Volume 1 Composite

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility
Route 202/35
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Volume 1

Prepared by

TRC Engineers, Inc.
Hawthorne, New York

TRC Project No. 165213

Date Submitted: July 14, 2014
Date Accepted:

C-2

Proposed Action:
Proposed Costco Wholesale
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202
Tax Lots: Section 26.18 Block 1, Lots 17, 18 and 19
Section 26.19 Block 1, Lot 1

Lead Agency:
Planning Board of the Town of Yorktown
Yorktown Community and Cultural Center
1974 Commerce Street, Room 222
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Contact: J ohn Tegeder, Director of Planning
Telephone No. (914) 962-6565

Applicant/Project Sponsor
Retail Store Construction Company (RSCC).
500 Old Country Road
Garden City, New York
Contact: Wilbur Breslin
Telephone No. (516) 741-7400

FEIS Preparation and Coordination
TRC Engineers, Inc.
7 Skyline Drive
Hawthorne, New York 10532
Contact: Thomas Holmes
(914) 592-4040 ext 264


C-3

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The following consultants contributed to the preparation of this report:

Site Engineering
TRC Engineers, Inc.
7 Skyline Drive
Hawthorne, NY 10532
(914) 592-4040

Land Use, Visual and Fiscal/Socioeconomic
Ferrandino & Associates Inc.
3 West Main Street, Suite 214
Elmsford, NY 10523-2414
(914) 345-5820

Traffic Engineering
J ohn Collins Engineering
11 Bradhurst Avenue
Hawthorne, NY 10532
(914) 347-7500

Wetlands and Natural Resources
Evans Associates Environmental Consultants
205 Amity Road
Bethany, CT 06524
(203) 393-0690

Water Resources (Thermal and Pollutant Loading Analysis)
Henningson, Durham & Richardson
Architecture and Engineering, P.C.
in association with HDR Engineering, Inc.
One Blue Hill Plaza
PO Box 1509
Pearl River, NY 10965
845-735-8300

Air Quality and Noise
TRC Environmental
1200 Wall Street West, 2nd Floor
Lyndhurst, NJ 07071
(201) 933-5541


C-4

Environmental Management and Regulatory Compliance
EcolSciences, Inc.
75 Fleetwood Drive Suite 250
Rockaway, NJ 07866
(973) 366-9500

Cultural Resources
Historical Perspectives
7 Peters Lane
Westport, CT 06880
(203) 226-7654

Geotechnical Engineering
Tectonic Engineering & Surveying Consultants P.C.
70 Pleasant Hill Road
Mountainville, New York 10953
(845) 534-5959

Legal Services
Al Capellini, Esq.
1767 Front Street
(914) 962-3311

Legal Services
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
460 Park Avenue - 10th Floor
New York, NY 10022-1994
(212) 421-2150

C-5

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Involved Agencies

Town of Yorktown
Planning Board
363 Underhill Ave,
(914) 962-5722

Town of Yorktown
Town Board
363 Underhill Ave,
(914) 962-5722

Town of Yorktown
Zoning Board of Appeals
363 Underhill Ave,
(914) 962-5722

Westchester County Health Department
Assistant Commissioner of Health
25 Moore Ave.
Mt. Kisco, New York 10549
Contact: Paul Kutzy, P.E.
(914) 864-7333

Petroleum Bulk Storage Section
145 Huguenot Street
New Rochelle, NY 10801
Contact: Barbara McDonald
(914) 813-5000

Westchester County Board of Legislators
148 Martine Ave, 8
th
Floor
White Plains, NY 10601
(914) 995-2800

C-6

Involved Agencies

New York City Department of Environmental Protection
465 Columbus Avenue
Valhalla, New York 10595
Contact: Mary Galasso
Contact: Cynthia Garcia
914-773-4440

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Region 3 Sub-Office
100 Hillside Ave, Suite 1W
White Plains, New York 10603
Contact: Todd Ghiosay
(914) 428-2505

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 3
Environmental Permits
21 South Putt Corners Road
New Paltz, New York 12561
Contact: Adam Peterson
(845) 256-3000

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources
New York Natural Heritage Program
625 Broadway, 5
th
Floor
Albany, New York 12233-4757
Contact: Tara Salerno
518-402-8935

New York State Department of Transportation Region 8
4 Burnett Boulevard
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
Contact: William Gorton, P.E.
(845) 575-6040

C-7

Interested Agencies

City of Peekskill
Pamela Beach, City Clerk
840 Main Street
Peekskill, NY 10566

Town of Cortlandt
J oann Dyckman, Town Clerk
1 Heady Street
Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567

Town of Yorktown
Planning Department
Yorktown Community & Cultural Center
1974 Commerce Street,
(914) 962-6565

Town of Yorktown
Building Department
363 Underhill Ave,
(914) 962-5722 ext. 229

Town of Yorktown
Town Engineer
363 Underhill Ave,
(914) 962-5722 ext. 218

Town of Yorktown Environmental Conservation Board
Advisory Board on Architecture and Community Appearance (ABACA)
363 Underhill Avenue,

Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities
270 North Avenue,
(914) 813-5400

C-8

Interested Agencies

Assistant Commissioner of Health
25 Moore Ave.
Mt. Kisco, New York 10549
Contact: Paul Kutzy, P.E.
(914) 864-7360

Westchester County Planning Commissioner Edward Buroughs
Westchester County Planning Board Susan Konig, Chair
148 Martine Avenue, Room 432
(914) 995-4400

Westchester County Legal Department
Westchester County Budget Department
148 Martine Ave,

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 3
Environmental Remediation
21 South Putt Corners Road
New Paltz, New York 12561
Contact: Ed Moore
(845) 256-3137

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Field Services Bureau, Peebles Island
P.O. Box 189,
Waterford, New York 12188-0189
Contact: Ken Markunas
(518) 237-8643

United States Army Corps of Engineers NY District
26 Federal Plaza,
New York, NY 10278-0090
Contact: Col. J ohn R. Boule II Commander

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Table of Contents


i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION

Part A. Introduction to FEIS
1. Project SEQRA Chronology
2. Organization of this FEIS
3. Definitions
Part B. Comments and Responses
1. Organization of Comments and Responses
2. FEIS Subjects

II. FEIS Executive Summary

I. Description of Proposed Action
II. Site Plan and Off-Site Changes
III. Summary of Responses to Comments on DEIS

III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Site Plan Site Plan
II. Description of Proposed Action
III.A Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy
III.B Visual Character
III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology
III.D Hazardous Materials
III.E Flora and Fauna
III.F Wetlands, Groundwater and Surface Water Resources
III.G Stormwater Management
III.H Utilities
III.I Use and Conservation of Energy Green Technology
III.J Solid Waste
III.K Fiscal Impact Analysis
III.L Parking
III.M Air Quality
III.N Noise
III.O Building Demolition and Construction
III.P Community Facilities and Services
III.Q Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts
III.R Cultural, Historical and Archeological Resources
IV. Alternatives


ii
VI. Other SEQRA Required Chapters
General Miscellaneous Legal Comments Regarding Segmentation,
Cumulative Impact Assessment, Procedure, or Need for
Supplemental EIS

VII. APPENDICES

Appendix A Written Public Comment Documents
Appendix B Public Hearing Transcripts
Appendix C Correspondence
Appendix D - Natural Resources
Appendix E - Stormwater Management
Appendix F Socioeconomics
Appendix G Traffic
Appendix H Parking
Appendix I Alternate Onsite Wastewater Disposal
Appendix J Drawings (See Separate List of Drawings)


iii
LIST OF FEIS RESPONSE TABLES

Table No. Table Name

Site Plan Table 1 DEIS / FEIS Site Land Area Comparison (Section Site Plan)
Table III.G-A1 Peak Discharge Volume Comparison Table for Project
Table III.G A2 Offsite (Rte 202/35) Improvement Stormwater RRv/WQv Treatment
Table III.G A3 Daily Average Stream Temperature (Summer Period)
Table III.G A4 Pollutant Loading Comparison Table to Wetland A
Table III.G A5 Pollutant Loading Comparison Table Entire Costco Site
Table III.G A6 Peak Discharge Rate Comparison Table
Table III.G A7 Summary of Offsite Drainage Conditions (Contributing to Route 202/35 &
Old Crompond Road Right-of-Way)
Table III.G A8 Wetland A Water Balance
Max Peak Discharge Runoff Rate Comparison Table (8.25 in Rainfall)
(III.G)
Table III.K.1 Untitled (Traffic Volumes)
Graph III.L.A Parking Demand vs. Building Area
Graph III.L.B Parking Demand vs. Building Area
Table III.L.C Parking Demand Summary
Table III.L.B Holiday Shopping Season Peak Day Parking Summary FEIS Parking
Utilization Study
Table III.L.A Holiday Shopping Season Peak Daily Parking Summary FEIS Parking
Utilization Study
Bike Parking Racks at Other Costco Locations (III.L)
Table IV.7a Traffic Generation With and Without the Fueling Station (IV)
Table VI.1a List of Existing Properties Adjacent to Project Improvements (VI)
Table VI.1b Land Constraints Summary (VI)
Table VI.1c Summary of Impacts from Potential Growth (VI)
Table VI.1d Traffic Summary of Impacts from Potential Growth (VI)
Table VI.2 Summary of Potential Impact to School District (VI)



iv
LIST OF FEIS RESPONSE EXHIBITS

Section Site Plan
FEIS Executive Summary Exhibit 1 DEIS Site Plan
FEIS Executive Summary Exhibit 2 FEIS Site Plan
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 1 DEIS Site Plan
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 2 FEIS Site Plan
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 3 FEIS Grading Plan
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 4 Offsite Sanitary Sewer and Gas Main Extension Plan
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 5 Conceptual Offsite Rte 202/35 Improvements
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2b-1 Building Elevation and Sign Detail
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2b-2 - Gas Station Elevations
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2c TSP 300 & 500 Sign Restricted Zone
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2d Bike Parking Plan
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2e (1) Fuel Truck Route
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2e (10) Secondary Entrance Modifications
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2e (12) Fueling Facility Large Van Circulation
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2j Section- Taconic State Parkway Overpass
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 3 Pedestrian Access (Sidewalk)
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8a (1) Embankment Plan
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8a (2) Construction on Steep Slopes Map
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8a (3) Existing Slopes 25% Within Wetland A Buffer
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8c Typical Westerly Embankment Section
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 9 Fueling Facility Plan

Section II
FEIS Exhibit II.7 Vegetated Area
FEIS Exhibit II.10 Snow Removal/Stockpiling Plan

Section III.A
III.A-1 Existing Land Use in Study Area
ODL-1 Other Area Development Site Locations

Section III.B
III.B 20a Site Line Plan and Profile from Stony Street to Route 202/35
III.B-40a View Reference Key
III.B-41a View 1a
III.B-42a View 1a (Transparent)
III.B-43a View 2a
III.B-45a View 3a
III.B 55 Site Line Section Location Plan
III.B - 56 Site Line Sections



v

Section III.C
III.C-1 Erosive Soil Disturbance Map
III.C-3 Proposed Soil Disturbance Map

Section III.F
III.F-1 FEIS Introductory Exhibit Reduced Impact to Wetland A Buffer Area

Section III.G
III.G-A1 FEIS Reduced Impact to Wetland A Buffer Area
III.G-A2 FEIS Exhibit Stormwater Management Drainage System
III.G-A3 FEIS Exhibit Existing Drainage Area Map
III.G-A4 FEIS Exhibit Proposed Drainage Area Map
III.G-A5 FEIS Exhibit Offsite Drainage Area Map
III.G-A9 FEIS Exhibit Wetland A/SWM Infiltration Section
III.G-A10 FEIS Exhibit Existing Drainage Area Map Wetland B
III.G-A11 FEIS Exhibit Proposed Drainage Area Map Wetland B
III.G-A12 FEIS Exhibit Alternate Sewage Disposal System
III.G 37h FEIS Introductory Exhibit Hot Spot WQ Treatment
III.G-49 Hunter Brook Flood Map

Section III.K
III.K-3a FEIS Exhibit - Inbound Trucks to Loading Area
III.K-3b FEIS Exhibit - Outbound Trucks rom Loading Area

Section III.O
III.O-4a Construction Sequence Phase 1
III.O-4b Construction Sequence Phase 2
III.O-4c Construction Sequence Phase 3
III.O-4d Construction Sequence Phase 4
III.O-4e Construction Sequence Phase 5
III.O-4f Construction Sequence Phase 1 Notes
III.O-4g Construction Sequence Phase 2 Notes
III.O-4g(2) Construction Sequence Phase 2 Notes (continued)
III.O-4h Construction Sequence Phase 3 Notes
III.O-4i Construction Sequence Phase 4 Notes
III.O-4j Construction Sequence Phase 5 Notes
III.O-4k Preliminary Construction Schedule

Section VI
VI-1a Vacant Land with Potential for Future Growth
VI-1b Existing Steep Slopes
VI-1c Existing Wetland and Buffers


vi

LIST OF DRAWINGS
DWG. NO. DWG. TITLE

SITE PLANS by TRC Engineers, Inc.

C-1 Cover Sheet
C-11 Existing Conditions Plan
C-101 Layout Plan
C-103 Development Requirements Plan
C-201 Grading Plan
C-202 Boring Plan
C-301 Utility Plan
C-305 On-Site Sanitary Sewer (Sheet 1 of 3)
C-401A Construction Sequence Phase 1
C-401B Construction Sequence Phase 2
C-401C Construction Sequence Phase 3
C-401D Construction Sequence Phase 4
C-401E Construction Sequence Phase 5
C-402A Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Phase 1
C-402B Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Phase 2
C-402C Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Phase 3
C-402D Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Phase 4
C-402E Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Phase 5
C-501 As Of Right Lighting Plan (16 Ft.)
C-502 Preferred Lighting Plan (25 Ft.)
C-601 Sight Line Sections (A-C)
C-602 Sight Line Sections (D-G)
C-603 Site Sections
C-604 Site Sections
C-701A SWM Plan View & Sections
C-701B Pond Details & Sections
C-702 Details (Sheet 1)
C-706 Retaining Wall Details (For SWM Facility)
C-801 Highway Improvement Plan

SITE PLAN by EVANS ASSOCIATES

LP-1 Site Landscaping Plan



vii
RES SAND FILTER STRUCTURES by ROTONDO

L-001 Sand Filter F-7-1 (1 of 2)
L-002 Sand Filter F-6-8 (2 of 2)

OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER PLANS by TRC Engineers, Inc.

S-1 Cover Sheet
S-2 Off-Site Sanitary Sewer Plan

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS by TRC Engineers, Inc.

HD-1 Cover Sheet
HD-2 Typical Sections
HD-3 thru 6 Layout Control Plans
HD-7 thru 10 Construction Plans
HD-11 thru 14 Grading & Utilities Plans
HD-19 thru 22 Striping & Signing Plans
HD-36 Diversion Structure Details

TRANSMISSION MAIN RELOCATION PLANS by TRC Engineers, Inc.

W-1 Transmission Main Relocation (Sheet 1 of 2)
W-2 Transmission Main Relocation (Sheet 2 of 2)

I. INTRODUCTION
Part A - Introduction to FEIS


______________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction to FEIS -1

Part A. Introduction to FEIS

1. Project SEQRA Chronology

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared in accordance
with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Article 8 of
the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, and the implementing regulations
6 NYCRR Part 617 (the SEQRA Regulations). The consideration of environmental
issues, including the proposed mitigation of potentially significant adverse impacts, is
incorporated into the review and decision-making process at the local and State levels
through a full disclosure process that includes the public scoping process for the Draft
Environmental Impacts Statement (DEIS), the circulation of the DEIS and the review
and comment thereon by agencies and the public, the preparation of an FEIS that
responds to all substantive comments on the DEIS and incorporates any project changes
or relevant new information, and the issuance of a SEQRA Findings Statement.
Following is a chronology of principal events regarding the proposed 151,092 square foot
Costco Wholesale Club retail store, tire center and member-only fueling facility (the
Project or Proposed Action) leading up to the preparation of this FEIS.

On J une 30, 2010, Retail Store Construction Co., Inc. (the Applicant) submitted to
the Planning Board of the Town of Yorktown (the Planning Board or the Lead
Agency) an application for site plan approval for the Project (the Application).

On August 9, 2010, the Planning Board circulated a Notice of Intent to assume the
role of lead agency in connection with the environmental review of the Application
pursuant SEQRA; and

On September 13, 2010, the Planning Board, based on its review of the Application, a
Long Form Environmental Assessment Form, and related information, issued a
Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance pursuant to Section 617.7 of the
SEQRA Regulations; and

The Planning Board produced and circulated a draft scoping document and considered
public comment on the draft scope at a duly noticed public hearing held on
November 8, 2010 at Town Hall in Yorktown Heights, New York; and

The Planning Board, after receiving comment and reviewing the draft scoping
document, adopted the final scoping document at its regular meeting on December 13,
2010 (the Final Scope), and directed the Applicant to prepare and submit the DEIS
pursuant to said Final Scope; and

The Planning Board, at its meeting on November 28, 2011, received a preliminary

______________________________________________________________________________________

DEIS dated November 16, 2011. At its meetings on J anuary 9, 2012, J anuary 23,
2012, August 13, 2012, and September 10, 2012, the Planning Board reviewed and
discussed the preliminary DEIS. Based on these discussions, and additional
discussions between representatives of the Applicant and staff and consultants to
the Lead Agency to question and or clarify comments of staff and consultants,
multiple revisions were made to the preliminary DEIS and it was re-submitted, as
revised, to the Planning Board in September 2012; and

The Planning Board, at its meeting on September 10, 2012, accepted the DEIS for the
Proposed Action, dated September 6, 2012, as adequate for public review. The DEIS
was circulated to all involved and interested agencies, published online, and made
available for public comment in accordance with Section 617.12 of the SEQRA
Regulations; and

The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the DEIS on October 15, 2012 and
the hearing was continued on November 19, 2012 and, at the close of the November 19,
2012 hearing, the Planning Board extended the written public comment period on the
DEIS through December 19, 2012; and

Comments from agencies and the public regarding the DEIS were submitted to the Town
of Yorktown Planning Department and 183 documents, including letters and reports, were
received. This FEIS contains responses to all substantive comments on the DEIS, organized
by section.

After the conclusion of the DEIS public hearing and extended written comment period, the
Planning Boards staff and consultants worked with the Applicant and its consultants to
prepare a preliminary FEIS (pFEIS). The Planning Board, as Lead Agency of the Project,
is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of this FEIS. After 10 days have elapsed
following the Notice of Completion, any involved agency may rely on the SEQRA record
prepared by the Lead Agency and issue SEQRA Findings prior to rendering a discretionary
agency decision related to this Proposed Action.

2. Organization of this FEIS

DEIS
The DEIS dated September 10, 2012, its two volumes of appendices and the DEIS Site
Plans are hereby incorporated in this FEIS by reference.

FEIS Volume 1
Part A - Introduction to this FEIS - Introduces the Project and summarizes the SEQRA
process as it pertains to the Proposed Action; incorporates the DEIS by reference; and an
Executive Summary that describes the changes made in response to DEIS comments in

______________________________________________________________________________________

order to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts. (For more detailed discussion of
changes made to the Site Plan, refer to FEIS Section Site Plan.)

Part B - Comments and Responses - Summarizes all of the substantive comments
pertaining to the DEIS that were provided at the SEQRA public hearing or submitted in
writing during the public comment period. This section also provides responses to these
comments.

FEIS Volumes 2 and 3
Appendices Written comments received during the public comment period can be found
in Appendix A. Both dates of the SEQRA public hearing were transcribed by Carbone &
Associates, LTD. The transcripts for the public hearing (i.e., all of the spoken comments)
are contained in Appendix B. These appendices also contain indices for both written and
spoken comments.

FEIS Volumes 4 to 6
Appendices - Contain supporting documents that are referenced in the Responses to
Comments supported by a list of contents of such documents.

