4-4).

1 The Post Office, Standard Star, and 5 Anderson Street buildings are proposed to be removed as part of the LeCount Square project.

09/20/07 4-2 Chapter 4: Visual Impact and Shadow Assessments

In December, new shadows from the height increase would reach a small portion of the New Rochelle Heights Historic District. As shown in Figure 4-4, the new incremental shadow would cover the North Ave entrance to The Boulevard and portions of the three southernmost property lots. However, these shadows would have a short duration and would affect only a small portion of the Historic District. On March 21/September 21, May 6/August 6, and June 21, new shadows from the Garden Street site would not reach any historic or open space resources (see Figure 4-4).

LAWTON-NORTH Historic and publicly accessible open space resources within the shadow area of the Lawton- North site include Trinity Church, the New Rochelle Train Station, New Rochelle Post Office, the Standard Star Building, 5 Anderson Street, and the Library Green (see Figure 4-5). In December, new shadows from the Lawton-North site would not reach any historic or open space resources. On March 21/September 21, new incremental shadows would cover a portion of the New Rochelle Train Station. Although the proposed height increase would cast new shadows onto the train station, the shadows would have a short duration. On May 6/August 6, new incremental shadows from the Lawton-North site would reach a small portion of the New Rochelle Train Station, the New Rochelle Post Office, and the Standard Star Building. These new incremental shadows would have a short duration and are not expected to adversely affect any of these resources. Similarly, in June, new incremental shadows from the Lawton-North site would reach a small portion of the New Rochelle Train Station, the New Rochelle Post Office, and the Standard Star Building. These new incremental shadows would have a short duration and would only reach a small portion of these buildings.

CONCLUSION Overall, new shadows cast by the Proposed Action would not be expected to significantly affect pedestrian conditions within the study area or any publicly accessible open space, historic landscape, or other historic resources due to their short duration and limited extent. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not expected to result in any significant shadow impacts.

C. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

EXISTING CONDITIONS The City of New Rochelle is one of the commercial centers of Westchester County. The downtown business district provides both local and regional shopping facilities as well as government services and commercial offices. The City’s downtown core is surrounded by well- established residential neighborhoods of single-family homes and apartment buildings of various ages. The urban fabric of the downtown area is typical of many traditional urban downtowns, with commercial and residential buildings ranging in size from one story to more than thirty-five stories in a variety of architectural styles. The study area is densely developed and contains a

4-3 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS mix of smaller retail buildings, residential apartments, and large office buildings, many of which are built directly to the sidewalk. There are small plazas and green spaces within the downtown area that punctuate the urban landscape. Private and public parking lots and parking garages are also interspersed throughout the downtown area. Building façade treatments range from brick and stone on some of the older buildings to glass and steel on the modern structures. The retail, commercial, and institutional buildings are primarily located along the main downtown corridors. The design of the facades of commercial and retail establishments in downtown New Rochelle vary among buildings. Many of the older street-entrance storefronts have retained their historic facades with some modern embellishments. Many of the one-and two-story retail establishments have large, glass showcase windows used to display goods. Store signs and advertising banners within the study area are generally either integrated into an awning or are flat-mounted above the storefront on the façade. Signs also vary in design and materials, including metal, wood and plastic, and some stores have back-lit illuminated signs. A number of high-rise (greater than 20 stories) residential towers have recently been constructed within New Rochelle, including the Avalon Phases I and II and Trump Tower. Other high-rise projects are currently planned.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action would allow the maximum height of buildings within the DMU and DMUR zoning districts to increase from 390 to 500 feet (a 110 foot increase). Currently, the tallest building in New Rochelle is the Trump Tower at 39 stories (390 feet).

VISTAS AND VIEW CORRIDORS The Proposed Action would be visible from street-level at several locations throughout the study area and residential areas surrounding downtown. The degree of visibility would vary from location to location depending on several factors, including angle of view, intervening buildings, presence of street trees, and elevation change. In general, the difference in height between existing and proposed conditions would be most visible from areas outside the downtown (such as Five Islands Park) where a broader view shed is available. For pedestrians within the downtown, once a building is greater than 20 stories, the difference in height between that and a taller building is less noticeable (it all appears tall). Photographs of existing conditions were taken from several locations outside the study area to determine the potential visual impacts of the Proposed Action (see Figure 4-6). The locations were selected based on existing views of the Trump Tower and Avalon Phase II and potential view lines toward the Proposed Action. They represent typical views of the City’s downtown from major entrances and public view shed areas. The views from these locations are discussed below. The Proposed Action would not result in any significant adverse visual impacts as it would not substantially change any views from sensitive areas within or surrounding downtown New Rochelle. Photograph A: View from North Avenue at Huguenot Lake Development under the Proposed Action would be partially visible to motorists traveling south on North Avenue towards downtown New Rochelle. Similar to existing views of the Trump Tower, the proposed towers would be visible. However, the increase in height of these proposed towers would be barely perceptible from this distance.

09/20/07 4-4 HOLLY A B BEAUFORT D Z R HORTON A STONELEA L V O LE HARDING MORAN DEWITT JOYCE H BOU BROOK DELETED N E G M CHESTER 9.14.07 IO P E R CROSBY IS E R E WINTHROP S GLENMORE IV T PREMIUM O C D SHERMAN N B MANHATTAN E GAILLARD L ACORN R I R N H S HIGH V CHERRY VIE T O GRANT W O WINTHROP D IL THE L T HEMINGWAY MANOR E L N I S LAKESIDE WESTMINSTER N S S E O A LYONS P P KRESS T PALMER R T E A A FIR N G H N MAN MERTON O A A T

R S SHORE WATKINS O HERTFORD D VAUGHN L B THE I A D MORRIS R PRATT L SE IEW O O AV MUIR M HOMESTEAD E RHODES MADISON G LINCOLN M

L STEPHENSON STORER WINYAH MONROE LE FEVRE E ROCHELLE 4 N SHELDON LATHERS ADAMS W RISLEY MAIN O LINCOLN JACKSON CALHOUN O PRINCE PARK D SICKLES PALMER WOOD ON MAY RE INGT M CEDAR OAKDALE N COTTAGE L GUION FRENCH O A R E W M N LINCOLN LAWN GARDEN E A R RIVER N MAY RADISON R O C HUGUENOT K SICKLES GLOVER JOHNSON W WARREN MAUL E L BURLING L GRAND

COLONIAL

4TH COLONIAL EVANS MADELINE HARRISON HUNTINGTON HAROLD FOUNTAIN VAN GUILDER LECOUNT GREEN E DG EW OO LOCKWOOD D D BRIDGE R WASHINGTON U DECAT WARREN BADEAU ECHO

WALNUT ST JOHNS CHARLES MECHANIC R O LAFAYETTE N A ODELL LAWTON M N O T WARREN T M U E BAYVIEW S CHARLES M

WALNUT O UNION R IA SOUNDVIEW L 8TH H 7TH 5TH I 9TH G 6TH 3RD ACACIA 2ND H ALPHA

1ST W A GROVE Y LOCUST PARK A T E EN Y ESC L WESTCHESTER CLINTON LAFAYETTE CR E HUDSON PK R NORTH C JONES BONNEFOY FRANKLIN W UMBUS COL IL D LEROY C L

D I EUCLID A F V F E DIVISION HICKORY N P I 95 O WEBSTER R PINE T PROSPECT SHEA UNION FAIRVIEW E MAPLE GLEN BEECHWOOD PINTARD CEMETERY MARVIN DAVIS L ROCKDALE E HIGHLAND R DAVIS U B MT ETNA A A L N C K CLIFF E TRINITY R

