Chapter 22: Response to Public Comments1 A. INTRODUCTION This chapter of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) summarizes and responds to substantive comments received during the public comment period for the Belmont Park Redevelopment Civic and Land Use Improvement Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the draft General Project Plan (GPP), which were issued on December 6, 2018. The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requires a public hearing on the DEIS as part of the environmental review process. The New York State Urban Development Corporation Act (UDC Act) requires a public hearing on the GPP. The combined public hearing was held on January 8, 9, and 10, 2019, at Elmont Memorial Library, 700 Hempstead Turnpike, Elmont, NY 11003. The comment period remained open until 5:00 PM on March 1, 2019. A number of comments were submitted beyond the March 1 deadline, and were accepted and addressed by Empire State Development (ESD). Section B contains a summary of relevant comments on the DEIS and GPP, and a response to each. These summaries convey the substance of the comments made, but do not necessarily quote the comments verbatim. Comments are organized by subject matter and generally parallel the chapter structure of the EIS. Where more than one commenter expressed similar views, those comments have been grouped and addressed together. A list of organizations and individuals that provided comments relevant to the EIS can be found in Section C. All oral and written comments are included in digital format as Appendix L, “Public Comments Received on the DEIS and Draft GPP.” B. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS Comment 1-1: Will ESD use its response to public comments as an opportunity to explain why an impact is not significant, and to explain why a particular topic is not included in the FEIS or how an alternative or proposed mitigation would work? (Stetson_TS1_894) Response 1-1: These responses to public comments address specific questions and concerns related to the DEIS and the GPP. In addition, previous chapters in this FEIS address issues raised during the public review process with greater specificity, and identify measures to reduce the Proposed 1 This chapter is new to the FEIS. 22-1 July 2019 Belmont Park Redevelopment Civic and Land Use Improvement Project FEIS Project’s significant adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations. All EIS analyses were conducted in accordance with SEQRA and the Final Scope of Work (the “Final Scope”), which was reviewed and commented upon by the public. Comment 1-2: Has ESD fulfilled its obligations under the UDC Act in a meaningful and transparent manner? UDC Act § 6266(1) provides that the ESD: shall work closely, consult and cooperate with local elected officials and community leaders at the earliest practicable time. The [ESD] shall give primary consideration to local needs and desires and shall foster local initiative and participation in connection with the planning and development of its projects. On its face, giving “primary consideration to local needs and desires” is a statutory mandate imposed on ESD. Based on the comments at the DEIS/GPP hearings in January, there is virtually no support within the surrounding communities for a project of this scale and magnitude. For ESD to accept and approve this project, as proposed, it necessarily will be rejecting all consideration of local needs and desires. Floral Park respectfully calls upon ESD to heed the legitimate concerns of the communities surrounding Belmont Park. The project must be dramatically altered and downsized so impacts can be avoided and actually mitigated, and then a new DEIS can be issued accordingly. (VFP_2547) The EIS should be managed in coordination with the local communities and small business leadership. (Alfonsi_2567, Flood_2394, Smith_2570, VFP_2574, VLI_2125) Response 1-2: In accordance with UDC Act 6266(1), ESD has worked closely, consulted, and cooperated with local elected officials and community leaders and given primary consideration to local needs and desires through a robust community engagement process. As detailed in Chapter 2, “Land Use, Zoning, and Community Character,” the proposed uses are consistent with the Elmont Vision Plan and consistent with the County’s comprehensive planning documents and policy recommendations, as one of the major goals identified by the County is for this area to leverage the prominence of Belmont Park to spur economic development and to create an important gateway to Long Island. ESD has extensively consulted with representatives of Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead, as well as