3. Definitions

LIST OF FEIS DEFINITIONS / ACRONYMS
(Also Refer to DEIS List of Acronyms)
Ac Acres
Applicant See FEIS Introduction, Part A (Introduction to FEIS -1), sometimes
referred to as Project Sponsor
BME Bear Mountain Parkway Extension
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
C(TS) NYSDEC stream classification (Trout Spawning)
DA Drainage Area
DCA David Clouser & Associates
DEIS Site Plan The Site Plan submitted as part of the DEIS.
DMA NYC DEC Designated Main Street Area
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FEIS Site Plan The site plan submitted as part of the DEIS was modified in response to
public comments. The revised site plan is herein identified as the FEIS
Site Plan.
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

______________________________________________________________________________________

Final Scope See FEIS Introduction, Part A (Introduction to FEIS -1)
Fueling Facility It is also known as gasoline filling station as defined in the Yorktown
Town Code and sometimes referred to herein as fueling station.
GIP Green Infrastructure Practices
mg/L Milligrams per Liter
MgCl Magnesium chloride
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NPO North Pond Outfall
NRCC Northeast Regional Climate Center
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NYCDEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection
NYCRR New York Codes, Rules and Regulations
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation
Pf Precipitation
PH Public Hearing
pH A measure of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution
Project See FEIS Introduction, Part A (Introduction to FEIS -1)
Project Site 18.75 acres consisting Yorktown Tax Map Section 26.18 Block 1 Lots
17, 18, 19 and Section 26.18 Block 1 Lot 1 and located at 3220 Old
Crompond Road, 3220 Crompond Road, 3200 Crompond Road and
3216 Crompond Road respectively.
Project Sponsor See FEIS Definition of Applicant (Introduction to FEIS -1)
Proposed Action See FEIS Introduction, Part A (Introduction to FEIS -1)
RRv Runoff Reduction volume
SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
SKU Stock-keeping unit
Stormwater
Management
Plan
Refers to all aspects of design associated with stormwater including the
storm drainage plans, Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP),
water quality treatment, stormwater abatement and related design
calculations.
SWF Stormwater Facility
Tc Time of concentration
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TR Technical Release
TU Trout Unlimited
UNH University of New Hampshire
UNHSC University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center
WIG Watershed Inspector General

______________________________________________________________________________________

WQ Water Quality
WQv Water Quality volume

Part B - Comments and Responses

1. Organization of Comments and Responses

This FEIS presents all of the comments received through the designated comment period,
including those provided at the SEQRA public hearing. The comments are grouped
according to DEIS subject (e.g., Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, Visual
Character, etc). The subject is numerated in accordance with the related DEIS section
(e.g., III.A, III.B, etc.) followed by a numeric value assigned to each individual comment
(e.g., III.A 1, III.A 2, etc.). The document or public hearing and author/speaker of the
comment is identified within parentheses following the comment number. (See
illustration below typifying the comment nomenclature.)

The written document, along with each comment within each document, is identified by a
numeric value followed by the authors name (e.g., (Document 7.1, NAME). Spoken
comments are identified by public hearing number followed by the commenters name
(e.g., (PH2, NAME)). Organizations were identified after the name where applicable.
Each SEQRA public hearing comment is cross referenced to the transcript identifying the
public hearing, page and line (e.g., PH1, page XX, line X) from which the comment was
excerpted.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Comments were extracted from the original document using letter recognition
software, which may have resulted in some minor inaccuracies appearing as spelling or
typographical errors. Such software-related errors were corrected as much as possible in
an attempt to maintain the integrity of the original document. Misspellings and/or
grammatical errors that were contained in the original quoted document, however, were
left intact and when found, the error was identified by adding [sic] to the quotation.

Emphases provided in the Comments through bold or large font, underlining, etc. belongs
to the Commenter and was retained as shown in the original document. Some footnote
references may be included in the Comment but the footnotes may not appear. Refer to
the original written documents included in Appendix A to view the footnotes in the
context of the original document. Where numbering sequences within written comments
are found, the numbered items may be incomplete. Since the original comment document
is subdivided according to DEIS subjects, the apparent missing items are actually
contained in other sections of the FEIS. Refer back to the original comment document in
Appendix A to see the complete document in in its original context.

Spoken comments were transcribed, and thus maintain the authors original language. For
the most part, the language remains unedited and contains the transcribers original text
including grammatical inconsistencies, misspellings, etc.. The spoken as well as written
documents are included in their entirety in Appendix A (written comments) and
Appendix B (spoken comments).

Each original comment document (letter, email, report, etc. contained in, Appendices A
and B), is notated with the assigned comment number(s) in the margin to assist the
reader in identifying the origin of the relevant comments.

To assist the reader with finding specific comments, documents or authors, indices have
been provided in Appendices A and B. The indices are sorted by each of the referenced
categories (e.g., comment #, document #, commenter, organization).

In the process of developing the Comments and Responses, certain Comment/Responses
were relocated to more appropriate sections. In that case rather than leave a gap in the
numbering sequence or renumber all the comments, the empty Comment number was
noted as NOT USED.

2. FEIS Subjects

Comments within the referenced 183 written documents as well as the spoken comments,
recorded and transcribed at the public hearing, were reviewed and categorized mainly by
DEIS subject. General comments not fitting neatly into the DEIS technical subject

______________________________________________________________________________________

categories were organized and included in a separate General section. Following is a
listing of DEIS sections/subjects for which this FEIS includes Public Comments and
provides Responses:

FEIS Section Subject
Site Plan Site Plan
II. Description Of Proposed Action
III.A Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy
III.B Visual Character
III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology
III.D Hazardous Materials
III.E Flora and Fauna
III.F Wetlands, Groundwater and Surface Water Resources
III.G Stormwater Management
III.H Utilities
III.I Use and Conservation of Energy
III.J Solid Waste
III.K Traffic and Transportation
III.L Parking
III.M Air Quality
III.N Noise
III.O Building Demolition and Construction
III.P Community Facilities and Services
III.Q Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts
III.R Cultural, Historical and Archeological Resources
IV. Alternatives
VI. Other SEQR Required Chapters
General
Misc. Legal (Segmentation, Cumulative Impact Assessment,
Procedure, or Need for Supplemental EIS)

II. FEIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility FEIS Executive Summary

ES-1
Final Environmental Impact Statement: Executive Summary

I. Description of Proposed Action

In accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is submitted in connection with the
proposed development of a 151,092 square foot Costco Wholesale store, with a 12
dispenser fueling facility, a tire service center and 610 onsite parking spaces (the Project
or Proposed Action), located on Crompond Road in the Town of Yorktown, Westchester
County, New York 10598 (the Site).

The Site has previously been developed and currently consists of two residences, a
wholesale nursery, an abandoned motel, and a fence company located on the site of a
former gas facility. Many of the abandoned buildings on Site are currently boarded and
covered in graffiti, contributing to blighted conditions. The Proposed Action would
remove the abandoned buildings and other structures on Site, remediate contamination
from historical uses, and redevelop the Site as a new Costco wholesale store and fueling
facility, while preserving the wetland areas on Site and adding landscaping to shield the
new buildings from the Taconic State Parkway and surrounding area roadways. The
Proposed Action would provide an expanded variety of consumer goods to the local retail
and wholesale market community; generate local tax revenues (particularly for the school
district); extend existing utility infrastructure; and result in improvements to local
roadways including Route 202/35 between Strang Boulevard and Old Crompond Road
that would improve overall peak hour traffic operating conditions in the vicinity of the Site
as compared to Existing and No-Build Conditions.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Proposed Action was
accepted by the Yorktown Planning Board (the Lead Agency) as complete on September
10, 2012. The Lead Agency conducted a public hearing on the DEIS on October 15, 2012,
which was continued on November 19, 2012. At the close of the November 19, 2012
hearing, the Lead Agency extended the written public comment period on the DEIS through
December 19, 2012. This FEIS incorporates the DEIS by reference and responds to all
substantive comments received (either at the public hearing or in writing) on the DEIS.
For additional information about the organization of the FEIS, refer to the Introduction to
FEIS chapter immediately following this Executive Summary.

The FEIS contains an updated Site Plan that retains the basic design reflected in the DEIS
but modifies certain elements to further reduce potential environmental impacts while
improving on-Site circulation and traffic safety. The FEIS also provides for further offsite
roadway and utility improvements to improve traffic conditions and coordinate offsite
utility and roadwork. In addition, the FEIS includes several additional analyses, conducted
in response to public comment and/or at the request of the Town staff, which amplify the
studies in the DEIS. These additional assessments include the following: quantitative
pollutant loading studies, a thermal impact analysis, an amended Site water budget
analysis, an additional parking utilization study, and a traffic sensitivity analysis.


ES-2
II. Site Plan and Off-Site Changes (Site Plans included in FEIS Appendix J

The FEIS Site Plan maintains the major elements of the DEIS proposal (e.g., the Costco
Building is unchanged, there are still 610 parking spaces and the general site layout is very
similar). A series of modifications were proposed to address DEIS comments from the
public and Town staff, regarding such design elements as on-site traffic flow, pedestrian
access, bike parking, retaining walls, stormwater management, as well as off-site traffic
improvements and off-site sanitary sewer improvements. These proposed modifications
were designed to reduce the Proposed Actions environmental impacts and improve project
design.

For the purpose of comparison the DEIS Site Plan and FEIS Site Plan are included in this
Executive Summary (FEIS Executive Summary Exhibits 1 and 2 below, respectively). A
comparison of the land cover proposed in the DEIS Site Plan and FEIS Site Plan is provided
in Executive Summary Table 1.

FEIS Executive Summary Table 1

DEIS / FEIS Post-Development
Site Land Area Comparison (in acres)
Land Area Category DEIS FEIS
DEIS/FEIS
Change +/-

Total Site Area 18.75 18.75 n/a
Wooded 4.20 4.73 13% (2)
Open Vegetated (1) 3.57 3.07 -14% (2)
Building & Pavement (3) 10.98 10.95 -0.3%

Site Area Disturbance 14.55 14.35 (4) -1%
Wetland Buffer disturbed 1.82 1.26 -30%
Woodlands disturbed 4.40 3.86 -12%

Slopes >25% 0.52 0.12 -77%
Notes:
(1) Open Vegetated Area includes interior, perimeter and embankment
vegetated area. (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit II.7.)
(2) The FEIS Site Plan adds a retaining wall that reduces the western
embankment and increases native woodlands.
(3) Building area remains the same.
(4) Includes minor site grading beyond property line. (14.02 acres
disturbed onsite.)


ES-3
Specific modifications from the DEIS Site Plan include:

Site Layout
Main Site Access Driveway: Extended the second exit lane for the entire length of the
main site access driveway to reduce queuing and improve Site egress movements. This
was enabled by shifting the fueling facility approximately 10 feet to the east.
Exit From The Fueling Facility: Modified the exit from the fueling facility to
channelize exiting traffic and improve traffic circulation. These modifications include:
(1) narrowing the fueling facility exit area; and (2) adding a second receiving
westbound lane opposite the fueling facility in advance of the main access road.
Striped Safety Zone: Provided striped safety zone on both sides of the drive aisle
leading to and from the secondary site access to provide additional area for customer
circulation; restricted the left turn movement from the eastbound leg of the intersection
at the Sites secondary access driveway to improve traffic safety.
Parking Lot Adjustment: Modified the main parking area to reduce impact to the buffer
of Wetland A and improve interior traffic circulation by shifting portions of the
westerly parking lot curb to the east (further from the Wetland A buffer); shifting the
main parking lot bays easterly; narrowing landscaped island adjacent to and west of the
main entrance drive; and modifying interior parking to improve traffic circulation and
safety.
Retaining Walls: Added retaining walls along the westerly curb line, to reduce land
disturbance and preserve more of the existing wooded buffer to Wetland A.
Pedestrian Sidewalk: Extended the pedestrian sidewalk from Route 202 to the Costco
building entrance, and added bicycle parking racks, to promote bicycle and pedestrian
access to the Site.

Stormwater Management
Stormwater Infiltration: Enlarged the stormwater infiltration system from that proposed
in the DEIS, in order to provide treatment of the Runoff Reduction volume (RRv) for
100% of the Water Quality volume (WQv) from the 1-year storm. The FEIS infiltration
system will consist of three pretreatment hydrodynamic structures and four subsurface
storage/infiltration chambers.
Fueling Facility Runoff: Provided separate water quality treatment for stormwater
runoff from the proposed fueling facility in sand filter systems.
Offsite Improvements Runoff: Roadway (Route 202/35) Improvement Runoff: The
runoff from the water quality storm (1-year, 24-hour) from all of the new pavement
surfaces and contributing existing pavement as well as disturbed shoulder areas will
receive treatment as follows:
Most will be conveyed to the onsite infiltration practice for treatment;
The Route 202 and site area in the vicinity of and west of the westerly site entrance

ES-4
will be conveyed to an onsite bioretention area adjacent to Old Crompond Road;
The Route 202 area near Strang Boulevard will be conveyed to a water quality
swale.

Offsite Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Sanitary Sewer Extension: Revised sanitary sewer extension to coordinate connection
with sewer for the Crompond Crossings development. Realigned sanitary sewer within
Old Crompond Road right-of-way to reduce impact to roadway pavement and provide
the required separation distances from the as-built location of the existing water
distribution system.

Offsite Highway Improvements
Additional turning lane: Widened Route 202/35 to add an additional lane, thereby
providing two exclusive left turn lanes (1-eastbound and 1-westbound) to the Taconic
State Parkway northbound and southbound ramps in order to improve the traffic
movements getting onto the ramps and would reduce delays to vehicles continuing to
the east and west past the interchange area.
Relocation of water transmission main: Designed relocation of existing offsite 24-inch
water transmission main to accommodate widening of Routed 202/35 along the site
frontage.
Additional bus stop: In addition to improving the current bus stops on the eastbound
and westbound sides of Route 202/35 at Strang Boulevard, an additional bus stop will
be added to the Route 202/35 westbound side at the Site frontage.


ES-7
III. Summary of Responses to Comments on DEIS

The Planning Board received 183 written comments on the DEIS, in addition to spoken
comments recorded and transcribed at the public hearing. All of these comments are
reproduced in full, along with the Planning Boards responses, in the FEIS, which is
divided into chapters that generally correspond to the organization of the DEIS.
1
The most
prevalent comments within each chapter, and the accompanying responses, are generally
characterized below and addressed in the corresponding FEIS chapters. Certain comments
on the DEIS also requested additional analyses beyond those presented in the DEIS. As
indicated below, the Applicant has conducted studies and sensitivity analyses in response to
such comments. These studies provide updated or expanded analysis and are presented and
explained in the applicable chapters and appendices of this FEIS.

Description Of Proposed Action (FEIS Chapter II)
The principal comments on the description of the Proposed Action relate to the proposed
lighting and signage. The Applicant seeks approval to install 155 light sources with a
maximum height of 25 feet; if that request is denied, the Applicant proposes to install 230 light
sources with a maximum height of 16 feet. Light fixtures along the perimeter of the Site will
be shielded to limit horizontal illumination, offsite light spillage and nighttime glare. No signs
will be placed on the north, south or east sides of the building that face the Taconic State
Parkway. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) will determine
the extent of any signage on the west side of the building and canopy.

Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy (FEIS Chapter III.A)
The principal comments submitted on land use, planning and zoning relate to the Proposed
Actions consistency with Yorktowns 2010 Comprehensive Plan and zoning. The
Comprehensive Plan discusses the Bear Mountain Triangle, in which the eastern and western
land areas are separated physically by a significant grade difference. In the eastern part of
the Triangle, which includes the Site, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to promote retail and
office uses with a regional draw. The Site is presently zoned C-3, Commercial, a zone in
which retail and wholesale uses are permitted as of right (and fueling stations are permitted
pursuant to a special use permit). In adopting the Comprehensive Plan, the Town considered
changes to but ultimately decided to retain the Sites C-3 zoning.

Visual Character (FEIS Chapter III.B)
The principal comments submitted on visual character relate to the appearance of the Project

1
In addition to the DEIS chapters, the FEIS also contains separate responses to comments on Proposed
Actions Site Plan.

ES-8
from the Taconic State Parkway. In responses to these comments, the Applicant prepared
additional computer simulated three-dimensional illustrations of the Project from multiple
viewpoints along the Taconic Parkway, Route 202/35 and Old Crompond Road, which are
provided in the FEIS that accounted for proposed landscaping (which includes evergreen
trees) between the Project and the Taconic, and which indicated the limited viewing time of
the Project for vehicles traveling on the Taconic.

Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology (FEIS Chapter III.C)
The principal comments submitted on soils, topography, slopes and geology relate to
potential erosion impacts from the Proposed Action. The FEIS Site Plan reduces the
proposed disturbance of steep slopes. In particular, disturbance of the soils along slopes
with the greatest potential for erosion (ChD and ChE) is reduced from 0.85 acres in
the DEIS to 0.43 acres in the FEIS. Overall site disturbance is also reduced by 0.2 acres in
the FEIS site plan, and a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan will be reviewed by the
Planning Board in connection with the Site Plan application.

Hazardous Materials (FEIS Chapter III.D)
The principal comments submitted on hazardous materials relate to the potential impacts
of a gasoline spill from the proposed fueling facility on Hunter Brook. There were reported
gasoline spills from the gasoline station previously located on Site; however, those spills
did not migrate beyond the immediate vicinity of the former gasoline filling station site.
Any residual soil contamination from the former gasoline station, as well as hazardous
materials from other historical uses, would be remediated prior to construction of the
Project.

Flora and Fauna (FEIS Chapter III.E)
The principal comments submitted on flora and fauna relate to the methodology used to
assess existing site conditions and evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Action. Most of
the Site has already been developed or altered, and the Site is separated from surrounding
biodiversity corridors by major highways that disrupt and fragment the movement of
species.

The responses detail the methodology used by the Applicants consultants, who utilized
the Town of Yorktown guidelines for Wildlife and Plant Biodiversity Assessments.
Consistent with these guidelines, the Site assessment began with a review of resource maps
and other published information to identify which habitats and species may potentially be
present on the Site. This initial review was followed by more than 12 field investigations
over the course of three years to document plant and wildlife species present on the Site
and, in particular, identify any rare, threatened, or endangered species that could be affected
by the Proposed Action. No such species were found; however, during the 2013 field

ES-9
investigations an Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene Carolina) was observed on-site, on the
west side of the vernal pool in Wetland A. The Box Turtle is listed as a Species of Special
Concern by New York National Heritage Program.

The Site Plan has been modified to reduce impacts to Wetland A and other sensitive habitat
areas, and the landscaping plan for the Proposed Action would utilize native species to
preserve wildlife habitat.

Wetlands, Groundwater and Surface Water Resources (FEIS Chapter III.F)
The principal wetlands, groundwater, and surface water resource comments relate to
potential impacts on Wetland A (including the vernal pool), from stormwater runoff and
disturbance of the wetland buffer area.

The Proposed Actions expanded stormwater infiltration system (described above) will
reduce the volume and peak rate of stormwater runoff to Wetland A. These changes are
not expected to affect the hydrology of Wetland A or the vernal pool. Wetland A is linear
and has an intermittent stream within its perimeter. The change in water level depth within
the stream/wetlands corridor as a result of reduced drainage area is less than one quarter
inch and thus there is no adverse impact. The vernal pool is groundwater supported, and
if considering only the surface water runoff the potential decrease in the depth of water in
the venal pool is les than a half inch.

The Proposed Action does not involve any direct disturbance of Wetland A, and
disturbance of its buffer area have been reduced. Approximately 93% of the Wetland A
buffer area will remain undisturbed, and any areas of disturbance will be revegetated with
native species that provide suitable habitat for birds and small mammals.

Stormwater Management (FEIS Chapter III.G)
The principal stormwater management comments relate to the adequacy of the proposed
stormwater management design practices to capture and treat runoff from the Site, and
the potential impacts of such runoff in terms of thermal changes and pollutant loading
on the Wetland A watercourse and downstream water bodies. In response to such
comments, the Applicant (as noted above) has expanded the stormwater infiltration
practices proposed in the DEIS.

The DEIS included a qualitative pollutant loading analysis to assess the potential impacts
of the Proposed Actions increase in impervious surfaces on Site, along with a
quantitative loading analysis for coliform bacteria. While this DEIS analysis detected no
significant, adverse stormwater impacts, in response to public comments and the requests
of Town staff, in the FEIS the Applicant conducted a quantitative pollutant loading

ES-10
analysis for the full range of stormwater pollutants (biological oxygen demand (BOD),
total phosphorus, total nitrogen, total suspended solids, oil & grease, copper, zinc, and
lead), as well as a thermal impact analysis. The FEIS pollutant loading analysis was
performed at each relevant design point from which stormwater discharges from the Site,
as well as two intermediate points along the watercourse within Wetland A. The analysis
confirmed that all of the pollutants will be reduced to below pre-development conditions.

The thermal impact analysis confirmed that at the discharge point of the infiltration system in
Wetland A, the post-development temperatures changes will not exceed the permissible 5F
variance from existing conditions, and that runoff temperatures will not exceed the 86F New
York State Department of Environmental Conservatism (NYSDEC) thermal standard.
Consequently, there would be no post-development thermal impacts to the downstream
Sherry Brook or Hunter Brook.

Because the expanded infiltration system will reduce stormwater volumes and peak
discharge rates leaving the Site, it will not affect the potential for downstream flooding.

Utilities (FEIS Chapter III.H)
No comments submitted on the DEIS required any changes to this chapter. As set forth in
the DEIS, the Applicant has proposed extending Westchester Countys Peekskill Sanitary
Sewer District to serve the Site and adjacent properties, and constructing a new gas line
along Old Crompond that would provide service to the Project and existing residences.

Use and Conservation of Energy (FEIS Chapter III.I)
The principal comments submitted on the use and conservation of energy relate to the
Proposed Actions incorporation of green building practices and promotion of alternative
modes of transportation to the Project Site.

The Proposed Action incorporates a variety of green building technologies, including water
saving plumbing fixtures, optimization of energy performance equipment and building
materials, institution of an in-store recycling program, installation of a solar reflective
cool white reflective roof, and installation of skylights with energy-saving photo cells.
To promote alternative modes of transportation, the Proposed Action would improve
pedestrian and bicycle access to the Site and add a new bus stop along the Route 202/35
westbound lanes at the Site frontage

Solid Waste (FEIS Chapter III.J)
Only one comment was submitted on the solid waste chapter of the DEIS, relating to
potential litter associated with the Proposed Action. The Applicant asserts that Costco will
manage and control litter through an internal housekeeping policy.