R POPLAR CHELSEA BIRCH P O LAUREL O RONALDS T N KINGS T ECHO BAY Potential 500 Foot TallA E B EVERETT CLU SYCAMORE LIBERTY R E L R LINDEN O D S H S S COVENTRY Development Sites WOODLAND ALLARD DRAKE CENTRE HANFORD R ELM CASTLE O LIBERTY Existing Development VILLUS D N HILL M LELAND PELHAMSIDE A R

L N RIA CHURCH E T JOHN T US A IND S E Photo Location and View M FLOWE L H R E A C I A LYNNS IN R BAYARD D W WEYMAN CASTLE Direction T O N S O WOODBURY ELM W N U G T A KAREN R P O D M T I T L O A N U I N S H G PC RAILROAD T N S GAIL D SI E N N H WILLOW PELHAM I E C W K 0 500 1000 FEET

SCALE Figure 4-6 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Photo Location Key

Project Site Study Area Boundary NEW ROCHELLE NEW 500.0’ 415.0’

170.0’ Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

9.13.07 Garden Street LeCount Square View fromNorth Avenue at HuguenotLake North Lawton- Division Church Proposed viewwithphotosimulation Photo A Existing view Figure 4-7 NEW ROCHELLE NEW 448.5’ 500.0’

Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

9.13.07 View fromNorth Avenue at IonaCollege Garden Street LeCount Square Lawton-North Proposed viewwithphotosimulation Photo B Existing view Figure 4-8 NEW ROCHELLE NEW 448.5’ 415.0’ 500.0’

Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

9.13.07 Church-Division Lawton-North LeCount Square Garden Street View fromHudson Park Proposed viewwithphotosimulation Photo C Existing view Figure 4-9 NEW ROCHELLE NEW 448.5’ 415.0’ 500.0’

Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

9.13.07 Church-Division Lawton-North LeCount Square View fromFive IslandsPark Proposed viewwithphotosimulation Garden Street Figure 4-10 Photo D Existing view NEW ROCHELLE NEW (Avalon II) (Trump) 415.0’ 448.5’ 500.0’ 500.0’

Downtown DensityBonus SGEIS

9.13.07 Proposed view withphotosimulation (Showingforeshorteningfromthislocation) Proposed view Garden Street View fromMain StreetatHuguenot Avenue Church Division Figure 4-11 Photo E Existing view Chapter 4: Visual Impact and Shadow Assessments

Photograph B: View from North Avenue at Iona College Similar to the above view, development under the Proposed Action would be partially visible above existing buildings when looking in a southerly direction down North Avenue. However, from this location the towers would appear farther apart. Also, the variation in height would be more apparent from this location. Photograph C: View from Hudson Park Development under the Proposed Action would be fully visible from Hudson Park. A broad vista of downtown development would be fully visible from this location. In addition, the increase in height would be noticeable from this location as the buildings would appear to be on the same plane. However, the perceptibility of this increase does not constitute a visual impact. The increase in tower height would create visual interest in the downtown skyline, and would provide context for the existing towers. Furthermore, the increase in height would not obstruct any views of the New Rochelle harbor or Long Island Sound from this location. Photograph D: View from Five Islands Park Similar to the view from Hudson Park, development under the Proposed Action would be fully visible from Five Islands Park. The increase in height would be noticeable from this location and the buildings would appear to be on the same plane. The perceptibility of this increase would not result in a visual impact from this location because the increase in tower height would create visual interest in the downtown skyline providing context for the existing towers. In addition, the height increase would not obstruct any views of the New Rochelle harbor or Long Island Sound from this location. Photograph E: View from the Southern Intersection of Main and Huguenot Streets Development under the Proposed Action would be partially visible from this location. The existing Avalon Phase II almost completely obstructs views of Trump Tower. Therefore, it would also almost fully obstruct views of Lawton-North and LeCount Square. Church Division would be visible to the east of the existing Avalon building and Garden Street would be visible to the west. The increase in height of these buildings would not have a significant adverse impact on views from this location because the increase in tower height would create visual interest in the downtown skyline providing context for the existing towers.

CONCLUSION The Proposed Action would result in the increase of maximum height in the DMU and DMUR zoning districts from 390 feet to 500 feet. Although visible from a number of locations within and outside the downtown, development under the Proposed Action would not eliminate any significant view sheds, significantly change the visual perception along streets corridors, or impair the public’s enjoyment of any view sheds. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in any significant adverse visual impacts. Ï

4-5 09/20/07 Chapter 5: Socioeconomics

A. INTRODUCTION This chapter addresses the potential direct and indirect social and economic impacts that could occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Included in this analysis is a discussion of the potential for the planned redevelopment and density bonuses to cause the direct displacement of residents and businesses as well as secondary or indirect displacement. Primary, or direct, displacement is that resulting from the replacement of existing land uses and structures with proposed development and is therefore limited to the downtown study area (see Figure 5-1). The issue of secondary, or indirect, displacement arises when a particular development or public action has the potential to significantly affect real estate market trends and values in a particular area to the extent that property owners, attempting to capitalize on the increasing economic value of their land, may institute a variety of actions (e.g., rent increases, co-op conversions, site assemblage for development) that place certain groups (e.g., low- and moderate-income residents, retail and service businesses, and wholesale and manufacturing tenants) “at risk” of being displaced. To understand the potential for secondary displacement, the analysis must disclose both demographic trends and the character of a particular neighborhood or neighborhoods. The analysis for this secondary displacement relies on the data gathered for census tracts included within the study area as well as those tracts in close proximity to the study area. In establishing a secondary study area for analyzing potential displacement impacts, three factors are important: first, the size of a project, with larger projects tending to exert an influence over a wider area; second, actual physical barriers or clearly delineated neighborhood boundaries; and third, other influences on development including the influence of any other projects and development trends surpassing that of the proposed action. The purpose of creating a secondary study area is to analyze demographic trends of the downtown area and adjacent neighborhoods. Therefore, the secondary study area for this project includes the census tracts within and adjacent to the downtown area. It contains Census Tracts 58, 59.01, 59.02, 60, 61, 63, and 65 (see Figure 5-1). These census tract boundaries often extend well beyond ¼-mile mile from the downtown area so it is important to note that demographic data for these census tracts is not specific to the downtown and its immediate surroundings, but it does provide a general indication of demographic trends in the downtown and neighborhoods surrounding the downtown. The potential socioeconomic effects of the Proposed Action are largely similar to the socioeconomic effects of the initial DDB Overlay District. While the Proposed Action would result in larger increases in the number of new residents in the downtown area when compared to the increases projected for the initial DDB Overlay District (which increase is included in this analysis), this increase alone would not trigger any new impact from direct or indirect displacement of protected populations. Environmental impact assessment of potential projects that seek to benefit from the Proposed Action would include a more detailed, site-specific study

5-1 09/20/07

EDGEWOOD SICKLES ROCHELLE

WASHINGTON L 7TH IA E HAROLD R N 9.11.07 O I M THE T E MANHATTAN N M E GUION 6TH SICKLES P

S VAN GUILDER

62 WARREN

N LOCKWOOD MAY 5TH O S 65 N PARK H O 1ST J UNION R E V O LAFAYETTE L G MAY LAWN VAN GUILDER

CHARLES BURLING I 95 PALMER

3RD

WALNUT

GRAND

WARREN GARDEN COTTAGE 60 BEECHWOOD JONES 61 BADEAU HOMESTEAD

CHARLES 63 RENEWAL PALMER

CEMETERY GROVE WALNUT MONROE RHODES

WARREN CEDAR

2ND GLEN C ODELL RES AZA RADISSON C L BRIDGE ENT N P TIO STA MECHANIC AD LINCOLN O RHODES ILR RA PC RAILROAD

ROCKDALE JACKSON 60 RIVER HIGHLAND BARTELS

LECOUNT 61 EA ANDERSON LY E LINCOLN C R FOUNTAIN OL R WEBSTER U E MEMORIAL M ST BU E S H LAWTON BEECHWOOD TC K PINE WES IN G S