New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). ESD also has met with, and solicited the views of municipalities and community organizations in the vicinity 22-2 Chapter 22: Response to Public Comments of Belmont Park, including Elmont, Floral Park, South Floral Park, Bellerose and neighborhoods in Queens. Moreover, ESD has organized the Belmont Community Advisory Committee (CAC), which is comprised of 15 community members appointed by local elected officials and ESD to facilitate open communication and engagement with local residents and other stakeholders. The CAC has met with ESD at least quarterly since its formation on February 6, 2018 to hear updates on the Proposed Project and provide community feedback to ESD. ESD has given primary consideration to the broad spectrum of local needs and desires identified as a result of its close consultation with government officials, community leaders, and small business leadership (e.g., Elmont and Floral Park Chambers of Commerce). ESD has balanced the need for economic development and job creation (as articulated by Nassau County, Hempstead and others) against the concerns regarding overdevelopment raised by the local community. Over the course of the environmental review process the Project has changed as a result of the community outreach and in response to public comments. For example: the maximum height of the proposed hotel was reduced; the hotel and proposed electrical substation were relocated; the maximum amount of retail was reduced; and a new Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) Elmont Station was added to provide improved service to the surrounding community and to mitigate transportation impacts identified in the EIS. Please also see response to Comment 1-83, and “Environmental Review Process” within Section D of Chapter 1, “Project Description.” See also correspondence from the Office of the County Executive, found in FEIS Appendix M, “Agency Correspondence Letters Post-DEIS.” Comment 1-3: There has been no community engagement. Local input is needed to give a realistic evaluation of impacts, including from police, fire, school officials and civic groups. Community engagement is critical. Residents of all age groups should be engaged in the process. ESD hasn’t taken resident comments into consideration and reduced the proposed scope in any way. (Achille_TS4_1024, Alfonsi_2540, Alfonsi_TS3_953, Alfonsi_TS4_1030, Barley_045, Block_CHCA_106, Block_CHCA_133, Block_TS4_972, BPCC_132, Colgan_2542, Comrie_TS4_968, Dixon_2280, Flood_TS1_892, Gillen_TS3_934, Hernandez_TS4_983, Kaplan_TS4_967, Madden_TS3_956, McDonald_TS1_882, McDonald_TS4_1001, Moriarty_2144, Moy_148, O'Grady_TS1_879, Reisig_TS3_949, Sexton_TS4_1028, Smith_TS1_889, Solages_TS1_855, Weickert_TS1_869, Weickert_TS1_869) 22-3 Belmont Park Redevelopment Civic and Land Use Improvement Project FEIS Response 1-3: Chapter 3, “Community Facilities and Utilities,” of the EIS and the response to comments in the Community Facilities section below describe input received from municipal service providers. ESD has given primary consideration to local needs and desires through a robust community outreach program including 11 public meetings, 27 tours and smaller community meetings, 20 Community Advisory Committee and local elected official meetings, numerous communications with elected officials and local/state government agencies and staff, and numerous communications with local civic and community groups. Comment 1-4: There has been a lack of outreach to Queens-based civic organizations and Bellerose. (Hellenbrecht_BCCA_052) Response 1-4: ESD has met with Bellerose- and Queens-based civic organizations (including Queens Village Civic Association, Cambria Heights Civic Association and the leadership of Bellerose Commonwealth Civic Association), elected officials, and NYCDOT. Comment 1-5: The Town of Hempstead should be Lead Agency to ensure the project is compatible with the needs of the local community. (VLI_2125) Response 1-5: As the public sponsor for the Project that is principally responsible for its approval, ESD has assumed the role of lead agency for the Proposed Project under SEQRA. In order for the Proposed Project to proceed, ESD must take an action to affirm the GPP under the UDC Act, which would include zoning overrides. A municipality must be taking a discretionary action to be a lead agency under SEQRA; the Town of Hempstead is not taking any discretionary actions associated with the Proposed Project. However, ESD has included the Town of Hempstead as an interested agency for this environmental review. Comment 1-6: There should be a Belmont Park Local Advisory Board under NYS Racing Law section 212. This entity