ES-11

Traffic and Transportation (FEIS Chapter III.K)
The principal comments submitted on traffic relate to the methodology and trip
generation assumptions underlying the Traffic Impact Study presented in the DEIS. In
response to those comments, and to account for additional off-site roadway
improvements and traffic calming measures proposed in the FEIS, the Applicant prepared
a Revised Traffic Impact Study analyzing the currently proposed lane geometry and
traffic signal timings for all of the study area intersections under the latest traffic analysis
software (Synchro 8). In addition, the Revised Traffic Impact Study provided an update
of the status of the NYSDOT improvements currently under construction along Route
202/35 between Old Crompond Road and the Parkside Corners Shopping Center. The
Revised Traffic Impact Study confirmed that the Proposed Action will improve peak hour
traffic conditions as compared to Current and No-Build Conditions.

As part of the Revised Traffic Impact Study, new supplementary traffic count data was
collected at key locations of the study area to determine current traffic volumes. These
volumes were generally found to be consistent with or lower than the existing traffic
volumes utilized in the DEIS Traffic Study, indicating that the background traffic
volumes used in the traffic study are representative of current conditions.

Additionally, to address comments questioning the trip generation estimates used in the
DEIS, the Applicant prepared a sensitivity analysis using the higher trip generation
figures referenced in public comments. This assessment showed that under the higher
trip generation assumptions referenced in these comments, traffic generated by the
Proposed Action can be accommodated without significantly changing operating
conditions in the study area.

Parking (FEIS Chapter III.L)
The principal comments submitted on parking relate to the Proposed Actions compliance
with the Towns Parking Code, and the adequacy of the proposed parking capacity to
satisfy customer and employee demand. In response to comments, the Applicant conducted
an additional Parking Utilization Study at the New Rochelle and Nanuet Costco stores on
Friday, November 23, 2012 (Black Friday), Saturday, December 1, 2012, and Sunday,
December 2, 2012. These facilities were selected because, like the Proposed Action, they
both include fueling facilities and tire service centers, and the study dates were selected
because they represent peak shopping periods. This Study supported the Applicants
position that the proposed 610 parking spaces for the Project, for a ratio of 4.04 spaces per
1,000 square feet of gross building floor area (a ratio greater than that recommended by the
Institute of Transpiration Engineers and NYSDEC), is adequate to accommodate
anticipated employee and consumer demand.

ES-12

Air Quality (FEIS Chapter III.M)
The principal comments submitted on air quality relate to potential impacts of air emissions
from traffic accessing the Site and from the fueling facility. The air quality assessment (in
the DEIS), which included vehicle exhaust emissions, concluded that the Proposed Action
is not anticipated to cause or contribute to a violation of any National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The fueling station will be required to comply with all applicable
state and federal clean air regulations, and will include Stage II vapor recovery devices that
capture and recover, at a minimum, 90% of the gasoline vapors that are displaced or drawn
from a vehicle fuel tank during refueling.

Noise (FEIS Chapter III.N)
The principal comments submitted on noise relate to potential impacts from traffic
accessing the Site. The Noise Study (in the DEIS) concluded that, when compared to the
existing ambient noise in the vicinity of the Site, the incremental increase in noise
associated with Proposed Action would be imperceptible.

Building Demolition and Construction (FEIS Chapter III.O)
The principal comments submitted on building demolition and construction relate to the
potential erosion and site disturbances associated with construction activities. In response
to these and other comments, the Applicant modified the Site Plan in order to reduce the
disturbance of steep slopes and the Wetland A buffer area. In addition, the FEIS contains
detailed phasing plans for construction activities, such that no more than five acres will be
left unstabilized at any time during the construction process.

The Applicant will also implement erosion control measures pursuant to a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be reviewed by the Planning Board as part
of the Site Plan Application.

Community Facilities and Services (FEIS Chapter III.P)
The principal comments submitted on community facilities and services relate to the
potential impacts of the Project on emergency response times and the increased demand
for fire and police services. The comments on response time are addressed in the FEIS
Revised Traffic Impact Study (discussed above), which found that Applicant-sponsored
roadway improvements and traffic calming measures, as well as roadway improvements
proposed by the NYSDOT, are expected to improve current traffic conditions. As the
Proposed Action is anticipated to generate $819,146 in taxes for the Town of Yorktown
and its Special Districts, including $41,148 to the Lake Mohegan Fire District as well as
$2,506 to Advanced Life Support, the Applicant asserts that such funding would exceed
the cost of any incremental increase in the demand for public services.

ES-13

Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts (FEIS Chapter III.Q)
The principal comments submitted on fiscal and socio-economic impacts relate to the
potential impact of the Proposed Action on existing businesses within and around Yorktown
and on property values surrounding the Project.

The Applicants Market Study for the area surrounding the Project Site (in the DEIS) found
that the Proposed Action is anticipated to capture a share of leakage from the market, which
would increase the local consumer base without adversely affecting existing businesses in
Yorktown. To the extent the Project does compete with any local businesses, the Applicants
Commercial Character Assessment (in the DEIS) found that such competition is not
anticipated to have a significant, adverse impact on community character. With respect to
property values, the redevelopment of an abandoned, partially blighted Site is not expected
to meaningfully affect surrounding property values.

Cultural, Historical and Archeological Resources (FEIS Chapter III.R)
The only comment on the cultural, historical and archeological resources chapter of the
DEIS relate to the buffering between the Project and the Taconic Parkway, a New York
State designated scenic byway which is on the National Register of Historic Places. As
noted above, there will be a landscaped buffer, including evergreen trees, between the
Project and the Parkway.

Alternatives (FEIS Chapter IV)
The principal comments on the alternatives chapter of the DEIS request additional
consideration and/or selection of a range of alternatives, including alternate locations, Site
uses (e.g., for a hotel), Project designs (e.g., with an underground parking deck or without
a fueling facility), and Project scales (e.g., with a smaller building floor area). The DEIS,
as amplified by the FEIS, considered a range of alternatives to the Proposed Action,
including a no-build alternative that maintains the current Site conditions, the relocation of
the Project to the western part of the Site, alternative site layouts, a mixed-use development
in lieu of a wholesale discount club, and a hotel or motel. The Applicant concluded that
such alternatives were impracticable, inconsistent with its objectives, and/or no more
environmentally protective than the Proposed Action.

Other SEQRA Required Chapters (FEIS Chapter VI)
The principal comments on Chapter VI of the DEIS relate to the impacts of growth
potentially induced by the Proposed Action, including the extension of sewer and gas
service to off-Site properties.

The FEIS analyzed the potential impacts of development in the vicinity of the Project site,
assuming that single-family residential parcels would be rezoned to permit multi-family

ES-14
development and that commercial development would be permitted on a lot that is highly
constrained by wetlands. The Applicants Traffic Impact Study has accounted for traffic
associated with this potential growth. The water demand and sewage flow from could be
accommodated by existing utility capacity, and any site-specific environmental impacts
(e.g., wetland disturbances) would be addressed through the individual SEQRA review
process associated with any development applications.

Miscellaneous Legal Comments (FEIS General 1)
The principal miscellaneous legal comments relate to: (1) the alleged segmentation of the
Proposed Action from other development projects within the Route 202 corridor, (2) the
alleged need for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), and (3) the
conduct of the public hearing and length of the comment period on the DEIS.

With respect to alleged segmentation, the Proposed Action is independent from other
development proposals along Route 202, with distinct owners, objectives, and
development schedules. With respect to the alleged need for supplementation, there have
not been any Project changes, newly discovered information, or changed circumstances
that give rise to new or increased significant adverse impacts not addressed the criteria
to consider in determining the need for an SEIS. With respect to the public hearing, the
public was provided an opportunity to present oral and written comments on the DEIS, and
the public comment period was kept open for 82 days.

III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
SITE PLAN

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-1

Site Plan

Introductory Response

The Applicant submitted the DEIS, accompanied by site plans to the Planning Board for
review on November 16, 2011. The DEIS was accepted by the Planning Board as
complete on September 10, 2012, after which the DEIS and site plans were made
available for public review and comment. This section of the FEIS includes those
Comments and the Responses that pertain to the DEIS site plans. In response to public
comments and in preparation of this FEIS, the DEIS site plans were modified by the
Applicant (now referred to as FEIS Site Plan). Site plan exhibits are contained within
this FEIS document and full size site plans are included as part of this FEIS (Appendix J ).

Upon acceptance of this FEIS, issuance of Findings Statement and completion of the
SEQRA review process, the Applicant will submit any revised site plans to the Planning
Board for review and approval in accordance with the requirements of the Town of
Yorktown Zoning Code. Those site plans will incorporate any changes necessary to
conform to the SEQRA Findings Statement.

Description of the FEIS Site Plan

The FEIS Site Plan maintains the major elements of the DEIS site plans (e.g., the Costco
Building is unchanged, there are still 610 parking spaces and the general site layout is
very similar). A series of modifications that were made to address DEIS comments
regarding such design elements as on-site traffic flow, pedestrian access, bike parking,
retaining walls, stormwater management, off-site traffic improvements and off-site
sanitary sewer improvements. Those modifications are summarized below. Detailed
modifications are described in this FEIS Section within the context of specific responses.
Following is a comparison of DEIS / FEIS land cover areas and a description of the
changes incorporated into the FEIS Site Plan:


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-2

Site Plan Table 1
DEIS / FEIS Site Land Area Comparison
Land Area Category DEIS FEIS
DEIS/FEIS
Change +/-

Total Site Area 18.75 18.75 n./a
Wooded 4.20 4.73 13%
Open Vegetated (1) 3.57 3.07 -14%
Building & Pavement (2) 10.98 10.95 -0.3%

Site Area Disturbance 14.55 14.35 (3) -1%
Wetland Buffer disturbed 1.82 1.26 -30%
Woodlands disturbed 4.40 3.86 -12%
Steep Slopes disturbed (D/E/F
(Erosive) Soil Group)
0.85 0.43 -49%
Slopes >25% 0.52 0.12 -77%
Notes:
(1)Open Vegetated Area includes interior, perimeter and embankment vegetated area.
(Refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit II.7.)
(2) Includes gravel pavement.
(3) Includes minor site grading beyond property line. (14.02 acres disturbed onsite.)

DEIS Site Plan (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 1)
Provided for comparison

FEIS Site Plan (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 2)

Site Layout
Main Site Access Driveway: Extended the second exit lane for the entire length of the
main site access driveway to reduce queuing and improve Site egress movements.
This was enabled by shifting the fueling station approximately 10 feet to the east.
Exit From The Fueling Facility: Modified the exit from the fueling facility to
channelize exiting traffic and improve traffic circulation. The modification included:
1) narrowing the fueling facility exit area; and 2) adding a second receiving
westbound lane opposite the fueling facility in advance of the main access road.
Striped Safety Zone: Provided striped safety zone on both sides of the drive aisle
leading to and from the secondary site access to provide additional area for customer
circulation. Restricted the left turn movement from the eastbound leg of the
intersection at the Sites secondary access driveway to improve traffic safety.
Parking: Overall parking count remains the same with a minor redistribution of the 9
and 10-foot wide parking stalls.
Parking Utilization Study: Performed a parking utilization study at similar Costco
stores during the holiday season to determine peak seasonal parking demand.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-3

Parking Lot Adjustment: Modified the main parking area to reduce impact to the
buffer of Wetalnd A and improve interior traffic circulation as described following:
Shifted portions of the westerly parking lot curb to the east (further from the Wetland
A buffer); shifted the main parking lot bays easterly; narrowed landscaped island
adjacent to and west of the main entrance drive; modified interior parking to improve
traffic circulation and safety.
Retaining Walls: Added retaining walls along the westerly curb line, to reduce land
disturbance and preserve more of the existing wooded buffer to Wetland A. The net
change is a reduction of open vegetated (embankment) and increase in native
woodlands. For changes to Site land areas, refer to Site Plan Table 1.
Pedestrian Sidewalk: Extended the pedestrian sidewalk from Route 202 to the Costco
building entrance, and added bike parking racks.

Stormwater Management (Refer also to FEIS Section III.G)
Provided treatment of the Runoff Reduction volume (RRv) for 100% of the Water
Quality volume (WQv) from the 1-year storm in a standard subsurface infiltration
practice beneath the paved parking area. The FEIS infiltration system was enlarged
from that proposed in the DEIS.
Provided three flow-based hydrodynamic pretreatment structures.
Provided water quality treatment of the water quality storm, in a standard subsurface
infiltration practice, thereby recharging the groundwater table, providing improved
water quality treatment, reducing pollutant loading, enhancing phosphorous
reduction, reducing stormwater runoff volume, reducing peak discharge rates and
avoiding thermal impact.
Performed quantitative pollutant loading and thermal impact studies.
Provided separate water quality treatment for stormwater runoff from the proposed
fueling facility in a standard practice.
Added RRv treatment practices to treat runoff from offsite highway improvements.

Offsite Sanitary Sewer Improvements (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 4)
Revised sanitary sewer to coordinate connection with sewer for the Crompond
Crossings development.
Realigned sanitary sewer within Old Crompond Road right-of-way to reduce impact
to roadway pavement and provide the required separation distances from the as-built
location of the existing water distribution system.

Offsite Highway Improvements to Route 202/35 (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory
Exhibit A-5)
Widened Route 202/35 to add an additional lane, thereby, providing two exclusive


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-4

left turn lanes (1-eastbound and 1-westbound) to the Taconic State Parkway
northbound and southbound ramps.
Designed relocation of existing offsite 24-inch water transmission main to
accommodate widening of Routed 202/35.
(Highway Improvement Plans also include those amenities described in the DEIS,
e.g. traffic signal upgrades, westbound lane, sidewalk and bike/shoulder.)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-10

Comment Site Plan 1 (Document 15A.1, James A. Garofalo):

We are reviewing the DEIS for the proposed Costco site on behalf of a number of
residents with properties in the Yorktown Project area. In order to complete our
review and understand the basis for certain submissions we are requesting additional
information. The materials requested are as follows:

Copy of any waivers and requests made regarding parkway signing
restrictions and signing deed restriction noted in the NYS DOT letters February 16,
2012 letter and J uly 11, 2011.

Response Site Plan 1:

The Applicants engineer had requested relief from the Article 13.07 of Parks Law
restricting the placement of advertising signs within 500 feet of the Taconic State
Parkway. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) administers
enforcement of this law and they have indicated in their October 23, 2012 letter to
TRC Engineers, Inc. that they intend to permit signs on the west building face and the
west side of the fuel station canopy to the extent that they will not be visible from the
Taconic State Parkway. A copy of the NYSDOT letter is included in (Appendix C)
of this FEIS.

Existing lot 23.19-1-1 has a deed restriction that prohibits signs within 300 feet of the
Taconic State Parkway. Relief from this 300 foot sign limitation was requested by
the land owner and is presently being finalized with the NYSDOT Albany office.
Discussions with the NYSDOT Regional office (Poughkeepsie) have indicated their
recommendation to provide relief. Final decision remains with the Albany office,
which, as confirmed by NYSDOT representatives on April 25, 2014, is in the process
of finalizing its review. Refer to FEIS Site Plan Responses 2b, 2c, II 13 and III.B 15.

Comment Site Plan 2 (Document 60.8, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9,
Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

Site Plan Issues

This section focuses on specific problems and issues within the proposed site plan.
On-site transportation issues and problems that require further study are highlighted.
These issues should be considered in relation to supply and demand parking and off-
site transportation issues. Table I summarizes some of the identified issues. Figure 1
shows the locations where these issues will occur.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-11

Sight line issues occur when there are visual obstructions (trees, guard rails, signs,
etc.) and vertical and horizontal geometry problems. There are locations on the
Costco site where sight line angles require severe body turns in order for drivers
to see oncoming vehicles. This can occur at 90 degree intersections where
vehicles are approaching the intersection immediately after a turn as at the
secondary site access.

(The Applicant notes that the referenced table 1 was meant to be Table 4 and it is
included in Comment Site Plan 2e, along with Figure 1 referenced in this Comment.)

Design criteria for parking lots are less stringent than the standards required for
public streets and highways. Roadway design standards vary depending upon such
criteria as traffic volume and speed limit. Roadways having lower speed limits and
traffic volumes are not required to be designed to the same standard as, for example,
arterial roadways or highways.

Intersecting roadways are typically designed to 90 degree angles. Although
maximum 90 degree angles are desirable, there are many instances in which they
depart from the ideal design. An example of this is the intersection of Old Crompond
Road and Route 202/35 immediately west of the Project Site in which the angle
approaches 110 degrees.

Since parking lots are low speed environments (typically 15 mph), divergence from
highway and street standards is not unusual. Therefore, it is not uncommon for
intersection sight line angles in parking areas to be greater than 90 degrees. Thus,
the Applicant asserts that it is acceptable for parking aisle intersections to diverge
from the ideal public street design standard resulting in angles greater than 90
degrees.

In response to public comments, the Applicants engineer has reviewed the site plan
submitted with the DEIS and modified several interior intersections to soften
intersection angles. Compare DEIS Site Plan, Introductory Exhibit 1 to FEIS Site
Plan, Introductory Exhibit 2. Also refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2e. Regarding
potential restriction of sight, due to physical obstruction from proposed landscaping,
the landscape maintenance plan will include pruning of low tree limbs and trimming
of shrubs to prevent potential visual impairment.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-12

Comment Site Plan 2a (Document 60.8a, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9a,

Part of the development is in the wetland buffer. Transportation infrastructure and
other infrastructure should be removed from the wetland buffers.

Response Site Plan 2a:
Wetland A, as determined by the Applicants wetland consultant, is a highly
functional wetland and its 100 foot buffer is largely wooded. The Proposed Action
proposes no impervious surfaces within the wetland or its buffer. In response to
concerns raised in public comments, the Applicant proposes to reduce grading
impacts to the buffer by diminishing the proposed earth embankment west of the
parking area. The embankment will be reduced by constructing a vertical retaining
wall. This modification to the DEIS Site Plan will result in maintaining significantly
more of the wooded buffer to Wetland A. The disturbance to the natural wooded
buffer under the DEIS Site Plan was 1.05 acres. When accounting for a 10-foot
construction corridor to be cleared at the toe of the slope, the disturbance would have
been 1.26 acres. Under the FEIS Site Plan, with consideration of a 10 foot wide
construction corridor to construct the wall, the disturbance will be 0.5 acres, or
roughly 60% less than for the DEIS Site Plan. The result will be retaining around
of an acre more of the wooded buffer. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Summary
Response and FEIS Responses in Section III.F.

Wetland B, as described in Section III.F.1 of the DEIS, is a small hydrologically
isolated wetland having few functions and values that are typically associated with
wetlands. (Refer to FEIS Responses III.F 5, 16, 30 and 36.) The portion of its buffer
located on the Project Site is largely disturbed, consisting of young forested area
including nonnative invasive species and maintained lawn areas. Since, by
comparison, Wetland A is significantly more valuable than Wetland B, the
Applicants development strategy was to place the proposed development to the
eastern portion of the Site, thereby minimizing potential impacts to Wetland A buffer.

The Proposed Action includes constructing impervious area within the south and west
buffers to Wetland B. The west and south portions of the buffer that will be disturbed
by the Proposed Action do not presently drain toward Wetland B and, therefore, do
not provide wetland protection in the form of runoff pretreatment. Although portions
of the Wetland B buffer will be paved, there will be no loss of infiltration, since
runoff from those areas will be captured and conveyed to the proposed infiltration


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-13

practice, where groundwater will be recharged. In addition, the Applicant asserts that
proposed supplemental landscape enhancement to the remaining buffer will improve
remaining buffer function. The Applicant asserts that impact to the Wetland B buffer
is unavoidable and that the loss of buffer area has been mitigated to the greatest
extent practical. Also refer to DEIS Section IV.C and FEIS Responses IV.3, IV.6 and
IV.15, which discuss an alternative to avoid direct impact to wetlands and their
buffers.

Comment Site Plan 2b (Document 60.8b, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9b,

There are specific requirements for signs along the Taconic Parkway.
Conformance with New York State parkway laws and town signing regulations
should be demonstrated. Details should be provided on signage.

Response Site Plan 2b:

Placement of signage adjacent to the Taconic State Parkway is restricted by
NYSDOT, as described in FEIS Site Plan Responses 1 and 2c, FEIS Responses II.13
and III.B 15. Proposed building signage is detailed on the architectural building
elevations and detailed drawings will be submitted to the Yorktown Building
Department for review and approval as part of the site plan review process. Proposed
building signage is illustrated on FEIS Site Plan Exhibits 2b-1 and 2b-2.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-16

Comment Site Plan 2c (Document 60.8c, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9c,

The J uly 11, 2011 DOT letter notes sign restrictions within 500 feet of the
parkway (Article 13.07 of the Parks Law). This should be shown on the site plan
as well as the 300 foot deed restriction. (This was shown on plans sent to NYS
DOT but not identified in the DEIS plans).

Response Site Plan 2c:
Refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 1. FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2c illustrates the
restricted areas.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-18

Comment Site Plan 2d (Document 60.8d, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9d,

The Applicant proposes no bicycle parking until needed, inconsistent with current
proactive approach to providing bicycle parking as a visible attraction to
encourage bicycling. Exterior bicycle racks should be provided for customers and
shown on in [sic] details and located on the site plan to allow public comment.
Consistent with eco-friendly and future thinking New York Citys active design
movement, Costco should provide interior bicycle parking for employees as part
of the building design. This should be shown as part of the total interior layout
design with access points and all interior uses shown.