HARRISON MAIN BIRCH HUGUENOT

T CLIFF ET R E

V DIVISION E HUNTINGTON

EVANS LAFAYETTE LEROY

ECHO

PINTARD MARVIN CLINTON LAUREL

RUSSELL VILLUS SHEA 59.02 BONNEFOY BAYVIEW

PROSPECT WEYMAN D

ALLARD 58 E CAT DRAKE UR JOHN MAPLE 58 LIBERTY LOCUST 59.01

NORTH N SOUNDVIEW

FRANKLIN T

CENTRE U HICKORY G A R LAUREL DAVIS R FA Study Area LINDEN DAVIS ACACIA

WOODLAND WOODBURY

UNION Census Tract Boundary BANCKER 57.02

ALPHA

PARK 61 Census Tract Number 0 400 1000 FEET Unanalyzed Census Tracts SCALE

Figure 5-1 NEW ROCHELLE Downtown Density Bonus SGEIS Census Tract Boundaries Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS identifying potential displacement and effects on socioeconomic conditions within the downtown.

B. EXISTING CONDITIONS As described in Chapter 2. “Land Use, Community Character, Zoning, and Public Policy,” the study area is in a mixed-use downtown setting. A range of land uses including large apartment buildings, office buildings, and smaller buildings with a mix of commercial and residential uses all exist with the downtown. This mix of uses creates a vibrant downtown which is home to numerous residents and economic activity. The discussion below provides a detailed analysis of demographic conditions within the study area.

TOTAL POPULATION According to the 2000 Census Figures (see Table 5-1), there were 30,449 residents living within the study area. This represents a 9.2 percent increase in total study area population from 1990 which contrasts to New Rochelle as whole which saw a 14.7 percent total population increase. With the exception of tracts 59.02 and 61 which saw a small decline and small gain respectively, all of the tracts within the study area saw population increases of nearly 10 percent or more. These figures indicate that the populations of New Rochelle and the study area generally steadily increased, even prior to the major developments that have recently occurred in the downtown. Table 5-1 Population

Change 1990 - 2000

Census Tract 1990 2000 Number Percent

58 3,478 3,891 413 11.9

59.01 3,822 4,209 387 10.1

59.02 5,666 5,509 -157 -2.8

60 2,850 3,112 262 9.2

61 2,382 2,409 27 1.1

63 5,033 5,905 872 17.3

65 4,655 5,414 759 16.3

Study Area 27,886 30,449 2,563 9.2 New Rochelle 67,265 77,182 9,917 14.7

Sources: US Census, 1990 and 2000, Summary Tape File 3.

HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE The number of households in the study area also rose during the period between 1990 and 2000 (see Table 5-2). This change is proportional to the total increase in population, thereby indicating growth in the downtown. Consistent with the minimal population increase in Tract 61, the number of households in Tract 61 fell by two percent.

09/20/07 5-2 Chapter 5: Socioeconomics

Table 5-2 Housholds and Household Size

Change in No. of 1990 2000 * Households 1990-2000

Persons Per Persons Per Census Tract Number Household Number Household Number Percent

58 1,476 2.36 1,516 2.55 40 2.7

59.01 1,713 2.16 1,756 2.39 43 2.5

59.02 2,407 2.33 2,433 2.26 26 1.1

60 1,022 2.77 1,049 3.01 27 2.6

61 802 2.97 786 3.00 -16 -2.0

63 1,846 2.43 2,026 2.72 180 9.8

65 1,431 3.16 1,612 3.25 181 12.6

Study Area 10,697 2.53 1,178 2.74 481 4.5 New Rochelle 25,263 2.58 26,235 2.68 972 3.8

Sources: US Census, 1990 and 2000, Summary Tape File 3

The number of persons per household also slightly rose between 1990 and 2000 as shown in Table 5-2. Each tract in the study area saw an increase in household size which led to a study area wide change from 2.53 to 2.74. This change is consistent with increases Citywide.

INCOME An analysis of income trends in the study area reveals that the median household income for the tracts in the study area rose 5.7 percent between 1989 and 1999 which is similar to the increase of 5.0 percent for the City as a whole (see Table 5-3). Although the median household income for the study area rose 5.7 percent, two tracts were major outliers. These include Tract 59.02 which saw a 19.9 percent increase and Tract 60 which saw a 12.6 percent decrease. While income in the study area and throughout New Rochelle has risen, the number of residents below the poverty level has also seen a significant increase between 1990 and 2000. Table 5-4 shows that every census tract in the study area has seen an increase in poverty. The most significant increase in poverty within the study area is seen in Tract 59.01 which occupies the area to the south and east of Main and Church Streets. Tracts 61 and 65 are also marked by relatively significant increases in poverty.

5-3 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

Table 5-3 Median Household Income

1989 Median 1999 Median Change 1989 - 1999

Census Tract Household Income* Household Income* Dollars Percent

58 $26,010 $41,529 $87 0.2

59.01 $29,265 $47,600 -$776 -1.7

59.02 $48,725 $62,455 $15,505 19.9

60 $31,985 $57,560 -$6,424 -12.6

61 $30,192 $46,708 $1,560 3.3

63 $23,413 $32,826 $4,635 12.4

65 $44,028 $63,805 $6,639 9.4

Study Area $33,374 $50,360 $3,038 5.7 New Rochelle $43,482 $66,060 $3,511 5.0

Notes: * Adjusted to 2005 dollars using Consumer Price Index (CPI) Inflation Calculator Sources: US Census, 1990 and 2000, Summary Tape File 3

Table 5-4 Persons Below the Poverty Levels

Change 1990 - 2000

Census Tract 1990 2000 Number Percent

58 414 574 160 38.6 59.01 260 570 310 119.2 59.02 313 378 65 20.8 60 335 36 1 0.3 61 251 426 175 69.7 63 864 1,031 167 19.3 65 450 748 298 66.2 Study Area 2,887 4,063 1,176 40.7 New Rochelle 4,564 7,367 2,803 61.4 Sources: US Census, 1990 and 2000, Summary Tape File 3

09/20/07 5-4 Chapter 5: Socioeconomics

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS The study area saw a slight rise in the number of housing units between 1990 and 2000, but this 2.7 percent rise in housing was lower than the 13.6 percent rise in New Rochelle (see Table 5-5). This is likely a reflection of the limited redevelopment activity and lack of undeveloped land in the areas surrounding the downtown. Furthermore, tracts 58 and 61, which are located at the western end of the downtown area, actually saw decreases in the number of housing units. Table 5-5 Housing Units

Change 1990 - 2000

Census Tract 1990 2000 Number Percent

58 1,579 1,562 -17 -1.1

59.01 1,815 1,832 17 0.9

59.02 2,506 2,492 -14 -0.6

60 984 1,042 58 5.9

61 893 838 -55 -6.2

63 1,909 2,077 168 8.8

65 1,525 1,667 142 9.3

Study Area 11,211 11,510 299 2.7 New Rochelle 26,398 29,995 3,597 13.6

Sources: US Census, 1990 and 2000, Summary Tape File 3

In an analysis of housing tenure, it becomes apparent that the number or housing units occupied by renters has increased. Housing tenure is particularly relevant to an analysis of potential secondary displacement, since residents who own their units are not subject to the same displacement pressures as tenants. Census figures indicate that some tracts, such as 60 and 65, located at the eastern end of the study area have seen a 12.4 and 24.3 percent increase in the number of renters, respectively. Similarly, the number of owner occupied units has decreased (see Table 5-6).