Response Site Plan 2d:
Table III.I.4 of the DEIS shows that outdoor bicycle parking racks for ten bicycles
will be provided. If the ten spaces prove to be insufficient, additional bike parking
can be added. FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2d illustrates the location of the proposed
bicycle parking. The Applicant asserts that additional interior bicycle parking is not
necessary, as Costcos experience has been that bike parking racks are often
underutilized. Refer to FEIS Response III.L 1.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-20

Comment Site Plan 2e (Document 60.8e, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9e,


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-21


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-22

Response Site Plan 2e:
After further study, the Applicant has modified the DEIS Site Plan as described below
and as shown on FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 2. These modifications address
the comments described on the Comments Table 4 and Figure 1.

Locations 1 and 2:
The exit from the fueling facility was modified to improve traffic circulation.
The exit opening was narrowed from 49 feet to 25 feet and pavement striping
was added to provide improved channelization for vehicles leaving the pumps.
A second receiving lane along the building frontage was added, thereby
providing two receiving lanes allowing for separate right and left turn
movements. Pavement markings were added to the plan to more clearly
indicate the intended turn movements.
The fuel truck circulation and service area are shown on FEIS Site Plan
Exhibit 2e (1). Trucks will enter the Site from the main entrance road, travel
behind the building to the unloading area to facilitate a turnaround and then
return to the southeast corner of the Costco building opposite the fueling
station for offloading. The fuel truck will park in the reserved area indicated
on the plan by a striped hatch pattern. Trucks will offload through remote
receptors, separate from the fueling station, thereby allowing unobstructed
access to the fueling station.
A second exiting lane at the main site driveway has been extended for its
entire length of the main driveway. This extended lane in combination with
the 2
nd
lane along the building frontage road will serve to improve traffic flow
from the fueling facility to the intersection at Route 202/35 and Mohansic
Avenue.
A sidewalk from Route 202/35 to the Costco building has been added along
the site entrance driveway, providing pedestrian connectivity from the bus
stop on Route 202/35 as well as Mohnasic Avenue. Facilitating pedestrian
traffic could lead to a minor reduction in traffic.

Location 3:
The parking spaces along the south face of the Costco building will be
designated as employee parking. In this way the spaces will have minimum
turnover, thereby minimizing potential conflicts with entering and exiting
traffic. In addition, the FEIS Site Plan eliminates the eastern most spaces
along this building frontage to further avoid conflicts. The Applicant asserts


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-23

that ADA parking would not be best suited in this location. ADA parking is
presently designated opposite, or west, of the customer entrance. ADA
compliance will be reviewed by the Building Inspector during the site plan
review process and ultimately approved before a building permit will be
issued.
A location for bike parking has been shown on the FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2d.

Location 4:
The intersection adjacent to the secondary entrance was modified to reduce
potential conflicts. The westerly leg of the intersection was modified to permit
right-in / right-out movements only, thereby eliminating cross traffic flow and
potential conflicts.

Locations 5 & 6:
The parking lot layout at locations 5 & 6 were modified in the FEIS Site Plan
to eliminate offset intersections.

Location 10:
The Applicant modified the secondary entry/exit drive as shown on FEIS Site
Plan Exhibit 2e (10). Striped safety zones were provided behind the parking
spaces on both sides of the aisle allowing the customer room to unload safely.

Location 12:
Diesel fuel will not be sold at the Costco fueling facility. Only regular and
premium grade gasoline will be offered. Since diesel fuel will not be offered,
and fuel will be sold to members only, commercial diesel trucks are not
anticipated. Some members will send their business trucks, typically pickups
and vans, to fuel up. Truck circulation for large vans is shown on FEIS Site
Plan Exhibit 2e (12).
Refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 9 for discussion regarding capacity/queuing
analyses at the fueling station.
The air monitoring analysis that was performed and included in the DEIS
accounted for idling time of vehicles at the fueling facility. Vehicle emissions
from vehicles operating within the Project, including trips to and from the
fueling facility as well as the warehouse store (idling, standing, queuing, low
speed cruising for parking spaces) are included in the estimate of the total
round-trip vehicles.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-24

Location 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9:
Landscaping proposed in islands within the parking area will be designed and
maintained in a manner as to prevent sight distance interference. Landscaping
to be provided in the parking lot end islands, as well as the islands provided in
the parking bay lines, will consist of deciduous trees, low growing shrubs (less
than 3 feet height at maturity) and low groundcovers. Deciduous trees will be
selected which naturally have an upright branching pattern to maximize
visibility. Lower limbs of trees will be pruned and shrubs will be trimmed as
may be necessary, thereby maintaining clear visibility for drivers.
Regarding sight line intersection angles, refer to FEIS Response Site Plan 2.
Location 9, which had the most significant sight line angle, was modified to
improve the angle. The intersection at location 4 was modified to improve
traffic circulation. With regard to potential obstruction of vision due to
placement of guiderail, the guiderail is only 2 feet high and thus will not
interfere with the drivers visibility. As described in FEIS Site Plan Response
2, landscaping will be trimmed to prevent obstruction of drivers view. Refer
to the FEIS Site Plan, Exhibit 2e (10). The Applicant asserts that the
referenced exhibit plans sufficiently illustrate the internal intersections and
that sight line graphics are not warranted.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-28

Comment Site Plan 2f (Document 60.8f, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9f,

The following are additional comments regarding the site plan.

C-301 Utilities

The underground piping for the fuel storage tanks should be shown on the utility
plans to insure there are no conflicts and to assist maintenance and emergency crews.

Response Site Plan 2f:
Pressurized underground fuel pipes, associated with the fueling station, can be
installed while avoiding other underground utilities. Mechanical pipe design will be
included with building architectural plans when provided to the Town for issuance of
a building permit.

Comment Site Plan 2g (Document 60.8g, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9g,

C-501 and C-502 Lighting plans

Show a cross sectional element to see if these lighting plans C-501 and C-502 will
provide a distraction to Taconic State Parkway drivers.

Are the lighting poles being set back beyond the deflection point of the guiderail?

Response Site Plan 2g:
Visibility of the Site from the Taconic State Parkway (TSP) will be limited. Site
lighting will be designed with dark sky technology to minimize lighting impact to
offsite receptors. Extensive landscaping along the TSP will screen the Site and its
lighting from view. Refer to FEIS Exhibits III.B-56, III.B -20a, III.B-40a thru III.B-
46a which illustrate the Site in relation to the TSP and the effectiveness of the
proposed landscape screen. Also refer to FEIS Response II.1 for a discussion of site
lighting relative to its visibility from the TSP.

Guiderails will be placed mainly adjacent to earth embankments along the westerly
edge of the parking area, stormwater management pond and at the main site entrance.
Where light poles will be placed behind the guiderail, they will be offset to account


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-29

for deflection from the guiderail. Refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8c, which illustrates
the location of the proposed light poles behind the guiderail.

Comment Site Plan 2h (Document 60.8h, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9h,

C-601 and C- 602

Sight line drawings do not show sight lines from the Taconic State Parkway which
sits higher and has higher traffic volumes than its ramps. Drawings should clearly
show existing sign restriction zones and indicate height of trees shown. Since The
Taconic State Parkway is a State Scenic Byway, how is the site going to be visually
buffered from the Taconic State Parkway main lanes which are higher than the
ramps? The visual section shows the site and building will be visible from the
Taconic State Parkway.

Response Site Plan 2h:
Sightlines from the Taconic State Parkway (TSP) are illustrated in FEIS Exhibit
III.B-56. As shown in the elevation, the building and site could be visible from the
parkway; however, with the dense array of proposed landscape vegetation, the view
will be screened. The evergreen trees represented in the illustration are assumed to be
20 feet in height, which should be achieved approximately 5 years after initial
planting. Also refer to FEIS Exhibits III.B-20a, III.B-41a thru III.B-46a

The extent of screening of the view from the Taconic State Parkway from newly-
planted trees is dependent on several factors, including: (1) the type of trees
(evergreen or deciduous) to be planted, (2) the height of the trees, (3) the density or
closeness to each other of the trees to be planted, and (4) the arrangement of the trees
at the time of planting.

Primarily, the screen trees will be evergreen and will therefore provide a year-round
ability to screen the view from the TSP, since they do not shed their leaves at the end
of the growing season. The shrubs to be planted will provide additional screening of
the views from the TSP, as well as providing contrast (to a staggered row of
evergreen trees), as well as color, texture and interest, including to passing cars on the
southbound exit ramp.

The trees to be planted in Zone 2 to the west of the southbound ramp off the TSP will
consist of trees with an initial height at the time of planting of 10-12 and in Zone 3,


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-30

8-10 height. The rate of growth of the trees varies by species, other factors being
equal. Tree growth in terms of comparing the height of the tree at the beginning to
the end of the growing season is generally ranked as fast (>25 per year), medium
(13 to 24 per year) and slow (<12 per year). A tree with a height of 10 to 12
growing at a medium rate of 13 to 24 per year, can be anticipated to be between 15
and 22 at the end of 5 years, and continuing to grow at that general rate for several
more years until it begins to reach its ultimate height. Most of the trees to be planted
have an ultimate height which ranges from 30 to 80. A mature height of 40 to 50
would be typical for the evergreen species that are proposed in Zones 2 and 3.

Another factor that greatly influences the ability to screen views is the density of the
trees. The trees need to be planted with sufficient space so that the roots will be able
to obtain sufficient water and nutrients to support the plant growth, but close enough
to provide a dense screen as desired. When planted in a staggered row as is being
proposed, the ability to see through the trees becomes extremely limited as the trees
grow to their mature heights and forms. Also refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 15.

See FEIS Response II. 13 and FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2c which address the area of
restricted sign usage. Note that relief from the restrictive sign usage is being sought
from the NYSDOT, as described in FEIS Site Plan Response 1.

Comment Site Plan 2i (Document 60.8i, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9i,

C-708

C-708 plan shows details on fencing but not guiderails. C-101 site plan shows
guiderails and no fencing. How are cars and people to be prevented from going over
the retaining walls? How are these two elements going to be put together. Given the
amount of guide rail and retaining walls a plan for snow storage should be provided.

Response Site Plan 2i:
Fencing and guiderail will be provided to ensure safety for pedestrians and motorists.
Fencing will be provided on top of retaining walls and guiderail will be provided
behind the curb adjacent to steep embankments. As noted, guiderails are shown on
the FEIS Site Plan and the fence is shown on the detail. Refer to FEIS Site Plan
Exhibit 8c, which illustrates the guiderail and retaining wall with fence.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-31

A snow removal plan is provided in FEIS Site Plan Exhibit II.10, which considers
placement of proposed guiderail, retaining walls and embankments. Also see FEIS
Site Plan Exhibit 8c for typical section of westerly embankment.

Comment Site Plan 2j (Document 60.8j, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9j,

C-801

There should be a cross sectional plan for Route 35/202 under the Taconic State
Parkway. The impact of this improvement cannot be judged without a [sic]
understanding the impact to future expansion in this area.

Response Site Plan 2j:
Detailed cross-sections of Route 202/35 were developed by the Applicants engineer and were
submitted to the NYSDOT, the agency with jurisdiction, for review. (Updated Route 202/35
Improvement Plans are included in Appendix J of this FEIS.) Future NYSDOT planned
expansion has been considered in the Applicants design of the proposed improvements. The
existing lane configuration under the TSP bridge consists of one eastbound thru lane, one
westbound thru lane, a single shared east/west turn lane and two paved shoulders. The
Applicants proposed improvements under the TSP bridge will add a dedicated westbound turn
lane, a westbound thru lane and a westbound sidewalk. The total lanes after construction will
include one eastbound thru lane, one eastbound turn lane, one westbound turn lane two
westbound thru lanes, two dual purpose paved shoulder/bike lanes and a westbound sidewalk.
(Refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2j and FEIS III.K Introductory Response.) The NYSDOTs
future plan is to add an eastbound thru lane. According to the Applicants engineer and based on
coordination with the NYSDOT, the existing bridge has adequate clearance to accommodate
both, the proposed Project-related improvements as well as the NYSDOTs future
improvements.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-33

Comment Site Plan 3 - (Document 81.8, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture
and Community Appearance):

The ABACA recommends the accessible route and sidewalks be continued to the
entrance of the retail store not end at the entrance to the parking area.

The Board prefers the As of Right Lighting Plan 16 ft. Mounting Lights plan C-501
and not the applicants Preferred Light Plan 25 ft. Mounting Height plan C-502. The
reason being, although there are more light poles, the light pollution wont be as great
from distances beyond the Costco site.


The FEISSite Plan (Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 2) provides a sidewalk along the
site entrance driveway from Route 202/35 to the Costco building. The sidewalk will
provide pedestrian connectivity from the bus stop on Route 202/35 to the Costco
entrance. See FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 3. The improvements to Route 202/35 will
include dual purpose paved shoulder/bike lanes that will promote bicycle
accessibility. Costco will provide bicycle parking. Refer to FEIS Responses III.K
Introductory Response and FEIS Site Plan Response 2e.

Lighting Comment regarding preference for lighting height noted. Refer to FEIS
Responses II.1, II.2, II.6, II.12 and .III.B 11.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-35

Comment Site Plan 4 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment Site Plan 5 - (Document 60.3b, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.4b,
Richard E. Stanton, Law Offices of Richard E. Stanton):

The site plan presented in the DEIS demonstrates a poor parking layout, internal sight
line issues, inadequate internal road capacity, insufficient vehicle queue storage, fuel
unloading issues, and a lack of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Air quality
issues are also likely and have not been properly disclosed or reviewed.


Refer to FEIS Site Plan Responses 2d and 2e. Offsite pedestrian and bicycle access
will be provided as part of the offsite Route 202/35 improvements (refer to FEIS III.K
Introductory Response and FEIS Site Plan Responses 2j and 3). An air quality
analysis was performed and discussed in DEIS Section III.M. Also refer to FEIS
Responses III.M 8 and III.M 10.

Comment Site Plan 6 (Document 179.2, William Wegner, Riverkeeper):
In addition to discharging stormwater to Wetland A, the DEIS also proposes
disturbance of the buffers of both Wetland A and Wetland B1.05 acres of grading
in Wetland A and 0.77 acres of grading and additional impervious surfaces in
Wetland B. Grading will permanently alter the natural topography that formed and
has supported both these wetlands. Permanent impervious cover in Wetland B will
impair its ability to infiltrate stormwater and perform the other aforementioned water
quality functions. For these reasons, the proposed project site plan should be
reconfigured to avoid (I) discharging stormwater to Wetland A and (2) disturbing
both on-site wetland buffers.


1) The water quality storm (1-year) will be treated through a proposed infiltration
practice that meets the water quality requirements as regulated by the Town of
Yorktown as an MS4 municipality, the NYSDEC and NYCDEP. Runoff from
larger storms will continue to discharge to Wetland A since that is primarily
where runoff from the Site currently drains. Continued discharge to Wetland A is
necessary to maintain the wetlands hydrology. Refer to FEIS Sections III.F and
III.G.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-36

2) Regarding proposed disturbance to existing wetland buffers, refer to FEIS Site
Plan Responses 2a, III.G Introductory Summary Response and III.F, which
indicate a reduction of disturbance to Wetland A buffer with the FEIS Site Plan
and mitigation of Wetland B buffer impacts through supplemental planting to
improve buffer function.

Comment Site Plan 7 (Document 138.3, Wayne Jeffers, Barrier Motor Fuels, Inc.):

By eliminating the fueling facility, COSTCO will be able to reduce the blacktop
footprint to approach the Town Code requirements and not have to ask the Town for
special variances just because they want a giant facility. Even the parking lot light
pole height will require a special variance.


No variance is required for the proposed fueling facility, which can be operated under
existing zoning pursuant to a Special Use Permit from the Town Board. The
Applicant asserts that the elimination of the fueling facility would not yield
significant environmental benefits, since stormwater runoff from the approximately
acre covered by the fueling facility will be managed pursuant to applicable
regulations and an approved Stormwater Management Plan, and is not anticipated to
generate significant environmental impacts. Refer to FEIS Section III.G. The
Applicant further asserts that the fueling facility, which will serve only Costco
members and will not sell diesel fuel, is not anticipated to generate significant adverse
traffic or community character impacts. Refer to FEIS Site Plan Responses 2e, IV.6
and IV.7a. Finally, the Applicant sited the fueling facility in a location that will
minimize its potential environmental impacts. As described in DEIS Section II.C, the
location was selected to provide improved traffic circulation, more efficient parking
layout and reduce impact to the Wetland A buffer. In addition, the Applicant asserts
that an alternative without the fueling facility does not meet its objectives for this
Site, and is therefore not a reasonable alternative. See FEIS Responses IV.1, IV.7b,
IV.9 and IV.10.

The Applicant requests only one variance, which is to allow the site lighting with 25-
foot high light poles (refer to FEIS Response II.1). Should the variance or legislative
change not be approved, the Applicant will proceed with the application based on
lighting requirements set forth in the Town Code. Also refer to FEIS Responses
IV.6, 7a and 9.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-37

Comment Site Plan 8a (Document 167.2a, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.2a, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General), (Document
167.2a, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

Disturbances on Steep Slopes and in Wetland Buffers

Steep Slopes: In sensitive watersheds, such as within the NYC Watershed, it is best to
avoid construction on steep slopes. Slope influences the retention and movement of
water, the potential for soil slippage, accelerated erosion, the ease with which
machinery can be used and the engineering uses of soils. It has been our experience
that construction on steep slopes can result in large stormwater erosion events during
construction activity.

Because of the water quality risks posed by construction on steep slopes, the New
York State Stormwater Design Manual recommends that no construction occur on
those slopes:

Development on slopes with a grade of 15% or greater should be avoided,
if possible, to limit soil loss, erosion, excessive stormwater runoff and the
degradation of surface water. Excessive grading should be avoided on all
slopes, as should the flattening of hills and ridges. Steep slopes should be
kept in an undisturbed natural condition to help stabilize hillsides and
soils. On slopes greater than 25%, no development, re-grading, or
stripping of vegetation should be considered

NY Design Manual, p. 5-12 (emphasis added).

While this recommendation does not effect an absolute prohibition against
construction on slopes exceeding 25 percent it reflects the States best professional
judgment that such construction should normally be avoided and that strong
justification for deviating from it should be provided, especially in sensitive areas
such as the NYC Watershed. If allowed, the extent of such construction should be
limited and mitigation requirements should be employed to minimize potential
impacts and fully stabilize the site as soon as possible.

Significant disturbance (0.78 acres) would occur on slopes steeper than 25 percent
and another 2.2 acres of very steeply sloped land (67 percent) would be created
within and adjacent to wetland buffer areas. But the DEIS does not provide strong
justification for doing so. The proposed slopes of constructed land are beyond the
commonly accepted practical limits of 2.5:1 for ongoing activities, such as mowing


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-38

vegetated areas. Maintenance activities on slopes this steep will present health and
safety hazards for the workers involved with ordinary site maintenance. This area of
the site should be re-designed so that no earthfill slopes are steeper than 2.5:1. If this
is not desirable, vertical structural retaining walls may be necessary.

Response Site Plan 8a:

The more environmentally sensitive portions of the Site, which include Wetland A
and steep slopes, are largely located on the western half of the Site. Much of the
existing steep slopes around the nursery and motel parcels were formed through the
cut and fill process during their construction.

As part of the planning process, consideration was taken to minimize impact to
existing sensitive areas located at the western portion of the Site near and adjacent to
the Wetland A buffer. As such, the Costco building was placed as far east as possible
to minimize westward encroachment and minimize required earthwork.

In light of this Comments request to avoid construction on/of steep slopes, the
Applicant modified the site plan to further reduce impacts to the wooded slopes in the
Wetland A buffer. FEIS Site Plan modifications include construction of retaining
walls and flattening of proposed embankments in areas in or adjacent to Wetland A
buffer. Refer to FEIS Site Plan Responses 2a, Site Plan 6 and III.G Introductory
Summary Response. The FEIS Site Plan will flatten the westerly embankment slopes
from 1.5:1 to a combination of 3:1 and 2:1. The embankment will slope away from
the parking area and will be comprised of a flat section followed by sloped section
varying from 3:1 to 2:1. (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8c and Exhibit 8a(1).

This Comment states that the DEIS Site Plan included disturbance of 0.78 acres that
would occur on slopes steeper than 25 percent (refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8a(2)).
The Applicant asserts that construction on such slopes within the interior of the Site
(most created during construction of the existing development) is unavoidable. See
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8a(2.) The FEIS Site Plan, however, will significantly reduce
construction on slopes greater than 25 percent within the Wetland A buffer from 0.52
to 0.12 acres. See FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8a(3).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-42

This Comment also states that the DEIS site plan included establishment of 2.2 acres
of embankments having slopes of 67% (1.5:1) within or adjacent to the Wetland A
buffer. The FEIS Site Plan eliminates construction of embankments with slopes of
67% (1.5:1) within or adjacent to the Wetland A buffer.

This Comment recommends constructing embankments with minimum slope of 2.5:1.
If that cannot be achieved, construction of retaining walls is suggested. The Applicant
asserts that construction of 2:1 embankments is a standard construction practice and
stabilization can be established based on construction in accordance with and under
the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineers recommendations. The Applicant
asserts that its proposal to implement both a retaining wall (as suggested by the
Comment) (generally 15 to 20 feet high) and a combined 2:1 and 3:1 embankment
slopes will reduce impact to the Wetland A buffer while providing a safe and stable
embankment. Refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8c.

Design of proposed embankments was done in coordination with the
recommendations of the Applicants Geotechnical Engineer (DEIS Appendix VII.M),
which includes implementation of various methods of slope stabilization. Such
methods include surface treatment of embankments with erosion control turf
reinforcement mats and installation of geosynthetic reinforcement. To ensure proper
construction, earthwork operations will be performed under the supervision of a
Geotechnical Engineer.

In spite of the necessity to construct on some of these steeper slopes, the Applicants
engineer asserts construction can be performed safely without detrimental effects.
Temporary sediment and erosion control practices will be installed, maintained and
inspected regularly as described in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP
provided in FEIS Appendix E) to ensure proper functionality of the practices during
the construction period. Double protection will be provided at the toe of the slope to
protect these sensitive resources. Temporary and permanent erosion control treatment
will be installed to maximize stabilization and protection of the soil and water
resources. Refer to DEIS and FEIS III.G relative to stormwater and III.O relative to
construction. Sediment and Erosion Control Plans will be reviewed for approval
during the site plan review process. Review will take these concerns into
consideration.

Permanent erosion control will include establishing permanent landscape cover.
Although landscape maintenance cannot generally be performed using riding
mechanical equipment on slopes steeper than 2:1, they can be maintained safely using


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-43

manual equipment. Naturalized groundcover, which will require minimal
maintenance, will be established on these embankments to prevent erosion.

Comment Site Plan 8b (Document 167.2b, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.2b, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General), (Document
167.2b, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

Avoid Wetland Buffer Disturbances: The erosion and sediment control plan shown on
Construction Drawing C-401 proposes that silt fence be placed in a wetland buffer, at
the toe of a constructed 1.5:1 slope. (The toe of slope is defined as that point where
the slope of the constructed fill intersects with the stripped ground line). The 2005
New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. page
SA-19, require that silt fence be placed a minimum of 10 feet beyond the toe of slope.
Once this issue is corrected, the location of the properly positioned silt fence should
be noted on Construction Drawing C-401. For a slope as steep as the one proposed at
this location, construction equipment will not be able to operate within the 10 foot
corridor required from the toe of this slope. As a result, the silt fence will have to be
repositioned further into the wetland buffer. Thus, much more wetland buffer will be
disturbed than is proposed in the DEIS and presented on Construction Drawing C-
401. This area should be re-designed with vertical retaining walls to preclude wetland
buffer disturbance and to maintain the integrity of the headwater wetland.

A review of the DEIS, Section VII, Appendices, M, Geotechnical Engineering
Report, shows that retaining walls were planned along the west side of the project site
at a height of approximately 21 feet, which would result in much less encroachment
into the wetland buffer. The report also recommended the removal of two feet of
surface material over the entire project area prior to the placement of fill. These
recommendations were not addressed in the design documents and the horizontal
impacts of the proposed earth rock fill slopes will encroach further into the west
wetland buffer as well as off the property boundary to the north. The actual limits
of construction disturbance should be accurately shown on the Grading Plan,
Construction Drawing C-201, and the Erosion Control Plan, Construction Drawing C-
401.

Response Site Plans 8b:
The limit of disturbance on the FEIS Site Plan has been changed to account for a
construction corridor to be placed at the toe of slope. The slope of the embankment
adjacent to the Wetland A buffer will be flattened and a 10-foot corridor provided.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-44

FEIS Site Plan modifications include construction of retaining walls and flattening of
proposed embankments to further reduce impact to the wooded buffer to Wetland A.
Refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2a and 6 and FEIS III.G Introductory Summary
Response.

Due to the presence of organic material within the top two feet of the existing soil, the
Applicants Geotechnical Engineer recommends removal of this material prior to
placement of fill. During earthwork operations and construction of embankments,
surface soils will be stripped. There is no need for the contractor to extend the
stripping of topsoil beyond the proposed limit of grading. At the limit of grading, the
stripping can be performed with a vertical cut, thereby minimizing soil disturbance.

Comment Site Plan 8c (Document 167.2c, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.2c, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General), (Document
167.2c, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

Inadequate Erosion and Sediment Controls

Missing Elements: Construction Drawing C-401 details the erosion and sediment
control plans for the site. Missing from this sheet is a culvert outlet scour pad for the
stormwater management pond inlet, a detailed construction phasing plan addressing
temporary swales, sediment traps, and staging area details. A concrete truck washout
facility for construction operations is also missing. All of these deficiencies need to
be addressed in the SWPPP of the DEIS.

Missing Details: The erosion control details shown on Construction Drawing C-705
should be amended to provide the following details: rock gradation for lined
channels, actual dimensions for the stabilized construction entrance, and the creation
of tables that show specific site locations for energy dissipaters and water bars. Stone
outlet sediment traps and water bars are not shown on Construction Drawing C-401
and should be if they are part of the proposed project. In addition, the stone/rubble
gravity retaining wall explained in detail #10 on Construction Drawing C-703 does
not appear to be erected at the project site. As such, this detail should be deleted.
However, a detail for a concrete truck washout facility needs to be added on
Construction Drawing C-705.

Highway Improvement Work: An erosion and sediment control plan needs to be
developed for all the highway improvement work and offsite sanitary sewer
connection construction activities that will accompany this project.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-45

Construction of Elevated Plateau: The Geo-tech report by Tectonic specified that
rock fill material be used for the construction of an elevated plateau on the western
part of the project. Construction Drawing C-201 indicates that a topsoil layer will be
placed on top of the 1.5:1 slope to an unspecified depth. The site landscaping plan,
Construction Drawing LP- I, presents a very aggressive planting plan for the steep
slopes shown on the site; particularly for the 1.5:1 rock fill slope on the west side of
the project. Additional details and cross-sections of the fill slopes need to be
provided, with construction details, to demonstrate how the proposed site work is to
be accomplished.

Response Site Plans 8c:

Erosion and Sediment Controls Missing Elements and Details

A final Construction Phasing Plan, as well as the recommended erosion and sediment
control elements and details, are included in FEIS Section III.O and on the FEIS Site
Plans . For discussion regarding the Construction Phasing Plan, also refer to FEIS
Response III.O 4.

Highway Improvement Work:

Sediment and erosion control plans for the offsite highway improvements and
sanitary sewer extension activities are included in FEIS Section III.O. Highway
drawings are included as part of this FEIS (Appendix J ).

Construction of Elevated Plateau:

The extent of the westerly earth embankment has been reduced in conjunction with
the proposed construction of vertical retaining walls as described in FEIS Site Plan
Responses 2a, 6 and 8a. As recommended by the Geotechnical Report (DEIS VII.M),
the embankment will be constructed using structural fill material. Topsoil will be
placed on the surface to promote vegetative stabilization. Temporary and permanent
erosion control measures will be installed, maintained and inspected. A typical cross-
section of the earth embankment with retaining wall is provided in FEIS Site Plan
Exhibit 8c.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-47

Comment Site Plan 9 (PH2, James Garofalo, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

Within this configuration you have seven lanes, which will go be [sic] into an area
that will have approximately, forty-nine feet. So, you have seven lanes in a very short
distance are going to be channeled in into forty-nine feet which could be five or four
lanes, four lanes a little bit over twelve feet, which is a normal size.

What's that distance that you are going to be transitioned from seven into say four
lanes? Once you get to those four lanes drivers have a choice, they can go to the right
and go all the way around, which they are not going to do, that's like traveling around
ten football fields. So, basically almost all of the traffic is going to be making a left
turn.

What's the distance here, that those vehicles will be able to stack in the two lanes that
are there? Now, Costco's own data shows that approximately, thirty-three percent of
the traffic is going to use both fueling station and the main building. So, most of the
traffic is going to be making a left turn, when it gets to this side access here.

That access should be a level service analysis with queuing looking at that particular
intersection and whether or not the traffic is going to queue back to this exceedingly
large curve cut for the gas station. [PH2, page 42, lines 6-25], [PH2, page 43, lines 1-
13]

Response Site Plans 9:

The Comment refers to traffic circulation at the proposed fueling facility. The
Applicant has modified the fueling facility layout to provide an improved
ingress/egress and traffic circulation. The curb cut from the fueling facility has been
narrowed and relocated as illustrated on the FEIS Site Plan (See FEIS Site Plan
Exhibit 9). The main entrance/exit has been revised to extend the exiting lane further
from the intersection. The revised exit will improve traffic circulation as well as the
operation at the fueling facility intersection. This modification will thus provide
additional storage at the intersection and thus queuing will not interfere with the
entrance/exit of the fueling facility.

Also refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2e Location 1.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-49

Capacity analyses have been performed by the Applicant for the internal intersection
of the main access driveway and the fueling facility access during the AM, PM and
Saturday Peak Hours. The analyses, contained in FEIS Appendix G.7, indicate that
the intersection will operate at Level of Service a during the Peak AM Hour with a
95
th
percentile queues on the fueling facility Access of one vehicle. The intersection
is expected to operate at a Level of Service c during the Peak PM Hour with the
95
th
percentile queue of approximately 2 vehicles and at a Level of Service d during
the Saturday Peak Hour with a 95
th
percentile queue of approximately 3 vehicles.
This queue, which would not happen often, can be stored within the available area
and will not impact vehicles entering the fueling facility.

It should be noted that this intersection is located approximately 275 feet from Route
202/35 and will experience gaps in traffic flow due to the traffic signal at the main
access intersection with Route 202/35, which will allow vehicles to more easily turn
left out of the fueling facility access. In addition, vehicles on the main access will be
traveling at a relatively low speed, further allowing an easier left turn out movement,
thus the actual Levels of Service will be better than indicated above. The maximum
queuing can be accommodated on the fueling facility Access.

There are, as I said two lanes, it looks like from the diagram -- from the figures that
this is where the storage tanks are going to be for the fuel lane. Where exactly are the
fuel trucks going to stop to unload their fuel? Is this going to interfere with this very
key location? [PH2, page 43, lines 14-20]


Refer to FEIS Site Plan Responses 2e Locations 1 and 2 and Site Plan 9.

Now, I don't know how you are going to get the four lanes to come out of the fueling
station matching up to the two leans [sic] that are going to be accessed here in this
short distance. I would like to know how that is going to be accomplished.

Over, in front on the south side of Costco, there are a number of parking spaces up
against the building. Now, the fact of the matter is this part of the road is going to be
very heavily traveled, how many vehicles are going to be part of that road? How easy
is it going to be to back in, back out of those locations which would probably be used


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-50

quite frequently for loading and unloading and is that process when somebody is
loading and unloading a very large thing like a large TV set, is that going to interfere
with the traffic that is on this main part of the road?

Normally you would not have parking in that portion of the road, you would leave
that open and you will need all the parking on all these isles with its -- where the
traffic has been broken up. In this particular case they are not doing that. There is
going to be a lot of interference with their main access to the parking areas at that
point. [PH2, page 43, lines 21-25], [PH2, page 44, lines 1-24]


Refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2e Locations 1-3 and Site Plan Response 9.

There are also a number of other problems, one of which is the sightlines here, near
the access to the road that goes around the trucks. Also on the west side where in
order to see vehicle drivers are going to have to turn their heads a lot more than
ninety degrees, in some cases possibly a hundred and seventy, a hundred and ninety.
That's very difficult for a normal driver, much less someone who is older.

Now, this is one of the reasons why most intersections are designed to be "T"
intersections ninety degrees, very clearly do not have that in some locations. This
needs to be addressed. You also have situations where you are going to have
problems with the traffic coming in.

Down here, the secondary access you have traffic that is going to be coming in and in
order to see the driver is going to have to be looking all the way across at a very steep
angle, to see vehicles coming in probably they will be coming in very fast. [PH2,
page 44, line 25], [PH2, page 45, lines 1-22]


With regard to sight lines, refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2e Location 2, 4, 7, 8 and
9. With regard to the secondary access, refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2e Location
4 and 10.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-51

Now, with the BJ s, when BJ s came in, they actual had a physical barrier along the
road in front of their secondary access and despite the fact that they had a curb there
to prevent the vehicles from making left turns in, they were denied a secondary
access.

In this particular case there is no barrier, so vehicles can physically do it, even though
it is going to be illegal.

One of the things that it is not shown like the question is, where is it going to be
shown that the striping and signing plan for this site -- so you can better understand
what is going on, not only up here to find out that this is four lanes or five lanes
coming out of the gas filling station, but how they're transitioning it.

And even though they show at that point there is a do not enter, once you get at little
snow on that, people aren't gonna see that and you are going to have a forty-nine foot
curb path that the drivers coming in would look like a two lane road. Forty-nine feet
is awful wider than a normal road, two lanes would be twenty-four, so it is twice the
width.

So, you need to have a signing and striping plan so you better understand how traffic
is circulating and being in control within the site. When is this going to be done so
that not only you and J acobs Engineering and the public will have a chance to
comment on the circulation within the site? [PH2, page 45, lines 23-25], [PH2, page
46, lines 1-25], [PH2, page 47, lines 1-7].


Drawing C-101, included in the DEIS, illustrated the preliminary site traffic control
signage and striping. The secondary access is restricted to right-in and right-out
movements. FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2e (10) illustrates traffic control measures
designed to prevent illegal left turns. The proposed measures include a raised median
island, pavement markings and No Left Turn signs.

In this particular case, there really isn't any on street parking or any other parking
unless maybe this northern side is someday developed, where extra vehicles can go,
this is it. This is all the parking they are going to have. So, you need to take a very


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-52

close look at looking at an alternative to not only this site plan but the alternatives
which they provided in the DEIS.

The isle that comes from the secondary access, how can we redesign this so that there
is no parking, so that vehicles can freely flow. Because vehicles are going to be
coming in at such a slightly higher speed. It is going to be very difficult for the
people coming in and out of parking spaces to see them coming in as well as these
two access cross isles.

Where is the design to show that they can come in freely like they come in, in the
main access road, assuming that, that main access even stays. Certainly there is some
question in the analysis of the plans that show the lane configurations at the two
access points and how the traffic and traffic analysis is done.

These need to be looked at and brought to a similar place, where the analysis is
looking at what is on the plan, and the plan reflects the analysis that has been done.

This area on the southern part of Costco actually might be a very good place for
people to quickly drop off and then leave, but what are the problems going to be
when you actually have people trying to park there and un-park and load in that area,
because that's the primary loading area for major sites -- for major items. [PH2, page
47, lines 19-25], [PH2, page 48, lines 1-25], [PH2, page 48, lines 1-8]


Refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2e Location 10.

Comment Site Plan 15 (PH2, Walt Daniels, Conservation Board):

The DEIS states that the view of the Costco building from the Taconic Parkway
scenic byway will be mitigated by the planting of trees and shrubs. The proposed
planting plan does not adequately show the species and quality -- quantity of the plan,
so we use for landscaping.

Additional planting material may be needed to insure the visual character of the
scenic Taconic Parkway and the landscaping to mitigate tree removal throughout the
site.

To see next for each planning [sic] zone needs further clarification. New England
Conservancy company provides several kinds of measures for different uses. The


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-53

announce [sic] is incomplete unless the specific segments for completion is done for
each Planning [sic] zone.

Landscaping and planting plan is inadequate with a minimum of three year
survivability of plantings from day of acceptance. This insures that all planting
material is not dead or dying and adequate coverage is provided to satisfy the
intended purposes. [PH2, Page 92, lines 1-25], [PH2, Page 93, lines 1-19]


Screening of the Costco building from the Taconic State Parkway is proposed to be
accomplished by a natural vegetative barrier, specifically the planting of native
evergreen trees supplemented with deciduous and evergreen shrubs. Staggered rows
of evergreen trees spaced to ensure optimal growth will provide a dense screen to
shield the view of the building from the roadway. The proposed evergreen trees have
an ultimate height at maturity which will range generally from 40 to 50. These trees
will provide a barrier that shields views of the building from the Taconic, and are
anticipated to reach an effective height within five to seven years of planting.

The planting of evergreen and deciduous shrubs on the east and west sides of the
staggered row of evergreen trees will have the effect of screening views toward the
proposed building at the lowermost branching of the evergreen trees. In all, 150 to
155 large evergreen trees are proposed to be planted along the easternmost portion of
the Property to screen views from the roadway toward the building.

The staggered rows of evergreen trees are to be planted center-to-center (spacing
between plants) of about 16 feet. At this separation distance, the trees are far enough
apart to be able to have more than adequate sunlight, as well as nutrients and water
from the soil to thrive and ensure their survivability. The landscaping will be
maintained by the Project Sponsor and shall include removal of invasive vines. The
landscape contractor will be required to guarantee the survival of his landscaping and
replace sick and dying plantings within the guarantee period.

Also refer to FEIS Responses III.B1, B2 and B4 and Response Site Plan 2h.

Comment Site Plan 16 (PH2, Walt Daniels, Conservation Board):

The planting in the parking lot of trees is very minimal in the plans. Plan allowance
have a [sic]they shave [sic] the parking surface and hence reduce the thermal water
going into the ground water and so that is another thing that can be done. [PH2, Page


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Site Plan-54

94, line 1], [PH2, Page 95, lines 1-5]


The Applicant proposes modification to the Site Plan to increase the effectiveness of
the proposed landscaping. Refer to FEIS Responses II.7, III.G Introductory Summary
Response and III.G 13, which address parking lot landscaping and its relationship to
thermal impact.

Comment Site Plan 17 (PH2, Peter Pergola):

I have been looking at the plan, I am in the landscape business, and I think they went
beyond the call of duty to really make the place look great and to pick the plants that
are native to this area.

The only thing I found a problem with is the white pine, which they should have used
spruce because they are a little more deer resistant. [PH2, page 97, lines 5-13]


The evergreen trees selected in Zones 2 and 3, which include the road screening
plants, include a total of nine different species. The plants that were selected are
native and non-invasive and will grow well in the environmental conditions in which
they proposed to be planted. In general, some spruce trees may be more deer resistant
than white pines, and the final mix of trees that are actually planted can be weighted
more toward spruces and other trees which deer find less attractive. To some extent,
deer resistance depends on the position of the plant in the landscape, its surroundings
and what other potential food sources are available. The Landscape Plan will be
further reviewed by the Planning Board as part of the site plan review process. That
review will take these concerns into consideration.

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION _
Part B - Comments and Responses Section II

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-1

Section II. Description Of Proposed Action

For a description of the proposed FEIS Site Plan, refer to the Introductory Response in
FEIS Section Site Plan. This will explain changes made after the Planning Board accepted
the DEIS.

Comment II. 1 (PH1, Evan Bray):
the applicant seeks a fifty-six percent increase above the permissible lighting
mounting height, twenty-five feet instead of sixteen. Granting a variance to increase
the height of the lighting so drastically, [PH1, page 94, lines 3-7] Route 202 and
the Taconic as scenic parkways and -- or highways and we are supposed to respect
that.
The calculations submitted with the DEIS it doesn't account for the perception
from the corridor, the 202, 35 and the Taconic State Parkway, or the residences.
In fact, allowing for such a variance will exacerbate the light pollution fine approve
Costco, but do they really need the variances to increase the lighting height by almost
sixty percent, which only does two things. It would increase visibility from the
Taconic State Parkway and would increase visibility from 202 and 35. [PH1, page 94,
lines 12-25], [PH1, page 95, lines 1-6]

Response II. 1:

The Proposed Action includes site lighting of the parking area, circulation roads and
building. Two lighting plans are described in the DEIS and included in the Proposed
Action. One proposal includes area lighting in accordance with the 16-foot height
limitation imposed by Chapter 200 of the Yorktown Code. The second proposal,
which is the Applicants preference, includes area lighting proposed at a height of 25-
feet for which a variance or legislative change would be required. The no-variance
plan would require approximately 230 light sources (poles or building mounts). By
comparison, the plan requiring a variance would require approximately 155 light
sources, or approximately one-third less than the variance free proposal. In
connection with site plan review, the Planning Board will review both plans and
consider the advantages of each plan. Based upon review, the Board may determine
to support the proposed variance or the no variance plan.
Potential impacts from site illumination will be tempered by utilizing dark sky
luminaire optics that throw light downward in order to minimize sky glow and
nighttime glare. Light fixtures along the perimeter of the Site will be equipped with
shielded luminaires to limit horizontal illumination, offsite light spillage and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-2

nighttime glare. The proposal using the higher light poles will result in significantly
fewer luminaires, thereby decreasing visual point sources at night. The same
proposal, requiring fewer poles, will also reduce visual daytime clutter. After the
store has closed all but the minimum outdoor lighting needed for security will be
turned off.
The International Dark-Sky Association recommends light poles of 25-feet to
promote greater light uniformity as described in their Outdoor Lighting Code
Handbook as follows:

Again, since most area lighting has certain target uniformity
levels, shorter poles will mean that more must be used, which
may increase the visual impact at night as well as in the daytime.
While these poles will be shorter, a community must carefully
evaluate whether the trade-off of more poles might compromise
the original intent to reduce visual clutter. In general, it is not
recommended that a lighting code limit pole heights. With good
designs using fully shielded luminaires, poles with standard
heights (up to about 11 meters or 35 feet) are in most situations
minimally obtrusive it is not recommended to restrict heights
to much below about 8 meters (25 feet).