5-5 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

Table 5-6 Housing Tenure

Change in No. of Rental Units 1990- 1990 2000 * 2000

Total No. of Percent Total No. of Percent Census Housing Rental Rental Housing Rental Rental Tract Units Units Units Units Units Units Number Percent

58 1,579 1,011 64.0 1,523 1,080 70.9 69 6.8

59.01 1,815 1,259 69.4 1,762 1,213 68.8 -46 -3.7

59.02 2,506 1,309 52.2 2,428 1,412 58.2 103 7.9

60 984 532 54.1 1,033 598 57.9 66 12.4

61 893 597 66.9 803 575 71.6 -22 -3.7

63 1,909 1,512 79.2 2,023 1,649 81.5 137 9.1

65 1,525 588 38.6 1,605 731 45.6 143 24.3

Study 11,211 6,808 60.7 11,177 7,258 64.9 450 6.6 Area New 25,317 12,247 48.4 26,189 13,016 49.7 769 6.3 Rochelle

Sources: US Census, 1990 and 2000, Summary Tape File 3

PROTECTION OF CURRENT RESIDENTS Whether or not residents are potentially vulnerable to involuntary displacement is largely a consequence of several factors, including market conditions and trends, and public policy decisions. Within the downtown area, these policy decisions include the presence of a number of subsidized housing developments where the selection of tenants and rents are typically controlled by government regulations and therefore are not as subject to outside market forces, or state legislation that regulate the rents paid by tenants and the process by which buildings may be converted to cooperative and condominium use.

RENT CONTROL/RENT STABILIZATION Two of the most important measures protecting tenants in New Rochelle are rent control and rent stabilization. Both regulation systems are administered and enforced by the Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). The year a structure was built and the number of units it contains affects the type of rent protection afforded to occupants in New York State. In Westchester, approximately 31,000 apartments—housing 10 percent of the County’s population in 18 communities—are covered by the Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA). Rent control is the older of the two systems of rent regulation. It dates back to the housing shortage immediately following World War II and generally applies to buildings constructed before 1947. Rent stabilization generally covers buildings built after 1947 and before 1974, and

09/20/07 5-6 Chapter 5: Socioeconomics apartments removed from rent control. Outside New York City rent stabilization is also known as ETPA, for the Emergency Tenant Protection Act. The greatest protection afforded to rent-controlled and rent-stabilized tenants is the limitation of rent increases landlords can charge when leases are renewed. The amount of rent increases for both rent-controlled and rent-stabilized tenants is determined yearly by the Westchester County Rent Guidelines Board. The amount of the increases for rent-stabilized apartments varies from year to year according to what is deemed a fair reflection of the year’s inflation and increase in landlords’ maintenance costs (particularly heating fuel prices and certain major capital improvements on the building). Also, the State’s new rent law signed by Governor George Pataki in June 1997 limits increases on vacant apartments to 20 percent of the former rent. Thus, landlords can raise the rent to the highest comparable level or charge 20 percent more. Under the ETPA, tenants in rent-controlled units are provided certain relocation protections and compensation should displacement resulting from proposed demolition be involved. The primary protections include notification requirements and the ability to remain in the protected unit pending review of demolition applications by DHCR. Displaced tenants would have compensation under the ETPA including moving expenses, relocation to a comparable new housing accommodation, and/or a stipend equal to the difference in rent.

ANTI-HARASSMENT PROVISION Despite the protections afforded tenants under rent control and rent stabilization, tenants can be forced out of their apartments through illegal activities, such as harassment by landlords. The New York State Rent Law and Regulations include anti-harassment provisions. The Enforcement Bureau of the State’s Office of Rent Administration, a component of DHCR, is responsible for enforcing the anti-harassment regulations. Tenants must file a formal harassment complaint with DHCR, which first attempts to attain a voluntary agreement between tenant and landlord. If this fails, DHCR can take legal action in housing court on behalf of the tenant to compel services and repairs. In more severe cases, an administrator may be appointed for the building or criminal proceedings may be undertaken.

SRO UNITS SRO units are of concern in an analysis of housing conditions for several reasons: SRO units have traditionally been and are still a source of housing for low- and moderate-income residents, particularly elderly and minority residents; and second, for neighborhoods attracting substantial amounts of new investment, buildings with SRO units may be vulnerable to upgrading or demolition as part of development assemblages with a related displacement of their tenants. SRO units are subject to the same rent control/rent stabilization provisions that apply to all rental units within New York State. With regard to evictions of SRO tenants, an occupant who has lived in a room for 30 days or longer, even though he has not requested a lease and is not a permanent tenant, may be evicted only pursuant to an action or proceeding instituted in Civil Court. Tenants who have lived in their units for fewer than 30 days and who have not requested a lease can be evicted without court process. Certain eviction proceedings require the approval of DHCR and others do not. Tenants may be evicted by Court Order without approval by DHCR for certain wrongful acts, such as non-payment of rents or other charges, illegally using or occupying the housing accommodation, unlawfully refusing the owner access, etc. No approval

5-7 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS for DHCR is required in circumstances where the owner wants to use the housing unit for personal use or for the personal use of his/her immediate family or in those instances where the unit is owned by an institution such as a hospital, college, or not-for-profit charitable organization, and that institution requires the unit for its charitable or educational purpose. DHCR approval of an eviction is required where the landlord seeks to withdraw a unit from the rental market, demolish the housing accommodations for the purpose of constructing a new building or eliminate inadequate, unsafe, or unsanitary conditions. To withdraw a unit from the rental market, the owner must demonstrate that he/she does not intend to sell all or any part of the land or structure and that the units required for his/her own use in connection with a business that he/she owns and operates or there are violations that cannot be economically removed. To demolish a building, the owner must demonstrate that he/she has either filed or approved plans for a new building and has the financial ability to construct the new building. In the case of demolition, the owner is responsible for the relocation of the tenants to suitable housing at the same or lower regulated rent in a closely proximate area and for paying moving expenses. An additional stipend is required to be paid to the tenant whether the relocation housing is at a rent in excess of the subject apartment. Where a tenant is moved because of inadequate, unsafe, or unsanitary conditions, the owner must agree to offer the tenant the right of first occupancy following any rehabilitation of the unit at a rent as determined by applicable laws.

SENIOR CITIZEN RENT INCREASE EXEMPTION (SCRIE) This program, administered by the DHCR in conjunction with the City of New Rochelle, provides added rent regulation for senior citizens. SCRIE applies to tenants who are 62 years old and over and are eligible if their incomes are below a maximum limit set by local law and they are paying at least one-third of their income for rent.

PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING The study area contains several public and publicly subsidized housing establishments. As shown in Table 5-7, 450 housing units in the study area use some form of public assistance. The discussion below describes subsidized housing programs in effect in the study area. Table 5-7 Subsidized Housing Projects in Downtown New Rochelle Name Address Type Programs Units Peter B. Bracey Apartments 361 Main Street Family NRMHA 100 Section 202, Maple Terrace 55-63 Maple Avenue Senior Section 8 90 Mitchell-Lama, Maple center 35 Maple Avenue Senior Section 8 108 Huguenot Houses 16 Locust Avenue Family/Senior Section 8 152 Total 450 Sources: New Rochelle Department of Development

Subsidized housing in New Rochelle is both public (owned and operated by the government) and private (owned and/or operated by private individuals with the help of government funds). Other forms of assisted housing are administered by City, State and federal programs as described

09/20/07 5-8 Chapter 5: Socioeconomics below. Over 3,400 units of assisted housing exist in New Rochelle through a wide variety of state and federal programs. These units are currently administered by a variety of organizations including the New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority (NRMHA), New Rochelle Public Housing Agency (NRPHA), and New Rochelle Neighborhood Revitalization Corporation. Since these units and housing projects are generally administered by public or quasi-public agencies, pressures for displacement would be minimal. Subsidized housing units outside the downtown area are scattered throughout the City but are generally located in close proximity to business, employment, and transportation centers in downtown New Rochelle. The following discussion describes subsidized housing programs currently in effect in the downtown area.