The view of the site lighting by motorists passing the Site on the Taconic will be
limited. The proposed Costco building and light poles, which are lower than the
building, will not be visible from the Taconic State Parkway (TSP) northbound lanes
as the site will be tucked below the TSP embankment. The view from the southbound
lanes and off ramp will be obscured by a proposed landscape screen, as illustrated in
the exhibits in FEIS Response III.B2. (Also refer to FEIS Responses III.B1, III.B3
and III.B4 and Site Plan 2h.) The proposed landscape buffer will be comprised of a
dense mix of new and existing deciduous and evergreen trees which will obscure the
view. Visibility from this view, therefore, will be very limited.

While the site lighting fixtures in either proposal would be visible from Route 202/35,
landscaping is proposed along the roadway within a landscape strip which is intended
to soften the view along the site frontage. Existing woodlands as well as proposed
landscaping will limit visibility of the Site from residential neighbors along Old
Crompond Road. Although ambient light at the Project site will be altered, reasonable
measures to reduce light pollution will be implemented, as described. Also refer to
FEIS III.B 11, III.B 13, & III.B 17.

The Applicant has stated that if the requested variance or legislative change not be

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-3

supported, the Applicant will go forth with the plan that complies with Code.

Comment II. 2 (Document 42.14, Yorktown Smart Growth):

THE TRUE COSTS OF COSTCO
Noise, Particulate, and Light Pollution

Lighting in the parking lot would create significant light pollution, especially
for nearby residential neighborhoods.

Response II. 2:
The residential neighborhood nearest the Project Site is west of the Site along Old
Crompond Road. Views of the Costco Site will be partially screened by the existing
woodlands that will be maintained along the westerly portion of the Site.
Supplemental landscaping along the southwestern portion of the developed Site is
proposed and will provide additional screening. (Refer to FEIS Responses III.B 1,
Sight Line Section B, and III.B2 to III.B4.) Site illumination levels at the site
boundary will approach zero foot-candles in compliance with Town Code
requirements except along Route 202/35 where the Site driveways will be
illuminated. Proposed light fixtures along the parking area perimeter will be equipped
with residential light shields to minimize light spillage. Light fixtures will be dark
sky technology, which will throw light downward to minimize sky glow as
explained in FEIS Response II.1.

Comment II. 3 - (Document 81.9, Mark Connelly, Yorktown Advisory Board on
Architecture and Community Appearance (ABACA)):

From reviewing Exhibit II-5, Building Elevations, the Board cannot determine the
architecture of the massive building. Building elevations, drawn to scale, are to be
submitted to the ABACA, before site plan approval, for our review and comments.
The applicant is to submit materials and color samples to the Board.

Response II. 3:
ABACA is an advisory Board that provides recommendations to the Planning Board
in connection with site plan review. Drawings showing architectural building
elevations along with materials and color samples will be submitted to Yorktown
ABACA for review upon completion of the SEQRA process and as part of the site
plan review process.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-4

Comment II. 4 - (Document 81.10, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture and
Community Appearance):

If built, the Costco building will be one of the few Yorktown buildings visible from
the Taconic. As such, the ABACA hopes that it will have aesthetically attractive
elements, and not simply be a massive corrugated box. The Board recommends the
applicant consider a green roof.

Response II. 4:
As shown on Sight Line Sections illustrated in FEIS Response III.B 1, the proposed
Costco building will not be visible from the Taconic State Parkway (TSP) northbound
lanes as the building roofline will be tucked below the TSP embankment. The view
of the building from the southbound lanes and off ramp will be shielded by a
proposed landscape screen, as illustrated in the exhibits in FEIS Response III.B2.
(Also refer to FEIS Responses III.B3 and III.B4.) The proposed landscape buffer will
be comprised of a dense mix of new and existing deciduous and evergreen trees
which will obscure the view. Visibility from this view, therefore, will be very
limited. Refer also to FEIS Response Site Plan 2h.

The Costco roof will be equipped with as many as 200 Energy Star rated skylights
designed to maximize natural lighting while enhancing the indoor environment for
customer and employees. Interior lights will be activated by light sensitive photocells
and are illuminated only when needed, thereby maximizing energy efficiency.
Costcos Solar White roof panels are solar reflective, provide thermal cooling and
exceed the value required for LEED certification (refer to FEIS Response III.I 2).

The Applicant does not propose a green roof because the Applicant asserts that the
environmental costs of green roof would offset any potential environmental benefits.
The Costco building has been developed to maximize construction and operational
efficiency. The building structure is a pre-engineered system designed to minimize
the amount of material used and maximize the use of recycled resources. Adding the
minimum of four inches of growing medium would increase the structural load on the
roof by nearly four million pounds, resulting in increased use of natural resources
required for framing (steel), shipping (fuel) and would increase the cost and carbon
footprint of the building. Should additional growing medium be required, the mass of
the roof would increase proportionally. In addition, the Applicant asserts that
maintenance of a green roof would add to the cost and further render the roof
impractical.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-5

The Applicant asserts that providing a vegetated roof would eliminate positive effects
of the solar white roof by increasing energy usage, adding to the cost of construction,
and increasing the operating cost, complexity and long term maintenance (rooftop
landscaping and waterproofing the 200 skylights) of the building. The Applicant,
therefore, asserts that a green roof would not be practical or cost effective. Based on
the reasons listed, Costco has not employed a green roof on any of their buildings.

Although implementing a green roof is not proposed by the Applicant, they do
propose extensive planting along the Taconic southbound off-ramp that will provide a
green landscape buffer to screen views of the building from parkway travelers.
Computer graphic simulations illustrating such views were developed by the
Applicant and are included in FEIS Responses III.B1, III.B2 and III.B4. Also refer to
FEIS Site Plan 2h and 15.

Comment II. 5 - (Document 83.11, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

Size of Development:

After researching the sizes of the Costcos building in our regional area, the Board
found that this development is bigger than any other successful Costco nearby. The
Board recommends decreasing the size of the structure. By decreasing the size, all the
concerns above will be reduced.

Response II. 5:
The Applicant analyzed the Project with a smaller building (120,000 square feet) as
illustrated in DEIS Exhibit IV-2b. According to the Costco management, years of
marketing and operational experience based on the other regional Costco warehouses
has provided numerous, invaluable lessons regarding successful building design and
sales floor layout. Costco has evaluated such design considerations as product
display, aisle width, member comfort to maneuver throughout the building as well as
maintenance and cost in order to develop its current building. Costco asserts that
lessons from the smaller stores, even the recently expanded Brookfield store, have
revealed that the design proposed for Yorktown is what will serve the customer best.
Thus, a smaller store would not meet the Applicants objectives.
Furthermore, Costco asserts that every warehouse built over the past three years has
been at least 148,000 square feet, and up to 157,000 square feet. The 151,000 square
foot building design at Yorktown falls within the lower end of this range.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-6

Comment II. 6 - (Document 100.5, Steve Winkel):

When code indicates a maximum height of 16 feet for light poles in the parking lot,
why is Costco asking for a variance for them to be almost 60% higher? If this is
meant to increase visibility of the complex, doesnt it defeat the purpose of all the
landscaping meant to reduce the impact of the building.

Regarding the number and height of the light poles, Id like to know what sort of
measures are being planned to prevent light pollution. This past weekend, there was a
meteor shower... it was a clear night and in most of residential Yorktown, we could
look up with the naked eye and see the streaks of light. You can contrast this with a
partly cloudy night when Legacy Field is lit up, and it looks like the sun is rising to
the north. Aside from being an enormous waste of electricity, there are some studies
out there linking health issues to communities with excessive light at night (LAN). Id
like you to address this question.

Response II. 6:

The exterior light fixtures will be dark sky technology, which will throw light
downward to minimize sky glow as explained in FEIS Response II.1. Refer to FEIS
Response II.2 for more detail regarding impact due to site lighting.

Comment II. 7 - (Document 108.3, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

The description of the proposed development indicates that 3.57 acres of open
vegetation is proposed. Some of this open vegetation will be parking lot islands,
which are very limited in size and other areas will consist of steeply sloped cut and
fill sections. While it is preferred that as many areas as possible be vegetated, the
limited value of steeply sloping and isolated vegetated areas, as well as the limited
perviousness of compacted fill areas, should be discussed. It is recommended that a
table be provided identifying open vegetated areas by amount of contiguous area and
slope for both pre and post development so that a comparison of significance of the
vegetated areas can be assessed.

Response II. 7:

The DEIS provides a comparative analysis between existing and proposed
landscaped, or vegetated areas. Refer to DEIS exhibits II-2 and II-4a. This Comment
suggests that some of the proposed vegetated areas have limited value due to size and
slope. In response to the Comment, the Applicant modified the Site Plan to maintain

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-7

more of the existing woodlands.

The Applicant modified the DEIS Site Plan to reduce the earth embankment adjacent
to the westerly edge of the parking area by constructing a retaining wall to replace
much of the earth embankment. The proposed modification (FEIS Site Plan
Introductory Exhibit 2) will include constructing an embankment (flatter than the
embankment proposed in the DEIS Site Plan). The embankment will extend
approximately 30 feet beyond the westerly parking area. A vertical retaining wall
will be constructed to a height of approximately 15 to 20 feet thereby reducing
disturbance of the existing woodlands. (Refer to Site Plan Exhibit 8c.) The proposed
modification will reduce the extent of steep slopes and will preserve more of the
existing wooded buffer to Wetland A (3/4 acre). (Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory
Summary Response, item 1.) The constructed embankments will be planted. The
proposed modifications will preserve existing woodlands and provide more
meaningful landscaping that will offer additional screening and soften the view from
offsite.

The Planning Board will review the site landscaping as part of the site plan review
process. Such considerations may include the addition of diamond-shaped landscape
cut-outs within the parking area in order to add additional trees to the site without
displacing parking spaces.

A summary of vegetated areas for the FEIS Site Plan is provided in Table II.1 and
illustrated on FEIS Exhibit II.7. The FEIS Site Plan has slightly more overall
vegetated area (7.78 acres) than the DEIS Site Plan. The FEIS Site Plan retains more
woodlands but has slightly less interior, embankment and pond landscaped areas
when compared to the DEIS Site Plan (FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 1). Also
note that the Proposed Action will maintain approximately half (7.78 acres) of the
Sites existing vegetative areas (15.85).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-8

Table II.1
FEIS Onsite Vegetated Area Summary (4)

Open Vegetation
Woodlands
to Remain
(acres)
Total Vegetated
Area (acres)

Interior
Landscaping
(Islands)
(acres)
Front
Perimeter
Landscaping
(acres)
Embankment
(Sloped)
Landscaping
(acres)
Detention
Facility
(acres)
Existing 7.25 (2) 8.60 15.85
DEIS Site
Plan
0.58 0.40 2.13 0.66 4.0 (3) 7.77
FEIS Site
Plan (1)
0.53 0.40 1.56 0.55 4.74 7.78
Notes:
(1) See FEIS Exhibit II.7.
(2) Existing open vegetated area includes all combined pervious area, including the nursery
vegetation.
(3) The DEIS indicated 4.2 acres of woodlands, however, it did not account for a 10 foot wide
clearing at the toe of the embankment slope. Therefore, the woodland area was adjusted down
by 0.2 acres and the open vegetation was adjusted up 0.2 acres.
(4) Nearly another acre offsite within the NYSDOT right-of-way adjacent to the TSP southbound
off-ramp will be landscaped.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-10

Comment II. 8 (Document 108.4, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

The discussion under stormwater drainage notes that runoff peak rates will be reduced
and water quality treatment requirements will be satisfied. A discussion of impacts
from pollutant loading should be incorporated and added to the DEIS to justify this
statement.

Response II. 8:

In response to public comments, the Applicant performed a Pollutant Loading
Analysis. Refer to FEIS Responses in Section III.G and Appendix E for detailed
discussions and calculations.

Protection):

This section includes a brief discussion on how green infrastructure practices such as
buffer preservation, reduction of clearing and grading, etc., were employed; however,
based on the configuration, it is not clear that the intent of these practices were
actually met. For instance, buffer preservation could be enhanced by replacing the
steep embankments proposed within the buffer by placing the retaining walls outside
the buffer. This would enable preservation of a wider forested buffer, more in keeping
with the intent of the practice.

Response II. 9:

In an effort to further reduce impacts and enhance buffer preservation the Applicant
proposes to construct retaining walls along the westerly limit of the parking area.
Construction of the retaining walls will reduce the extent of earth embankment
necessary to establish the grade change, reduce the physical disturbance to the buffer
of Wetland A and will preserve a wider strip of the existing forested hillside. Refer to
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response, FEIS Site Plan Responses 2a, 8a, II.7 and
III.G Introductory Summary Response.

Protection):

Snow removal is briefly mentioned. Based on the intense use of the site and limited
locations for deposition of snow removed, it is recommended that more information

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-11

be provided so that associated impacts can be assessed. Such as, will snow be
deposited in the stormwater basin or on steep slopes leading to the wetland?

Response II. 10:

Snow removal will be performed by an independent contractor as part of a regular
winter maintenance program. In light of sensitive environmental and physical
constraints, a snow removal exhibit has been developed to provide guidance to the
contractor. The objective will be to place snow in remote areas of the parking lot to
minimize loss of prime parking spaces and maintain traffic safety. FEIS Exhibit II.10
illustrates the primary locations for snow stockpiling. The areas shown, if piled as
high as 10 feet, would provide adequate storage for a more than a 1-foot snowfall.
Storage areas could be expanded if necessary to accommodate additional snow. In
order to protect earth embankments and wetlands, deposition of snow will be
excluded from the stormwater management pond and from the westerly embankment.
The use of chloride-containing materials for ice control will be in accordance with
Chapter 18-45 of the NYCDEP Rules and Regulations for the Protection from
Contamination, Degradation and Pollution of The New York City Water Supply and
its Sources. Refer to FEIS Response III.D 8. All onsite deicing material will be
stored within the building, thereby preventing entrance to the storm drainage system.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-13

Protection):

Additional information on the proposed offsite improvements along Route 202/35
should be included in this section.

Response II. 11:

In addition to the text provided in the DEIS page II. 13 which provided an overall
description of the improvements to the offsite roadway system, Section III.K of the
DEIS provides a more in depth description. Also, FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit
5 provides a schematic illustration of the referenced improvements. Also refer to
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2j.

Detailed design drawings of the offsite roadway improvements to Route 202/35,
which include but are not limited to layout geometry, striping, drainage, water quality
treatment, utilities, cross-sections and traffic signals, were developed by the
Applicants Engineer and submitted to the NYSDOT, the agency with jurisdiction,
for review. These detailed plans are included as part of this FEIS.

FEIS Section III.K provides responses to specific comments regarding Traffic and
specific offsite improvements. The Applicant has stated they will continue to work
with the NYSDOT toward final acceptance of the design. With regard to stormwater
management, the Applicant has stated they will continue to coordinate with the
NYCDEP. The offsite roadway improvement plans as well as the related SWPPP
(FEIS Appendix E) will be provided to the NYCDEP for their review.

Comment II. 12 - (Document 114.1, Daniel A. Mitchell):

As it relates to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the captioned proposal:

1- How many light poles will be constructed in the parking facility and filling area?

2- What will be the lineal footage between each light pole?

3- What will be the height of each light pole?

4- What will be the maximum lumens produced by the light fixture atop each light
pole.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-14

5- What will the maximum total illumination (lumens produced) be when all light
fixtures are energized?

6- Will the lumens produced by each light fixture be controllable, i.e. will they be
dimmable?

7- Will the maximum illumination produced in a nighttime sky be within federal
and local standards?

Response II. 12:

The Site Plans that were submitted with the DEIS and updated as part of this FEIS
include two Site Lighting Plans. One plan (C-501, 16-foot mounting height)
illustrates the lighting scheme in conformance with Chapter 200 of the Town of
Yorktown Code. The other plan (C-502, 25-foot mounting height) illustrates a
lighting scheme that departs from the Zoning Code and, as such, would require a
variance or legislative change. The referenced drawings include specific details
regarding the locations and quantities of light standards and illumination levels. The
Applicants preferred Site Lighting Plan, C-502, proposes 25-foot light standards.
The luminaires will utilize dark sky technology including down-lit optics and
shielded luminaires to minimize offsite spillage and nighttime glare. The proposal
using the higher light poles will result in significantly fewer luminaires, thereby
promoting greater light uniformity as well as decreasing visual impact at night. The
same proposal requiring fewer poles will also reduce visual daytime clutter. For
more discussion regarding parking area lighting, see DEIS Section III.B.2.d and FEIS
Responses II.1, II. 2, II. 12 and III.B 11.

1- The As Of Right Lighting Plan with 16 foot high light poles (drawing C-501)
proposes 230 poles. The Applicants preferred lighting plan with 25 foot high
light poles (drawing C-502) proposes 155 poles.

2- The drawings are to scale and the distances between lights are illustrated
graphically. The spacing for the As of Right Lighting Plan with 16 foot high light
poles would be approximately 35 feet. The spacing for the Applicants preferred
lighting plan with 25 foot high light poles would generally range from 50 to 75
feet.

3- The pole heights will either be 16-feet or 25-feet in height, depending on whether
a variance is awarded.

4- Illumination levels are shown on the plan both by point location and by isolux

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-15

bars. Maximum and minimum levels are shown. Maximum light levels vary
throughout the Site. The maximum light levels for both the 16-foot and 25-foot
plans in the parking area and driveway is generally around 7 foot-candles.

5- Illumination levels are shown on the plan both by point location and by isolux
bars. Maximum and minimum levels are shown. The total lumens produced at
the Site is not available as it is not a parameter used in site lighting design.

6- Site lighting with dimmers is not provided by all manufacturers although some
provide this option. Site illumination will be dimmed after business hours
because a smaller percentage of luminaires will be lit. The parking area will
remain illuminated from dusk to just hour after close of business. Minimal
lighting as required for security will remain lit throughout the hours of darkness
when the facility is closed. Security lighting typically allows for continued
illumination of approximately 25 percent of the luminaires, equally dispersed
around the parking area to provide sufficient lighting to discourage potential
vandalism and aid in police patrol efforts. Site lighting design will be reviewed
by the Planning Board in greater detail during the site plan application process.

7- Building and parking area illumination values will be in accordance with Chapter
200, Lighting, Outdoor of the Town of Yorktown Code, which limits the
illumination at the property line to less than 1 foot-candle. There are no federal
regulatory requirements governing site lighting for this Project. Illumination will
be provided to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety and will meet the
minimum lighting criteria for parking areas as recommended by the Illuminating
Engineering Society (IES).

Comment II. 13 - (Document 119.13, Olivia Bell Buehl), (PH2, Olivia Buehl):

The transcript for the Public Hearing is provided in Appendix B.

The following is the result of a review of the DEIS for the above named project
published on the Towns website. I ask that these comments, questions, and requests
be entered into this proposed developments DEIS public hearing record so that they
might be properly addressed in the projects Final Environmental Impact Statement
and incorporated into the final site plan design.

ITS ALL ABOUT BALANCE
New York State law says that to approve any development project Yorktown must
weigh the negative impacts against the possible gains. To this end the applicant (in
this case, Costcos developer) prepares an EIS to try to demonstrate to the permitting

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-16

agency that the gains outweigh the negatives. It does this by first talking about the
possible negatives; secondly, it lists all the positives. As to be expected, an applicant
downplays the negatives and highlights the positives. Thats its job.

The job of concerned citizens like myself, as well as of the Planning Board, is to
ensure that what the developer is telling us in the DEIS is correct. More importantly,
we need to shine a clear light on what it is not telling us. So lets take a close look at
these negatives and positives.

Information Being Requested:

Lighting

What makes the applicants needs so special that it cannot conform to the
towns existing codes regarding the maximum height of light poles?

Signage

Why cant Costco go forward without having signage facing the Taconic
State Parkway?

Response II. 13:

Lighting The Applicant has submitted a lighting plan that is compliant with the
Towns allowed 16 foot mounting height (C-501), as well as, a plan that shows 25
foot mounting height (C-502) in an effort to reduce the number of luminaires required
to adequately light the parking lot. Refer to FEIS Responses II. 1, II. 2, II. 6, II. 12
and III.B 11.

Signage The NYSDOT enforces the NYS Parks Law that restricts the placement of
advertising signs within 500 feet of the Taconic State Parkway. The Applicant has
sought relief from this requirement in order to place building signs on the Costco
building and fueling facility canopy within the regulated area. The Applicant is in
receipt of a letter dated 10/23/2012 from the NYSDOT (see FEIS Appendix C) which
indicates that NYSDOT will permit west facing signs on the building and canopy to
the extent that they will not be visible from the Taconic State Parkway. Signs will
not be placed on the north, south or east of the building or canopy elevations, which
face the Taconic Parkway. Refer to FEIS Response III.B 4 and III.B 15.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-17

Comment II. 14 (Document 169.6, Mark H. Linehan):
Will the Costco signs or lighting be visible from the Taconic? Exhibit II-6 shows a
Costco Gasoline sign on the south- and north-facing sides of the gas station canopy,
but the discussion of Site Signage and Lighting in section II says there will be signs
on the south- and west-facing sides of the canopy. Which is it? Will the gas station
canopy -- and the Costco sign on top of the canopy be visible from the Taconic? If
so, should Costco be required to have no sign on the north-facing side of the canopy?