SECTION 8 HOUSING This program was created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Under the program a lower income tenant pays either 30 percent of his/her adjusted income, 10 percent of gross income, or the portion of welfare assistance designated for rent, and HUD makes up the difference between what a lower income household can afford and the fair market rent for an adequate housing unit. Income limits are 80 percent of the median income for the area in which the project is located. There are several programs under Section 8 housing, however, the most common is the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. The HCV Program provides rental assistance and home ownership options to very low-income households. The program also provides assistance to senior citizens and disabled persons on fixed incomes, displaced families, and homeless individuals with disabilities. Housing choice vouchers allow very low-income households to choose and lease or purchase safe, decent, and affordable housing. There are a variety of types of vouchers available including: Conversion Vouchers, Family Unification Vouchers, Homeownership Vouchers, Project Based Vouchers, Tenant Based Vouchers, Vouchers for People with Disabilities, and Welfare-to-Work Vouchers. The most commonly used voucher is the Tenant Based Voucher which allows a family to choose and rent a privately owned residence.

SECTION 202 HOUSING The Section 202 program is intended to provide housing and support services for the elderly. The program provides very low-income elderly with options that allow them to live independently in an environment that provides support services such as cleaning, cooking, and transportation.

MITCHELL-LAMA HOUSING New York State was the first state to implement a state-subsidized public housing program, of which Mitchell-Lama was one. This program was designed to meet the serious need for housing by families with incomes too high for public housing, but not high enough to encourage private developers to build housing for them. The State Legislature passed the Limited Profit Housing Companies Law of 1955. Through a combination of below-market financing and local tax exemption, rents could be reduced so that they could be afforded by families of moderate income.

NEW ROCHELLE MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY The New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority (NRMHA) owns and manages the City’s public housing stock. Of the 543 family and senior housing units owned by NRMHA, 100 are in

5-9 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS the downtown in the Peter B. Bracey Apartments. The NRMHA is also responsible for administering the Section 8 Housing Program in New Rochelle and currently holds 201 vouchers.

SUMMARY OF POPULATION AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT

POPULATION AND HOUSING TRENDS The study area does not exhibit significant population and housing trends that tend to identify neighborhoods where displacement pressures currently exist, such as increases in population and housing units as a result of private market activity; small and declining household sizes, with a preponderance of one- and two-person households; and rising incomes. Although some of these trends exist in certain census tracts in and around the downtown, they are consistent with trends in New Rochelle as a whole. Furthermore, the trends indicated by census data are consistent with the goals and recommendations of the City’s Comprehensive Plan which calls for the revitalization of the downtown by bringing in a critical mass of new residents and promoting economic activity as discussed in Chapter 2. The trends that provide indications of potential displacement pressures are also matched by the study area experiencing a substantial overall increase in household size, a modest increase in real income less than that for New Rochelle as a whole, and an increase in the number of study area residents with incomes below the poverty level. These trends substantially offset indications that displacement pressures exist.

UNPROTECTED UNITS Housing units built in 1974 or later are not protected from rent control or rent stabilization. According to Census 2000 figures, the census tracts comprising the study area include 11,177 total housing units. Census data also provides the age a structure was built. Although 1974 was not a break point for the 2000 census, the number of housing units built after 1970 can be determined to provide a more conservative estimate of the number of housing units not protected from rent control or rent stabilization. Table 5-8 shows a summary of the number of renter occupied housing units built in each tract after 1970 in the study area. As shown in the table, 2000 Census data show that 1,206 renter-occupied units within the study area were built in 1970 or later, which would typically indicate that they are not subject to rent control/stabilization laws. These 1,206 units represent approximately 11 percent of the study areas total housing stock. Residents of Unprotected Units Based on the 2000 census, the study area average household size is 2.74 persons. Based on this figure and the approximately 1,206 housing units likely to be unprotected from rent increase, an estimated 3,300 residents occupy the unprotected units identified above. While it is likely that not all of these residents are of low or moderate income, the groups most susceptible to rent- related displacement pressures, it represents a worst-case universe of renters most susceptible to displacement. It should be noted that all assisted housing units within the study area would be protected from rent increases in the future.

09/20/07 5-10 Chapter 5: Socioeconomics

Table 5-8 Housing Units Built 1970-March 2000 Tract Units built 1970-March 2000 58 265 59.01 182 59.02 143 60 0 61 61 63 509 65 46 Study Area 1,206 Sources: US Census, 2000, Summary Tape File 3

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY There are a range of businesses in downtown New Rochelle typical of many downtowns. With the exception of some larger businesses and attractions in downtown New Rochelle such as those found in the newly constructed New Roc City, most businesses generally appear to serve the local community by providing goods and services. Typical examples of businesses include: • Restaurants • Florists • Fast-food restaurants • Bars/Clubs • Grocery stores • Banks • Travel agencies • Professional offices • Furniture stores • Fitness/health centers • Hair salons • Clothing/apparel stores • Delicatessens • Miscellaneous goods Several other businesses in the downtown are likely to attract patrons from throughout the region. Examples of these businesses include the entertainment facilities at New Roc City, public storage facilities, and car dealerships. Another major source of economic activity is in the office buildings located throughout the downtown, but primarily in the outer core as defined in Chapter 2, “Land Use, Community Character, Zoning, and Public Policy.” During field surveys conducted in July and October of 2005, the businesses generally appeared to be operating successfully with a number of patrons and clients visible in the range of storefronts. The field surveys did, however, identify four storefronts that were vacant, and two additional buildings with vacant upper stories.

C. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

5-11 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS bonus would be required to provide a detailed analysis of direct displacement resulting from the specific project.

EFFECTS ON POPULATION VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT The potential addition of approximately 5,047 new residents to the study area represents an approximately 16.6 percent increase in the study area population. Future tenants living in the larger high-rise towers that would be permitted by the Proposed Action are expected to be relatively affluent and predominantly in the 25- to 44-year-old age group, and comprise a preponderance of one- and two-person households. The population characteristics of new residents would likely differ from those of residents of the surrounding study area. The approximately 3,300 tenants living in the existing residential units in the study area that are not protected by rent control, rent stabilization, or housing subsidies would potentially be subjected to increased displacement pressures as a result of the Proposed Action. By examining the number of renter occupied housing units before 1970, it can be determined that approximately 16,600 residents that could potentially be displaced either directly or through secondary displacement live in the study area. These residents would have the potential benefit of certain statutory and programmatic relocation subsidies or other protections as described above. Bringing a critical mass of new residents to the downtown and stimulating additional activity has, however, been expressed as a goal of the City through the 1996 Comprehensive Plan.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY The Proposed Action would not result in the direct displacement of any businesses, but it may make certain locations in the downtown more attractive for future development. Any future development that occurs at locations with existing businesses may result in there relocation. The most significant changes resulting from the Proposed Action would affect assemblages of parcels where entire blocks or large portions of those blocks could potentially be redeveloped. The two blocks most likely to be affected by the Proposed Action are on either side of North Avenue on the south side of Huguenot Street. If redevelopment were to occur on these blocks, some existing businesses would be displaced. Any businesses that are displaced could potentially relocate into storefronts of the new development, but this would require temporary closure of the business. Specific site plans for redevelopment of these blocks using the proposed density bonus would require a detailed analysis of specific businesses that would be displaced. Significant changes are less likely to occur elsewhere in the downtown since the density bonus would only apply to parcels of less than 10,000 square feet. In most cases, a property owner would simply add floors to existing buildings and retain existing businesses. Even where demolition of existing structures would be required, only a few businesses would be displaced. The Proposed Action is also expected to result in a general increase in the amount of economic activity taking place in downtown New Rochelle. Proposals for redevelopment of the