Response II. 14:

The NYS DOT will determine whether to approve west facing signs on the building
and canopy. Signs will not be placed on the north, south or east of the building or
canopy elevations, which face the Taconic Parkway. Refer to FEIS Responses II.1,
II.2, II.12, II.13 and .III.B 11 regarding visibility of signs and site lighting..

Comment II. 15 (Document 169.7, Mark H. Linehan):
Why should Costco be permitted to have 25 foot light poles instead of the town
maximum of 16 foot light poles?

Response II. 15:

Refer to FEIS Responses II.1, II.2, II.12 and .III.B 11 regarding visibility of site
lighting.

Comment II. 16 (Document 171.6, Evan Bray):
Lighting

Applicant seeks a 56% increase above the permissible lighting mounting height. 25
instead of 16. Granting a variance to increase the height of the lighting so drastically
would negate most of the benefit of the shrubs and planting intended to screen the site
from the scenic (as classified by Westchester Patterns) 202/35 corridor.

The calculations submitted with the DEIS only measure the illumination at a 36 [?]
level directly below the lamps. It does not account for perception from the corridor
and residential homes along the westerly edge. In fact allowing for such a variance
would exacerbate the light pollution significantly; light acts as both a particle and a

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-18

wave, right? The same holds true from the Taconic State Parkway which is required
to be shielded from light and signage.

There is no hardship to the applicant by requiring compliance with the gracious 16
foot limit on street lamps.

Response II. 16:

The illumination values submitted with the DEIS provide foot-candle lighting values
at the ground level (not 36 below the lamp). The light poles are shown on Sight Line
Sections, Exhibits III.B 56 & III.B 57 which provide views from the adjacent
roadways and residences. Refer to FEIS Response II.1 and III.B 11.

Comment II. 17 (Document 178.11e, Henry Steeneck):

Please refer to the listed articles that I have submitted regarding the Costco project at
route 202/35& Taconic Parkway in the Town of Yorktown.

Article 11. Its all about balance, Costco must answer real questions with real
answers.

They say they want 40 ft. light poles, but they will do us a favor and give in to 25 ft.
The town code says 16 ft.

The real facts, there is a good reason the town has the specs, and Costco just isnt
special enough for us to change them.

Response II. 17:

Comment noted. Document 178 in its entirety, including referenced articles, can be
found in FEIS Appendix A. References to this document in other sections of this
FEIS are identified in the Index, also included in FEIS Appendix A.

Comment II. 18 (Document 178.11f, Henry Steeneck):


answers.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-19

They want special permission to have signs that will be too close to the parkway to
meet State requirements.

They are just not that special that we should make this exception.

Response II. 18:

Comment noted. Document 178 in its entirety, including referenced articles, can be
found in FEIS Appendix A. References to this document in other sections of this
FEIS are identified in the Index, also included in FEIS Appendix A.

Reviews and Approvals

Comment II. 19 - (PH1, Andrew Fisher):
First, I know the towns have either a formal or informal agreements they send
copies of large development projects to their neighbors when they are within one
mile of the border, this was not within the one mile of the border of Cortlandt,
Peekskill or Somers for that matters, but the traffic impacts you know, the whole
region and such that I really think that you should be sending copies as a
professional courtesy, have your Planning Department send copies of the traffic
studies, a list of the intersections that are being tested, to Peekskill, Cortlandt and
Somers. [PH1, page 116, lines 14-25], [PH1, page 117, lines 1-3]

Response II. 19:
The City of Peekskill as well as the Town of Cortlandt are listed in the DEIS as
Interested Agencies and copies of the DEIS were distributed to the municipal
Clerks for agency and public viewing. Peekskill and Cortlandt are listed as
interested agencies because they were part of the Sustainable Development Study
and the Town of Yorktown has an inter-municipal agreement to send them projects
within the sustainable development study area (in Yorktown thats all projects
north of 202 & west of the Taconic). The County requires that projects within 500
feet of a town line be distributed to the neighboring municipality. Since the Town
of Somers is greater than 500 feet from the Costco project there is no requirement
to distribute the DEIS to them; however, the DEIS was made available to the
public on the Towns website.
The DEIS addresses Traffic and Transportation in Section III.K and the entire
Traffic Impact Study is included in Appendix Section VII.E. As noted, the DEIS
was distributed to the referenced municipalities.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-20

Comment II. 20 - (Document 172.2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

Additionally, the proximity of the proposed development to the towns of Somers
and Cortlandt warrant input from these municipal neighbors. Has the applicant or
Planning Board, solicited input from Somers and Cortlandt?

Response II. 20:
The Town of Cortlandt is listed in the DEIS as an Interested Agency and copies of
the DEIS were distributed to the municipal Clerk for agency and public viewing.
Refer to Response 1 of this section for additional detail.

The Town of Somers does not have jurisdiction by law to fund, approve or directly
act upon the proposed Costco. Accordingly, the Town and Town agencies are not
involved agencies under SEQRAs regulations 6 NYCRR 617.2(s). As
potentially interested agencies, they were afforded the same ability to participate in
the SEQRA review process as the general public. 6 NYCRR 617.2(s). As noted,
the DEIS was made available to the public on the Towns website.

Comment II. 21 (Document 41.5, William Stoiber), (Document 161.1, William Stoiber):
I have reviewed documents in the DEIS and elsewhere regarding the planned
project for a Costco warehouse store on Rte 202135 While the documents
reference the projects proposed location adjacent to a New York State Scenic
Byway, namely, the Taconic Parkway, I find no evidence that the Scenic
Highways Advisory Board has been engaged in any discussion regarding the
projects impact.

As per N.Y.HAY.LAW 349-cc: NY Code - Section 349-CC, consultation with the
above Advisory Board as well as with the Hudson River Valley Greenway
Communities Council shall take place for purposes of protecting and enhancing
the landscape and view corridors .... and for minimizing traffic congestion on such
a [scenic] highway.

I kindly request that the promoters of the Yorktown Costco project provide and
make public the proper written documentation that will indicate the cognizance,
and approval, of this commercial development on the part of the two agencies
heretofore named.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
II-21

Response II. 21:
The NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Places (OPRHP) is identified as
the agency administering determination of the Projects effect on cultural resources
including the Taconic State Parkway as a Scenic Byway. OPRHP has been listed
in the DEIS as an interested agency and it has been provided a copy of the DEIS.
The other agencies mentioned in the Comment Scenic Highways Advisory Board
and Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council are not involved
agencies pursuant to SEQRA. Refer also to Response II.20 of this section.

The New York State Highway Law does not require consultation with the Scenic
Byways Advisory Board or the Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities
Council for commercial development adjacent to a Scenic Byway. Instead, the
Scenic Byways Advisory Board is authorized only to develop and make
recommendations to the Commissioner [of Transportation] on the organization and
operation of a scenic byways program, to evaluate and recommend to the
Commissioner and the legislature amendments of the statutes and regulations
relevant to the furtherance of a cohesive system of scenic byways, and [to] report
to the government and the legislature on the implementation of this program.
N.Y. HAY LAW 349-cc(2), 349-cc(3). In carrying out those functions, the
Scenic Byways Advisory Board shall consult with the Hudson River Valley
Greenway Communities Council concerning byways within the Hudson River
Valley. N.Y. HAY LAW 349-cc(1). Consultation with the Hudson River
Valley Greenway Communities Council is also not required the under the
Councils organic statute, New York Environmental Conservation Law 44-0107.
As noted, the DEIS was made available to the public on the Towns website.
III.A LAND USE, ZONIING AND PUBLIC POLICY
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
III.A-1

Section III.A Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


Several of the comments submitted on the DEIS related to the Projects general consistency with
Yorktowns Comprehensive Plan and zoning. Those issues are therefore addressed in detail in
this Introductory Response, and hereafter referenced in response to particular comments and
questions throughout this FEIS Section III.A.

The Towns Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2010, describes the Project site and its surrounding
parcels bound by the Taconic State Parkway, the Bear Mountain Parkway, and Route 202 as
Cromponds Bear Mountain Triangle (BMP Triangle). The eastern and western land areas
within the BMP Triangle are separated physically by a significant grade difference, which have
lent themselves to be known more informally as the top of the hill, and the bottom of the
hill, respectively. At the eastern end, which includes the Project site, the Comprehensive Plan
seeks to promote retail and office uses with a regional draw. The Plan further describes that on
the north side of Route 202, adjoining the Taconic State Parkway, the underlying zoning should
be maintained, while a village center with smaller stores and limited mixed-use be created at
the bottom of the hill (See Comprehensive Plan at ES-7 and Policy 4-24). The Comprehensive
Plan also includes mention of a possible larger office and/or hotel at the top of the hill, further
acknowledging the need for a regional draw to support and balance the creation of a true
Crompond hamlet business center within the BMP Triangle.

To implement the Comprehensive Plan, the Town Board considered a variety of zoning changes
throughout the Town and specifically considered the parcels within the BMP Triangle. Although
the Town Board adopted legislation to rezone parcels on Route 202 west of Pine Grove Court
and parcels on Route 6 in Mohegan Lake for example, it ultimately decided to retain the C-3
zoning within the BMP Triangle. As stated in the Town Board SEQRA Findings Statement
(J une 15, 2010 at page 23), leaving the existing C-3 zoning in this area leaves more flexibility
for a retail draw in the BMP Triangle, and thus better supports Policy 4-24
1
of the 2010
Comprehensive Plan. The Town Board opted to retain the C-3 zoning for the BMP Triangle
area rather than restricting its use by changing the zone to the contemplated Office Business
(OB) or Interchange zones, which would only allow the development of a large office business
campus, a motel or hotel, planned-light industry, a regional convention center, health center, or
college, and public open space; whereas, the C-3 zone allows a variety of retail and wholesale
uses as of right. In addition, the C-3 zoning designation provides for:
Freestanding businesses

1
The SEQRA Findings Statement for the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Town Board on J une 15, 2010, states
Policy 4-23 in error.

__________________________________ _
III.A-2

Small minimum lot size
Significant open space requirement (e.g., not less than 30 percent).
Woodland buffers adjacent to single-family residential zones, and minimum 20-foot
landscaping strips along street frontages.
Cross-access agreements and consolidated entrances, wherever possible.
Sidewalks along the street frontage, and walkways connecting store entrances on adjacent
lots.
Lighting standards should require outdoor light to be focused downward and away from
residential areas. Standards should also strive to reduce glare effects.
All areas should be subject to natural resource protection requirements relating to
wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes, tree clearing, etc.

As described in greater detail in responses to specific comments below, the Project is consistent
with and permitted under the Sites C-3 zoning. In particular, the small minimum lot size
design standard does not restrict the maximum size of a C-3 establishment, nor would such a
limitation be compatible with the Comprehensive Plans vision of a regional retail draw on site.
Therefore, the Applicant asserts that the Proposed Action is consistent and compatible with both
the Comprehensive Plan as well as the C-3 zoning designation.

To the extent that certain comments herein assert that any element of the C-3 zoning designation
is not specifically consistent with every component of the Comprehensive Plan, the highest court
in New York has held that there need not be slavish servitude to any particular comprehensive
plan. Zoning must be consonant with a total planning strategy, reflecting consideration of the
needs of the community and avoid special interest and irrational Ad hocery.
2
There is nothing
to suggest that the decision to retain C-3 zoning for the area encompassing the Project Site
resulted from undue favoritism or any undue extraneous influence. To the contrary, the Town
Boards decision to retain the C-3 was supported by an expressed desire to allow more flexibility
to encourage retail uses and to create a regional draw within the BMP Triangle.

Comment III.A 1 Form Letter D (Document 7.2, Barbara and Joseph Cava), (Document
9.2, Mary Popra), (Document 12.2, Mr. Marc Alfredo), (Document 19.2, Kilik
Sheng), (Document 22.2, John Robinson), (Document 25.2, Pola Silverman),
(Document 27.2, Joanna Cali), (Document 31.2, Joseph Eduardo):

When these big box stores come to town, small stores dont follow. Rather, the record
shows that they attract other big national chain stores. The result is that existing small
hamlet type stores called for in the Yorktown Comprehensive Plan are driven out.
What merchant in his right mind would want to build in this same area? Big box

2
See Bedford v. Village of Mount Kisco, 33 N.Y.2d 178 at 188 (1973) citing, Udell v. Haas, 21 N.Y.2d 463.

__________________________________ _
III.A-3

stores only beget more big box storesand they will derelict the existing local
merchants.

There is a reason why big box stores are not welcome in those charming communities
such as Katonah, Bedford, and Mt. Kisco and our Comprehensive Plan is there to
ensure that this does not happen to Yorktown.

Response III.A 1:

As stated in FEIS III.A. Introductory Response, the Project is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, which envisions the use of the eastern end of the area within the
BMP Triangle for retail and office uses with a regional draw to support the village
center envisioned for the western end of the BMP Triangle. To implement the
Comprehensive Plan the Town Board opted to retain the C-3 zoning for the BMP
Triangle area which allows a variety of retail and wholesale uses as of right. (Refer
also generally to DEIS at Section III.A 10 and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and
III.A 8). The Market Study and Community Character Assessment prepared by the
Applicant state that the proposed Costco will not adversely impact smaller, local
businesses in the study area. As explained in the Market Study, the customer base is
broad and will attract new clientele to the area from throughout the region who are
currently shopping elsewhere. The Community Character Assessment prepared by the
Applicant also shows that the Project is consistent with the type of existing
development along the Route 202/35 commercial corridor in the vicinity of the site,
and will provide increased convenience for customers. New visitors/customers who
shop at the proposed Costco could also patronize other local businesses. In this way,
the Applicant asserts that the Project would complement and enhance existing
businesses in the study area.


__________________________________ _
III.A-4

Exhibit III.A-1


__________________________________ _
III.A-5

Comment III.A 2 Form Letter C (Document 10.2, Suzzora Grent), (Document 11.2, Mr.
Marc Alfredo), (Document 16.2, Alex Greenman), (Document 21.2, Peter
Bradstone), (Document 24.2, Momhann Arfat), (Document 34.2, Joseph
Eduardo):

We respectfully suggest that adding 14.50 paved over acres to this area will have a
major negative effect. The Yorktown Comprehensive Plan specifically addresses this
issue by suggesting a totally different kind of development approach.

Please consider the better approaches to progressive, smart growth as outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan.

Response III.A 2:

The Project will increase the existing impervious surface on the site by approximately
8 acres. The total impervious area for the Project site will be approximately 11 acres,
not 14.5, as incorrectly stated in this Comment. As described in DEIS Section III.G,
and as modified in this FEIS Section III.G, the stormwater management and water
quality treatment plan proposed for the Project will mitigate the impacts resulting
from the increased pavement. Note that the present development has approximately 3
acres of pavement and no stormwater management or water quality treatment is
provided.

The Project is consistent with the land use goals articulated in the Towns
Comprehensive Plan because it establishes retail services in the Bear Mountain
Triangle area. Refer also to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses
III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8. The Project meets design and development concepts for
the site, which includes: freestanding business, greater than 30% open space
requirement, woodland buffers adjacent to single-family residential zones, and
minimum 20-foot landscaping strips along street frontages, and subject to natural
resource protection requirements.

Comment III.A 3 Form Letter B (Document 13.1, Mr. Marc Alfredo), (Document 17.1,
Maggie Hamilton), (Document 18.1, Robert T.), (Document 33.1, Joseph
Eduardo), (Document 35.1, John Longer), (Document 36.1, Drew Miller),
(Document 50.1, Robert Reynolds):

The Yorktown Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2010, lays out an
excellent concept for the undeveloped site at the intersection of the Taconic Parkway
and Rte. 202/35 without the harsh impact of the unrestrained and ill-advised Costco

__________________________________ _
III.A-6

project. The Town spent a lot of time, energy and money to develop this plan. It is
inexplicable why the Town would effectively ignore the philosophy of the adopted
Comp Plan.

Please explain to me and other citizens the following:

1. How you can reconcile the building of an enormous Costco warehouse store to
the description in the Towns Comprehensive Plan? It states:
On the north side of Route 202, adjoining the Taconic State Parkway, the
underlying zoning should be maintained, with an overlay allowing office and/or
hotel uses at the top of the hill, a village center with small stores and limited
mixed-use at the bottom of the hill (with pedestrian amenities, parkland, and
public spaces), and senior housing and office uses in between. These areas
should be integrated, rather than having each element oriented only to Route
202.

2. Additionally, please explain how Costco fits into this zoning description:
Commercial Limited (CL or C-3)
Purpose: To allow for small, freestanding, roadside commercial uses, along
major arterial roadways in the business hamlet centers, but excluding auto-
oriented uses that attract heavy volumes of traffic.
Typical Land Uses: include retail stores, personal services, and restaurants, but
does not include auto-oriented uses such as car washes and auto dealerships. This
zone replaces the C3 zone.
Design & Development Concepts
Woodland buffers adjacent to single-family residential zones, and minimum
20-foot landscaping strips along street frontages.

Costco is the polar opposite of the Hamlet Type Shopping Area, which the Comp
Plan calls for.

I want to see development in our town, but a hulking big box store that will kill or
seriously hurt many of our existing businesses and irrevocably determine the path of
the towns future development is not the way to go. Instead, lets follow through on
the excellent concept of creating a hamlet shopping environment, which will bring in
other great small stores, as called for in the Adopted Comprehensive Plan.


__________________________________ _
III.A-7

The Comprehensive Plan takes into account all the necessary factors for smart
growth: traffic, the environmental impact on existing business and jobs, tax revenues,
the added cost of police and other servicesyou name it.

Bottom linelets stick to the plan.

Response III.A 3:

The Comprehensive Plan seeks to promote retail and office uses with a regional
draw at the eastern end of the Bear Mountain Parkway Triangle (BMP Triangle),
which encompasses the Project Site. The Comprehensive Plan also provides for a
village center with small stores and limited mixed-use at the bottom of the hill, to
the west of the Project Site (See Comprehensive Plan ES-7). See generally DEIS at
Section III.A10-11 and Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.24. See also FEIS III.A.
Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 5 and III.A 8.

In regard to the zoning, in developing the Comprehensive Plan the Town Board
considered a variety of zoning changes for the BMP Triangle. As stated in the Town
Board SEQRA Findings Statement for the Comprehensive Plan (J une 15, 2010 at
page 23), leaving the existing C-3 zoning in this area leaves more flexibility for a
retail draw in the BMP Triangle, and thus better supports Policy 4-24
3
of the 2010
Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, the Town Board has determined from a planning
and sustainable development perspective that large-scale retail uses are appropriate in
C-3 zoning districts. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan offers ideas and concepts
to promote the Village style in certain areas, but it does not reject other uses in the
Crompond hamlet nor in the location of the Project. The minimum lot size for this
zone is small, but is only the minimum size, and such minimum size allows and
promotes smaller scale development in appropriate areas. The Comprehensive Plan
specifically suggested an office or hotel for this site, which could not be
accommodated on a small lot size. Both hotels and offices would carry similar
intensity impacts as large-scale retail, as all would qualify as a regional draw. See
also FEIS Response III.A 8 for further explanation.

Also, Policy 4-24 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the top of the Bear Mountain
Triangle (on the north) is where the regional draw would be appropriate and the
bottom, where the Chase Bank and the Crompond Crossings developments are
located, would be appropriate for village-type development (smaller stores). The
Chase Bank is a single building surrounded by roads, yet significant landscaping and

3
The SEQRA Findings Statement for the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Town Board on J une 15, 2010, states
Policy 4-23 in error.

__________________________________ _
III.A-8

pedestrian amenities were requested by the Planning Board to connect the parcel to
the surrounding uses. The Crompond Crossing parcel is split between the C-2
commercial hamlet zone and the R-3 multi-family residential zone and was approved
for two commercial buildings along the frontage and 26 attached single-family homes
in the rear of the property. As with the Chase site, significant landscaping and
pedestrian amenities were provided in order to encourage residents and patrons to
walk between area destinations and promote a village-like area in the BMP Triangle,
at the bottom of the Route 202 hill west of the Taconic State Parkway.

Furthermore, the Applicant has conducted a Market Study and Commercial Character
Assessment that concluded that the proposed Costco will not adversely impact
existing businesses or the future development of the Town of Yorktown. Refer also to
DEIS III.Q and FEIS Response III.A 1.

Comment III.A 4 - (Document 59.4, Steven B. Kaplan), (PH1, Steven B. Kaplan):

To address the people who are pushing the business end I agree a vital business
atmosphere in Yorktown is necessary. However, a goal of 5% annual growth will
double Yorktown in a little more than 14 years. Is this sustainable? Does this project
conform to the Yorktown Master Plan, which suggests that we strive for a hamlet
with overall attractiveness, the quality and mix of stores, and walkability.

Response III.A 4:

See FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5and III.A 8
as to how the Project conforms to the Yorktown Comprehensive Plan. Also, there is
no known support for the 5% annual growth estimate referenced in this Comment.
According to the United States Census, the population of Yorktown actually
decreased between 2000 and 2010 from 36,318 to 36,081.