09/20/07 5-12 Chapter 5: Socioeconomics

LeCount/Anderson block and Church/Division parking facility (as discussed in Chapter 2, “Land Use, Community Character, Zoning, and Public Policy”) would substantially increase the amount of retail space in the downtown and reintroduce anchor tenants through some large retail spaces. The proposals would also provide new office and hotel space in the downtown. Ï

5-13 09/20/07 Chapter 6: Community Services

A. INTRODUCTION This chapter addresses community services provided by the City and whether the Proposed Action will have any impacts on these services. Community services discussed in this section include public safety (police, fire, and ambulance); public open space (including parks and recreation); and solid waste collection which all are funded by tax revenues. The Proposed Action will allow for higher densities and an increased population in Downtown New Rochelle. Since no specific development plans are available the analysis assumes the maximum amount of new development and makes a number of assumptions. As specific projects seek the proposed density bonus, more accurate determinations of impacts to community services can be determined. The Proposed Action is likely to increase usage of nearby parks and outdoor spaces, as additional residents, shoppers, and workers brought to the downtown by the additional density utilize these facilities on breaks and lunch. The increase is expected to be minimal, however, and can be easily accommodated by existing facilities.

B. POLICE, FIRE, AND EMERGENCY SERVICES

EXISTING CONDITIONS

POLICE The New Rochelle Police Department currently has 187 sworn officers and provides 24-hour service patrolling the City. The department is also assisted by 68 non-sworn staff members that provide additional services.

FIRE The New Rochelle Fire Department operates five fire stations and serves the entire City of New Rochelle. Within these five fire stations, there are five engines, three ladders, and a rescue vehicle. The stations are staffed by 27 to 31 firefighters that are on duty at all times. One fire station operates within the downtown and is located at Harrison and Cedar Streets. Apparatus at this station includes an engine, ladder, and command vehicle. This station is typically staffed by 8 to 10 staff members. The New Rochelle Fire Department currently has 168 uniformed fire personnel. The Fire Department has five engines, three ladders, one heavy rescue, and one Deputy Chief’s vehicle. The Fire Department participates in the County’s Mutual Aid Program, which provides supplementary fire protection among participating municipalities and fire departments in the County.

6-1 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

EMERGENCY SERVICES Emergency services are also provided to the City of New Rochelle by the Fire Department. Most New Rochelle firefighters (95 percent) are certified New York State EMTs. The Fire Department has an ambulance stationed at the firehouse house on Cedar Street. EMS call volumes had been exceeding the ability of the city’s two ambulances and requiring mutual aid support from neighboring communities, therefore a third part-time ambulance was recently added to assist during peak usage hours (7 AM to 7 PM).1

FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION In the Future without the Proposed Action, changes are expected to occur to police, fire, and emergency services based primarily on mitigation required for development. Development projects permitted under the initial DDB Overlay District would place additional demands on those services, and would require additional personnel. In addition, a significant difference in tactical approach to fighting fires exists when fighting fires in an open office floor plan versus compartmentalized (e.g. residential) units. Non-residential development (e.g., office or hotel) is considered as a Public Benefit under the initial DDB Overlay District. Any development that includes such uses in the high-rise portion of a development would present additional challenges to fire fighting services. Therefore, additional training and/or equipment for Fire Department personnel would likely be required.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION With the Proposed Action, there would be an increase in development potential matched by an increase in total population within the downtown. These increases are likely to place additional demands on the Police and Fire Departments in New Rochelle.

POLICE The Proposed Action would increase the number of residents, employees, and visitors in the downtown which would increase the demand for service from the Police Department. The Proposed Action would require a variety of police services, potentially including traffic control and parking enforcement, crossing guards, and patrols to monitor groups and suppress criminal activity. The Police Commissioner estimates that the cumulative impact of new downtown development would necessitate an additional 15 officers and six community service officers (CSOs) to provide a comparable level of police services.2 It is expected that some downtown projects would employ 24-hour manned security. It is also anticipated that the proposed mix of uses would create activity throughout day and evening hours, thus increasing the “eyes on the street.” Both of these items are expected to reduce demands on the police department. However, overall development within the downtown area will continue to require services of the Police Department.

1 Correspondence from Raymond Kiernan, Commissioner, 12/13/05 and undated memorandum. 2 Correspondence from Captain Robert Gazzola, Commanding Officer Police Services Division, 10/3/05.

09/20/07 6-2 Chapter 5: Community Facilities

FIRE Impacts of the Proposed Action can be partially quantified by obtaining guidance from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard number 1710 – NFPA 1710. NFPA 1710 is a standard for organization and deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency medical operations, and special operations to the public by career fire departments. According to NFPA, a 2nd alarm fire would require the response of 31 personnel. Any fire in a high-rise building requires a second alarm. Given the fact that only 27 to 31 personnel staff New Rochelle at any given time, a second alarm fire in a high-rise building would theoretically require the response of the entire New Rochelle Fire Department on duty. This level of response is not a result of the Proposed Action as high-rise development in New Rochelle preceded even the initial DDB Overlay District. However, the Fire Department has identified staffing as a concern regarding any additional development within the downtown. With specific respect to the Proposed Action, the Fire Department has indicated that the incremental difference in height from the existing 400-foot limit to the 500 feet permitted under the Proposed Action, would have a potentially significant adverse impact to fire fighting services as the City does not currently own the equipment needed to pump water to the highest floors of a high-rise building. A fire pumper with a two-phase pump would be required to raise a column of water for sprinkler/standpipe use to the highest stories of a building above an elevation of 400 feet above grade level.1

C. OPEN SPACE RESOURCES

EXISTING CONDITIONS There are two significant areas of open space located within downtown New Rochelle: Library Green and Anderson Street Plaza. The Library Green, located between Memorial Highway and Lawton Street provides passive recreation opportunities on open fields and benches. A second open space area, the Anderson Street Plaza, also provides a seating area within the downtown.

FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION No changes would occur to open space in the future without the Proposed Action.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action will likely bring additional development to the downtown. This additional development would result in an increase in the population and number of people using these amenities. Another potential effect of the Proposed Action, however, is the possible construction or improvement of publicly accessible open spaces. One of the criteria enabling the proposed

1 Correspondence from Raymond Kiernan, Commissioner, 12/13/05 and undated memorandum. 6-3 09/20/07

Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS density bonus is provision of a new publicly accessible open space on-site or anywhere within the DB, DMU, or DMUR Zoning Districts, and/or improvements to existing open space or streetscape, in addition to replacements, if any, of existing open space. Applicants that chose to apply for the proposed density bonus may choose to meet this criteria, thereby resulting on a positive impact to the City with additional or improved open space in the downtown.

D. SOLID WASTE

EXISTING CONDITIONS The Bureau of Sanitation is responsible for collection of garbage, trash and other refuse from private residences, from commercial establishments on a restricted basis, from City litter cans and baskets located in business areas, and from apartment buildings. The Bureau collects over 36,000 tons of garbage each year. Over 20,000 tons of material is recycled each year.

FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION No changes would occur to solid waste collection in the future without the Proposed Action

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action will likely bring additional development to the downtown. This additional development would result in an increased number of housing units. Since commercial wastes are typically hauled by private haulers, any new commercial development is not likely to result in any significant changes. The Proposed Action has the potential to allow for approximately 1,278 additional residential units in the downtown. Assuming 41 pounds of solid waste is generated per household per week, a maximum of approximately 52,400 pounds per week would be generated by the additional residential units. This translates to 1,362 tons per year. Additional personnel and/or equipment will be required to meet this additional demand on the City’s services. Ï

09/20/07 6-4 Chapter 7: Infrastructure

A. INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the Proposed Action’s impact on water and wastewater infrastructure. The Proposed Action would result in additional demands on the existing infrastructure systems that currently serve downtown New Rochelle by allowing additional development within the downtown.

B. WATER/WASTEWATER

EXISTING CONDITIONS

WATER The potable and firefighting water needs of downtown New Rochelle are currently served by a networked system of water mains. The mains are owned and operated by United Water. The company provides water to 139,725 people and 30,948 customers throughout the city of New Rochelle and the towns of Eastchester and Greenburgh. In 2004 an estimated 7.04 billion gallons of water was delivered through the system. The average daily demand is 21.1 million gallons, while the peak demand is 26.9 million gallons According to 1996 maps created by United Water, the mains throughout the downtown generally range in size from six to 16 inches. There is a ten-inch water main that runs the length of Main Street in the downtown.

WASTEWATER Sanitary sewage generated in downtown New Rochelle is conveyed by a series of sewer mains to the Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities (WCDEF) New Rochelle Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plant has a design capacity of 13.6 million gallons per day (MGD), but currently treats 15.5 MGD. Westchester County is under a Consent Order from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to remedy this problem through correction of inflow and infiltration (I&I) within the sewer system that serves downtown New Rochelle by relining existing sewers and removing illegal connections. The County estimates that approximately 8.1 MGD of the total 15.5 MGD treated at the New Rochelle Wastewater Treatment Plant is attributed to I&I. The City of New Rochelle is under a Sub-Order to Westchester County’s Consent Order to work with the County to remedy the I&I issues. A moratorium on sewer district extensions is in place until the Consent Order is resolved, but new projects may connect to the existing system provided that a 3 to 1 offset of I&I removed from the system is provided for every one (1) gallon of new sanitary wastewater flow. Recent development within the downtown of New Rochelle that has generated new sanitary flow has been possible through an aggressive program of relining sewer mains to remove I&I from

7-1 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS the system. The County and City maintain a list of known locations of I&I and are also working to identify solutions for I&I originating at unknown locations (primarily older private domestic sewer connections).

FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION In the Future without the Proposed Action, additional development would still be possible using the underlying DB, DMU, or DMUR zoning with or without the initial DDB Overlay Zoning District FAR bonuses. The DGEIS and FGEIS prepared for the initial DDB Overlay Zoning identifies that capacity exists within both the water supply and wastewater collection and treatment systems to handle additional flow volumes. Additional studies conducted by the City (see below under “Potential Impacts of the Proposed Action”) in May 2007 have identified potential problem spots within the wastewater collection system that would have to be mitigated as part of any specific project design and approval.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action would allow for additional density and development in the downtown. Under the Proposed Action, an additional 552 new residential units, 120,000 square feet of retail, and 708,000 square feet of office space would be permitted over the previously analyzed full build out and utilization of the initial DDB Overlay Zoning District. Therefore, under the Proposed Action, a total of 1,842 new residential units, 598,340 square feet of retail, and 1,088,000 square feet of office would be permitted under full build out and utilization. As shown in Table 7-1, the total projected new water demand and sewage generation of the Proposed Action is 807,141 gallons per day (gpd). Table 7-1 Water and Sewage Generation of the Proposed Action Build Out Additional Under Build Out Water Usage Current Under the and Sewage DDB Proposed Generation Use Zoning Action Total Build Out Rate Total GPD Residential 1,290 units 552 units 1,842 units (5,047 112 gpd / person 565,273 gpd persons)* Retail 478,340 sf 120,000 sf 598,340 sf 0.17 gpd / sf 101,718 gpd Office 380,000 sf 708,000 sf 1,088,000 sf 25 gpd / 108,800 gpd (4,352 employee employees)* Hotel 209 rooms NA 209 rooms 150 gpd / room 31,350 gpd Total 807,141 gpd Notes: *Number of persons based on the average study area household size of 2.74 persons per unit. **Estimate based on 4 workers for every 1,000 sf of office space Sources: New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual

09/20/07 7-2 Chapter 7: Infrastructure

SEWAGE TREATMENT Although the New Rochelle Sewage Treatment Plant currently treats sewage in excess of its design capacity, the County Department of Environmental Facilities which operates the Plant, together with the City of New Rochelle, is working to eliminate inflow & infiltration (I&I) flows into the sanitary sewer system. The anticipated reduction in flow would be approximately 8.1 MGD1. In addition, the County intends to upgrade the capacity of the plant to 19.2 MGD. The combined strategy of I&I reduction and upgrade of this multi-community plant would accommodate new development in New Rochelle. It should be noted that while recent efforts at removing I&I from known locations has been successful, there is a limited amount of known I&I remaining that feeds into the New Rochelle Wastewater Treatment Plant. While the number of known I&I sources is decreasing as problems continue to be addressed, there are significant flows of I&I that originate from unknown sources (primarily private residential sewer connections). Additional investigations may be required to identify I&I sources for future mitigation.

SEWAGE COLLECTION The City’s sanitary sewage collection system is likely to require numerous upgrades in order to accommodate sewage flows from new development made possible by the Proposed Action. Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. performed a study of the downtown area’s sanitary sewage system in May 2007 to evaluate the capacity of existing sewer mains to accommodate flows from new and proposed projects. The study was based on the assumption that all Phase I and Phase II projects (as described in Chapter 2) were at full occupancy. The study did not, however, analyze any projects beyond Phase II or additional density made possible as a result of the Proposed Action. Based on the assumptions described above, Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. identified several potential problem areas in the sanitary sewage system. Assuming the presence of sewage flows from all Phase I and Phase II projects, the following areas, at a minimum, are likely to require repairs or infrastructure upgrades: • Main Street between LeCount Place and North Avenue; • Main Street between Harrison Street and Fountain Place; • Main Street between Memorial Highway and Lawton Street; • North Avenue between Main Street and Anderson Street; • Church Street between Union Street and Davis Avenue; • Huguenot Street between Harrison Street and North Avenue; • Huguenot Street between North Avenue and Bridge Street; • Main Street between Webster Avenue and Beechwood Avenue. It should be noted that the above listed potential problem areas were identified based only on completion of Phase I and Phase II projects without the additional density bonuses permitted by the Proposed Action. Additional sewage flows resulting from possible density bonuses on the

1 Source: New Rochelle Flow Reduction Study, Westchester County Department of Public Works, Department of Environmental Facilities, Last Revised April 2006.

7-3 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

LeCount Square site, Lawton-North site, and Garden Street Lot site would potentially exacerbate problems in the areas identified above or create new problem areas. Any large-scale development would be required to conclusively demonstrate that the sewer lines serving the downtown are in a suitable condition and have sufficient capacity to provide domestic and commercial service, or to provide appropriate mitigation, as necessary.

WATER DEMAND With the Proposed Action, there may also be additional demand for water as described above. As a public utility, United Water New Rochelle would be required to meet any future demands that may arise. The system, and the supply sources that feed them, appear to have sufficient capacity to handle future growth, but it should be noted that significant improvements to the water supply system were required (and recently completed as mitigation for a private development project) to accommodate new growth in the downtown. Additional improvements may be required to accommodate other new developments. Any large-scale development would be required to conclusively demonstrate that the water lines serving the downtown have the capacity and are in a suitable condition to provide domestic and fire protection supplies, or to provide appropriate mitigation, as necessary. Ï

09/20/07 7-4 Chapter 8: Alternatives

A. INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a brief comparative summary of three alternatives to the Proposed Acton: (1) a “No Action” alternative, meaning that the proposed amendments to the DDB Overlay would not be adopted and the initial DDB Overlay height and density bonuses would be retained; (2) a “Modified Proposed Action” that would amend the process by which height and density bonuses are granted but would not change the amount of height or density bonuses allowed; and (3) an alternative means for implementing the proposed amendments through creation of three separate floating zones, the DDB-DB, DDB-DMU, and DDB-DMUR, which could be applied in each of the underlying districts, as appropriate.

B. “NO ACTION” ALTERNATIVE The No Action alternative would retain the existing (initial) DDB Overlay District, the height and density bonuses allowed therein, the selection of public benefits that could be provided, and the process by which an applicant would seek to apply a height or density bonus to a property. Environmental analysis of the No Action alternative is contained in the original Draft and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statements for the initial DDB Overlay. Should the City Council opt not to take any action, potential future development levels as projected in the DGEIS and potential impacts from that development would remain as described in the DGEIS. However, as currently codified, it is possible that applicants seeking to apply height or density bonuses could make a legal argument that provision of certain of the public benefits identified in the text entitles the applicant to the height or density bonus without City Council discretion. While the City Council is not certain whether this legal argument holds merit, the City Council would prefer that this circumstance be avoided. Thus, taking no action on proposed amendments may place the City Council in an undesirable position with respect to reviewing development applications within the downtown and is not considered a preferred alternative.

C. MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION The Modified Proposed Action would amend the existing DDB Overlay by repealing §331-85.3 and creating §331-80.2 to create the “DDB Floating Zone.” Language within §331-80.2 would be largely similar to §331-85.3, but the provisions for application and review of any application for height or density bonuses would be slightly modified to clarify that granting of either a height or density bonus would require separate, discretionary, actions by the City Council to: (1) map a parcel with the floating zone, and (2) grant partial or full height or density bonuses depending on the City Council’s discretion upon its review of the public benefits proposed. The amount of height and density bonuses possible under the Modified Proposed Action would be identical to the initial DDB Overlay (i.e., no increases as considered under the Proposed Action).

8-1 09/20/07 Downtown Density Bonus DSGEIS

Potential environmental impacts of the Modified Proposed Action would be identical to the environmental impacts of the initial DDB as levels of potential development would be identical. The Modified Proposed Action would enhance the City Council’s review authority of development applications but may not result in development levels that would be considered feasible to implement or achieve Comprehensive Plan goals for revitalizing downtown, especially for parcels in an urban renewal district where cost of parcel assemblage may be higher. Thus, the Modified Proposed Action is not considered the preferred alternative.

D. SEPARATE FLOATING ZONE ALTERNATIVE The Separate Floating Zone Alternative would amend the existing DDB Overlay by repealing §331-85.3 and creating §331-80.2, “DDB-DB Floating Zone,” §331-80.3, “DDB-DMU Floating Zone,” and §331-80.4, “DDB-DMUR Floating Zone.” Language within each of these sections would be largely similar to §331-85.3, but the provisions for application and review of any application for height or density bonuses would be slightly modified to clarify that granting of either a height or density bonus would require separate, discretionary, actions by the City Council to: (1) map a parcel with the floating zone, and (2) grant partial or full height or density bonuses depending on the City Council’s discretion upon its review of the public benefits proposed. There would be no change to the potential height bonus or density bonus in the DB Zoning District. Within the DMU Zoning District the potential height bonus would be increased to a total of 500 feet and new possible public benefits (similar to the Proposed Action) would be introduced for density bonus (although the cap of a 1.5 FAR bonus would be retained). Within the DMUR Zoning District the potential height bonus would be increased to a total of 500 feet, new possible public benefits would be introduced for density bonus, and the maximum cap on density bonuses would be increased to 6.0 FAR. Potential environmental impacts of the Separate Floating Zone Alternative would be identical to the Proposed Action. The only difference would be the form in which the proposed zoning amendments are implemented. Based on a review of the alternatives, City staff has recommended to the City Council that the Proposed Action be considered the preferred alternative. Ï

09/20/07 8-2 Chapter 9: Growth-Inducing Impacts

The Proposed Action is intended to promote growth in New Rochelle’s downtown to bring in a critical mass of residential and commercial activity. Development made possible by density bonuses would help implement the City’s continuing efforts to revitalize the downtown. The City’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in July of 1996, sets forth a number of recommendations for improving the quality of life and economic status of the City as a whole and for the downtown specifically. The Plan’s goal for downtown development is to: “Expand the economic base of New Rochelle by revitalizing the downtown. Develop downtown as an attractive, safe, economically productive shopping and working destination, that serves both local residents and a larger market area.” The Plan also includes a number of Goals for achieving this objective which includes the following: • Coordinate public and private actions to improve the appearance, convenience, and functioning of the downtown. • Revitalize vacant and underutilized business establishments, where appropriate, and encourage new compatible commercial activities. • Encourage mixed-use development including commercial, cultural, residential, entertainment, community, and recreational uses to create a critical mass of new development downtown. • Encourage the private sector to provide a broad range of commercial activities, goods, and services to meet the needs of a large market area. • Encourage the redevelopment of downtown along a specific architectural theme. • Improve pedestrian connections to and from downtown to the Sound Shore Medical Center and the College of New Rochelle. Development activities in downtown New Rochelle since 1996 have largely been consistent with these six objectives and the overall goal for revitalizing the downtown. In 2000, the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) became operational with the mission to recruit new businesses, coordinate efforts by property owners to improve existing buildings and vacant properties, and provide shared services such as the Clean Streets Program. The Proposed Action would allow eligible properties in the downtown to be redeveloped with a height and/or density bonus. Applying the density bonus would encourage property owners and developers to make improvements that would continue the development activity that has occurred since 1996 and result in an overall improvement to the downtown. Therefore, the Proposed Action would result in growth in the downtown. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Land Use, Community Character, Zoning, and Public Policy,” the Proposed Action has the potential to add approximately 1,842 new residential units. These new units would be instrumental in bringing a critical mass of residents to the downtown. Ï

9-1 09/20/07 Chapter 10: Impacts on Energy

The Proposed Action would not have a direct impact on the energy supply system and would not place excessive demands on it. However, if the level of energy use were to change from its current level as a result of specific development encouraged by the proposed density bonuses, then increased energy usage would occur. Any additional demands for energy are not anticipated to be significant. The existing energy infrastructure has adequate capacity and would be expected to meet increased energy demand in the downtown with minimal or no major improvements. The Proposed Action allows for the provision of density bonuses for buildings that achieve United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. Encouraging green building standards through additional density could serve to offset new demand on energy use represented by the additional density. Ï

10-1 09/20/07 Chapter 11: Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

The Proposed Action would not directly result in the commitment of irreversible and irretrievable resources. To the extent that specific development encouraged by the Proposed Action occurs, the building materials used, energy and electricity, and human effort expended in the construction process would be considered irretrievably committed. It should also be noted that the decision to adopt the zoning amendment is, in fact, reversible. Ï

11-1 09/20/07 Chapter 12: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined as those that meet the following two criteria: • There are no reasonably practicable mitigation measures to eliminate the impact. • There are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that would meet the purpose and need of the action, eliminate the impact, and not cause other or similar significant adverse impacts. The potential impacts of the Proposed Action include: • Increased demand for community services (police and fire) • Increased demand for water • Increased sewage flows • Increased traffic Mitigation of each of the potential impacts is possible through project design, provision of additional labor or capital resources, or specific improvements to infrastructure. New development in the downtown may, however, result in traffic impacts that can not easily be mitigated. Project-specific environmental impact assessment of development seeking to apply the proposed height or density bonuses would have to demonstrate that all reasonable means for mitigation are explored before the City Council could approve the height or density bonuses. Ï

12-1 09/20/07