Comment III.A 5 - (Document 67.3, Richard E. Stanton, Law Office of Richard E. Stanton,
Community Stakeholders of the Town of Yorktown):

The Community Stakeholders commenced their review and have now identified
substantial concerns with:

The substantial deviation from the Implementation Plan adopted with the 2004 Route
202/35/6 Bear Mountain Parkway Plan which called for preservation of slopes on the
site, protection of the Crompond Wetland, and a reduction in density on the site; and

__________________________________ _
III.A-9

The apparent substantial deviation from the Towns existent Comprehensive Plan
which requires

a protection of the steep slopes which protect the water supply and adjoining
critical habitats: and
a substantial reduction in allowable density of use for the site: and
the exclusion of auto-oriented uses that generate heavy volumes of traffic: and
the adoption of Planned Design District, for CL uses (after consultation with local
stakeholders) for the land at Issue before allowing commercial development. The
elements of the PDD formally adopted with the Comprehensive Plan could allow
a limited hamlet modeled development with small free standing retail and
personal service business, but would not include auto oriented uses which
generate heavy volumes of traffic on the already overburdened Route 202/35.

The requested Planning Board approval of a Site Plan for the Costco Project in gross
divergence from the formally adopted Comprehensive Plan is not authorized. Once a
comprehensive plan is adopted using the State enabling statutes, pursuant to Town
Law 272-a all future land use regulations of the municipality must be consistent with
the comprehensive plan. The 2010 Comprehensive Plan after it was formally adopted,
in addition to requiring a Planned Development District for the site with the elements
listed above, also limited use of the former C-3 sites to CL or Commercial Limited
Use with the following purpose and elements:


Purpose: To allow for small, freestanding, roadside commercial uses,
along major arterial roadways in the business hamlet centers, but excluding
auto-oriented uses that attract heavy volumes of traffic.

Typical Land Uses: include retail stores, personal services, and restaurants. but does
not include auto-oriented uses such as car washes and auto dealerships. This zone
replaces the C3 zone.


Significant open space requirement (e.g, not less than 30 percent).
Woodland buffers adjacent to single-family residential zones, and minimum 20-
foot landscaping strips along street frontages.

__________________________________ _
III.A-10

Sidewalks along the street frontage, and walkways connecting Store entrances on
adjacent lots.
Lighting standards should require outdoor light to he focused downward and away
from residential areas. Standards should also strive to reduce glare effects.
All areas should be subject to natural resource protection requirements
relating to wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes, tree clearing, etc.

Yorktown 2010 Comprehensive Plan [bold emphasis added]

The proposed site plan with a single big box store (as opposed to a mixed use hamlet
style development), dependent on extreme auto intensive use, and an 18 acre lot
redeveloped over the top of the the protected steep slopes, and adjacent to wetland A,
and discharging water into the Crompond Wetland, is just not consistent with the
formally adopted Comprehensive Plan, and its land use, and planning restrictions, and
may not be approved pursuant to Town Law 272-a.

Response III.A 5:

The Sustainable Development Study, which was taken into account in the 2010
Comprehensive Plan, does recommend protection of the Crompond Wetland.
However, the wetlands located on the Project site do not discharge to the Crompond
Wetland located west of Hunter Brook, which is west of the Bear Mountain Triangle.
The study also does recommend preservation of steep slopes and a reduction in
density, but within the entire sustainable development study area, not specifically on
the Project Site. The study further recommends enhancing centers by shifting
potential development on parcels larger than five acres to central locations, like the
Bear Mountain Parkway Triangle and the Route 202/35 corridor, while reducing the
density on larger parcels located outside of these target areas. Therefore the Proposed
Action is not a deviation from the studys recommendations.

The Proposed Action is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan recommends a regional draw be located in the eastern portion of
the Bear Mountain Triangle where it could take advantage of its location adjacent to
the Taconic State Parkway. For further discussion refer to FEIS III.A Introductory
Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3 and III.A 8. The Planned Development
District Overlays (PDD Overlays) discussed in the Comprehensive Plan are an
additional tool the Town can decide to implement in order to more specifically master
plan an identified area of Town that could benefit from a more detailed design plan.
Refer to FEIS Response III.A 23 for this discussion.


__________________________________ _
III.A-11

This Comment characterizes the Project as an auto-oriented use to argue that it should
not be permitted in the C-3 zone. However, to the extent the Comprehensive Plan
discourages auto-oriented uses in C-3 zoning districts, gasoline filling stations are
not identified as auto-oriented uses. Rather, the Comprehensive Plan identifies auto-
oriented uses such as car washes and auto dealerships. In 2011, the Town Board
enacted a number of zoning changes to implement the Comprehensive Plan, but
retained the special permit provision for gasoline filling stations in C-3 zoning
districts. In addition, all of the existing gasoline filling stations along Route 202 are
zoned C-3.

The Applicant designed the site plan for the Proposed Action in conformance with the
development concepts mentioned in this Comment. For example 25% of the Site
remains wooded, which provides a buffer to adjacent residents; landscape strips along
street frontages are provided; 30% of the Site remains as open space (wooded and
adjacent naturalized embankment); sidewalks along Route 202/35 are provided. In
addition, the following modifications have been proposed after the acceptance of the
DEIS: a sidewalk to the store entrance; outdoor lighting with dark-sky fixtures to
reduce glare and sky glow; and changes that would reduce impact to existing
woodlands, steep slopes and the buffer to Wetland A. Refer FEIS III.G Introductory
Response and the FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response.

After review and consideration of comments on the DEIS, the Applicant proposed
modifications to the Projects FEIS site plan including construction of a retaining wall
along the westerly edge of the parking area to reduce construction on steep slopes and
reduce impact to existing woodlands. In addition, earthwork on slopes will be
performed in accordance with geotechnical design recommendations and protective
erosion control design measures which include the placement of structural fill,
geosynthetic reinforcement and turf reinforcement (refer to Geotechnical Engineering
Report, DEIS Appendix VII.M). The Applicant also proposes modifications to the
Stormwater Management Plan, which will improve water quality and thereby reduce
potential impact to Wetland A and existing downstream water bodies. (Refer to FEIS
III.G Introductory Response and FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response.)

The majority of the stormwater runoff from the site will discharge via an unnamed
watercourse that drains offsite through a wetland south of Old Crompond Road, to
Sherry Brook after which it discharges to Hunter Brook. The site runoff does not
discharge to the Crompond Wetland, which is located west of Hunter Brook and
therefore, any protective restrictions placed on the Crompond Wetland are not
relevant to the Proposed Action.


__________________________________ _
III.A-12

Comment III.A 6 - (Document 171.1, Evan Bray), (PH1, Evan Bray):

I want to ask, will there be a restrictive declaration or similar legal instrument
attached to the buildings title that would restrict occupancy and use specifically to
Costco? It is my understanding that the planning board is not here to consider the
merits of the tenant occupying the premises, but rather, the board is considering the
impacts of the occupancy and use of the structures proposed on the site. The site is
comprised of 4 or 5 individual zoning lots to be merged if this application is
approved. Is that correct?

The comprehensive plan:

The applicants summary of compliance is entirely reliant on the fact that in a C-3
zoning district, retail and wholesale uses are as of right. The gas station requires a
special use permit. Therefore, the applicant surmises that their proposal is consistent
with the comprehensive plan

The following is a section of the comprehensive plan cited by the applicant in section
III.A (Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy) of the accepted DEIS:

On the north side of Route 202, adjoining the Taconic State Parkway, the
underlying zoning should be maintained, with an overlay allowing office
and/or hotel uses at the top of the hill, a village center with small stores and
limited mixed-use at the bottom of the hill (with pedestrian amenities,
parkland, and public spaces), and senior housing and office uses in between.
These areas should be integrated, rather than having each element oriented
only to Route 202.

After reading those words, it is quite a leap of logic to arrive at the conclusion that
merging 4 separate zoning lots to create a 150+Ks.f. single retailer, with a auto garage
and a gasoline station complies with this visions.

Response III.A 6:

In response to the question posed by this Comment, it is unlawful to restrict a use to a
particular business, and thus such a restriction is beyond the jurisdiction of the
Planning Board.

As stated in the DEIS, the Project Site comprises four parcels (Section-Block-Lots:
26.18-1-17, 26.18-1-18, 26.18-1-19 and 26.19-1-1) for a combined land area of 18.75
acres of land. And all parcels in the Project site are zoned C-3. If the application is

__________________________________ _
III.A-13

approved, these lots will be merged together as one.

The proposed use is permitted under the zoning and Comprehensive Plan, although
the gasoline filling station does need a special permit. For more detailed information
regarding the Comprehensive Plan and zoning, including the special permit provision
for the fueling station, refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses
III.A 3, III.A 5, and III.A 8.

Comment III.A 6a (Document 171.2, Evan Bray), (PH1, Evan Bray):

From the DEIS, we know the following percentages of how the site is currently
occupied and how it is proposed to be developed. Of the 18.75 acres in play, only
10.15 have ever been disturbed. That means that nearly half of the site is virgin
woodland, wetland and open vegetated (non wooded) space. Per the DEIS, 85% of
the 18.75 acres falls under these two categorieswooded and open vegetated (non
wooded) space. Under the proposal, we see a near inversion of these numbers. 59
percent of the site will become pavement and buildings. The only reason that 41% is
remaining, is that is highly sensitive stream headwater and wetlands they cant touch-
-otherwise the project would likely exceed 85% site coverage. Hey, its allowed in a
C-3 zone. Which begs the question, does the comp plan hold any water?

On 1/20/12, the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Building Inspector,
and Environmental Consultant wrote to the planning board:

The public policy sections outline the recommendations from the Yorktown
Comprehensive Plan, the Sustainable Development Study, and Westchester
Countys Patterns. Many of these recommendations are contrary to the
objectives of the Costco project, yet there is little discussion in the potential
impacts section on how the project does comply with goals from these reports
or how the project will enhance the Bear Mountain Triangle/Crompond
Hamlet Center area despite these differences. The Comprehensive Plan
describes the C-3 zone as a small scale roadside commercial hamlet center
with woodland buffers to adjacent residential zones, 20 foot landscaped areas
along street frontages, significant open space, and excludes uses that generate
heavy volumes of traffic. The DEIS simply states Costco complies with the
Comprehensive Plan because it furthers improvements and establishes retail
services in the Bear Mountain Triangle area. There is no mention of the goals
of which the project does not comply. As another example, in reference to
Westchester Countys Patterns, it is stated the proposed project is buffered by
the Taconic State Parkway from nearby residential neighborhoods, so it is not

__________________________________ _
III.A-14

expected to have significant adverse impacts on the character of the
surrounding neighborhoods. There is no discussion of the residential
neighborhood immediately adjacent to the site on Old Crompond Road.

The applicant cannot change the fact that the spirit of the comp plan, sustainable dev
study, and Westchester patterns run contrary to the very essence of the project.
Theres no way that the applicant can deliver a single tenant, 150K sf retail store, plus
a tire center, and a gas station, to achieve the stated goals of a small scale, mixed
use development. Getting this proposal to substantially conform the stated goals of
the comp plan for this area would require changing the very essence of the Costco I
know and love.

Response III.A 6a:

Refer to FEIS III.A. Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5, III.A
6 and III.A 8 as to how the development conforms with both applicable zoning and
the Comprehensive Plan.

The Sustainable Development Study is generic in nature and it recommended creation
of a mixed-use hamlet business center in the Bear Mountain Triangle within
Crompond; but it does not specifically mention any sites for this type of development.
There are several other vacant or under-developed parcels in this area where such a
development could be sited. Furthermore, the 2010 Comprehensive Plan took the
2004 Sustainable Development Study into account when it was created. See also FEIS
Response III.A 8.

Section III.A of the DEIS also stated that both the Westchester County Patterns for
Westchester: The Land and the People (1996) and Westchester 2025 (2010) offer a
policy framework to guide the Countys future physical development by establishing
planning strategies through which County and municipal governments may
implement their common goals for serving people, conserving land and water and
assuring economic growth. In terms of land use, these regional plans indicate that
so-called centers, corridors and open space are the three building blocks of
Westchester Countys pattern of development. Corridors are defined as the historic
paths of movement and development, with three functions (transportation,
development and scenic) that sometimes overlap. Existing corridor development can
be enhanced to improve their function and economic vitality and make maximum use
of the public investment in infrastructure. The Taconic State Parkway, which borders
the Project site, is identified as a corridor serving a scenic function. Route 202/Route
35 in Yorktown is also identified as a corridor serving a transportation function.
Patterns for Westchester states that the highest levels of density should be located in

__________________________________ _
III.A-15

the Countys centers or corridors for enhancement as mixed use areas, of which Route
202/35 in Crompond qualifies. Also refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response.

Comment III.A 7 - (PH1, Andrew Fisher):

The Sustainable Development Study, which Yorktown does not actively participate
in, strongly recommended consistent with a new development along the Route 202
corridor. Specifically citing, don't create destination developments, and I feel like
this Costco plan as it stands now is a destination development. A village style is not.
[PH1, page 126, lines 7-16]

Response III.A 7:

The Town of Yorktown actively participated in all aspects of the Sustainable
Development Study and the implementation committee that was formed thereafter.
The study identifies the Bear Mountain Triangle as a potential new hamlet center and
recommends concentrating new development in hamlet centers while reducing
density of new development outside hamlet centers. Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 5,
III.A 6a and III.A 8.

Comment III.A 8 - (Document 60.5, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.6, Tim
Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates
Inc.):

The Yorktown zoning designation for this site does not conform to the recently
adopted Comprehensive Plan and is therefore unlawful.
Page 2-17 of the Yorktown Comprehensive plan Table 2-11 discusses the purpose of
the C-3 zoning district. The purpose of C-3 zoning is To allow for small,
freestanding, roadside commercial uses, along major arterials in the businesses hamlet
centers, but excluding auto oriented uses that attract heavy volumes of traffic.

Typical land uses include retail stores, personal services and restaurants but does
NOT include auto-oriented uses such as car washes and auto dealerships. This zone

Design and Development Concepts:


__________________________________ _
III.A-16

Significant open space requirement (e.g. not less than 30 percent)
Woodland buffers adjacent to single family residential zones and minimum
20-foot landscaping strips along street frontages
Cross access agreements and consolidate entrances, wherever possible
Sidewalks along the street frontage, and walkways connecting store entrances
on adjacent lots
All areas should be subject to natural resource protection requirement

The proposed fueling facility will be one of the largest and most traffic intensive auto
oriented uses in the Town and such uses are expressly excluded in the C-3 zone. The
Costco Facility will also to have a tire store that, again, represents a large auto-
oriented business.

Contained within the Town of Yorktowns Comprehensive Plan are the
recommendations for Route 202 from the Sustainable Development Study. It
acknowledges that the December 202 recommendations call for a significant
reduction of the proposed buildout of the study area and that the overall concept put
forward in this Comprehensive Plan is to make the Bear Mountain Triangle into a
mixed-use center.

Attachment A sets forth New York State law as it relates to a Comprehensive Plan. It
specifically states:

11. Effect of adoption of the town comprehensive plan.

(a) All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a
comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.

The Town of Yorktowns zoning code does not appear to be in compliance with its
Comprehensive Plan at this site as required by NYS Town law.

The Costco application requires variances from the ZBA and/or Planning Board and a
special permit (for the fueling facility) from the Town Board. The standards for a
special permit are as follows.

A. The location and size of the use, the nature and intensity of the operation
involved in or conducted in connection with it, the size of the site in relation
to it and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it shall
be such that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly
development of the district in which it is located.

__________________________________ _
III.A-17

B. The location, nature and height of buildings, walls and fences and the nature
and extent of the landscaping on the site shall be such that the use will not
hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land
and buildings or impair the value thereof

C. Operations in connection with any special use shall not be more objectionable
to nearby properties by reason of noise, vibration, excessive light, smoke, gas,
fumes, odor or other atmospheric pollutants than would be the operations of
any permitted uses.

D. Parking areas shall be of adequate size for the particular use, properly located
and suitably screened from adjoining residential uses, and the entrance and
exit drives shall be laid out so as to prevent traffic hazards and nuisances.

Based on the analysis provided later in this review, the Town Board will be hard
pressed to make the above consistency findings. The project does not have sufficient
parking, will have excessive light (variances are requested for both parking and
lighting), and traffic hazards and nuisance level congestion will ensue.

The recommendations contained in the interagency and inter municipal agreement
Linking Land Use and Transportation Decisions (Routes 202/35/6 Bear Mountain
Parkway Sustainable Development Plan March 2004) for this area not to be auto
oriented is echoed in the long range County policies (Westchester 2025- Context for
County and Municipal Planning in Westchester County and Policies to Guide County
Planning).

This project makes a mockery of the planning process that involved many volunteers,
professional planners, attorneys, engineers, and municipal officials. It undermines the
comprehensive plan, and turns its back on rational development concepts.

For the Town of Yorktown to take action on a project of this nature is simply
unprecedented and inconsistent with everything the town has historically done in
terms of protecting its resources, its infrastructure, its environment, and its citizens.

Approval of the Costco project will firmly indicate to the New York State
Department of Transportation that preferential treatment in transportation funding
should be focused elsewhere because the Town of Yorktown no longer can be relied
upon to adhere to agreed upon Sustainable Development plans to resolve
transportation issues.


__________________________________ _
III.A-18

The Costco project is inconsistent with local and regional planning for
transportation purposes. A temporary moratorium on such inconsistent
development should be considered until Yorktowns zoning codes are changed to
reflect local and regional plans.

Response III.A 8:

This Comment asserts that the C-3 Zoning District is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Project is inconsistent with the Sustainable Development
Study, County plans and State transportation arterial management practices. The
Comment further asserts that the C-3 zoning must therefore be modified. When
adopting the Comprehensive Plan the Town Board determined that leaving the C-3
zoning in this location would allow flexibility for a regional draw that would support
more village center style development in the western side of the BMP Triangle. Refer
to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A.3 and III.A.5.

This Comment also asserts that the Projects inclusion of a fueling facility causes it to
be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it would generate significant
traffic and therefore be prohibited by the language of both the Comprehensive Plan
and the C-3 zone. This Comment overlooks several relevant facts. First, the fueling
facility would only be open to Costco customers, and not the general public. Thus, it
is not a stand-alone auto-oriented use as assumed by the Comment. Indeed, because
the vast majority of Costco members would not make a special trip elsewhere for gas
and would utilize the fueling facility while shopping at Costco, the Applicant asserts
that its presence is likely to reduce trips from Costco to other gas stations, thereby
reducing traffic on a stretch of Route 202. The Applicant further asserts that its
presence would not be expected to increase traffic, as vehicle owners tend to purchase
gas while out, and do not make special trips solely to purchase fuel (See FEIS
Response III.K 6). Thus, the Applicant asserts that the fueling facility component of
the Project would not attract heavy volumes of traffic. For the same reason, the
Applicant does not consider the tire store, again available only to Costco customers,
to be a major traffic generator. The Applicant has stated that, the tire store only sells
and installs tires, and will do flat repairs only on tires sold by Costco.

This Comment disregards the significance of the C-3 Zoning District provision
(Section 300-46) designating a gasoline filling station as a specially permitted use.
Such a designation presumes a determination by the Town Board that such a use is
compatible with all of the uses allowed as of right in the C-3 District, so long as all of
the specified conditions are satisfied. (See, e.g., Gordon & J ack v. Peterson, 230
A.D.2d 856, 646 N.Y.S.2d 825 (2d Dept. 1996) (A special permit or special exception
classification is tantamount to a legislative finding that if the special exception

__________________________________ _
III.A-19

conditions are met, the use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not
adversely affect the neighborhood and the surrounding areas.)). By adopting a
zoning code that explicitly designates a gasoline filling station as a specially
permitted use, the Town Board is vested with the power to determine whether such a
use is appropriate at whatever specific location is proposed and to impose conditions,
if warranted, to assure compatibility with neighboring uses of property. The
Comprehensive Plan, which was approved by the Town Board, did not prohibit the
designation of filling stations as specially permitted uses.

This Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Action will assist the
Town Board in its determination of whether the gasoline filling station component of
the Project satisfies the criteria for granting a special permit (Yorktown Town Code
300-36 (Standards Applicable to All Special Uses)).

With respect to the Comment that the Proposed Action is an auto-oriented use see
FEIS Response III.A 5.

The DEIS, as amplified by this FEIS, discusses location and size of the Project site
and its relationship to the surrounding area (DEIS at Section III.A10); the location,
nature and height of buildings and other structures, landscaping and the effect on
adjacent land and buildings (DEIS at Section III.B1); the absence of objectionable
emissions and noise (DEIS at Sections III. K, M and N); and the adequacy of parking
(DEIS at Section III.L). This FEIS includes the information needed to address the
other concerns raised by this Comment: parking (See FEIS Responses in III.L),
lighting (FEIS Responses II. 1, 2, 6, 12 and 13) and the design of entrance and exit
drives (FEIS Responses Site Plan 2e and 9).

The Project is consistent with other applicable plans and public policy. As stated in
Section III.A of the DEIS, the Sustainable Development Study recommends creation
of a mixed-use hamlet business center in the Bear Mountain Triangle within
Crompond, but does not specifically mention any sites. There are several other vacant
or under-developed parcels in this area. Rather, it is generic in advancing these
concepts. (See generally Sustainable Development Study Section V). The more
recently adopted Comprehensive Plan went beyond the generalized language of the
earlier adopted Sustainable Development Study to make specific recommendations
relating to the Bear Mountain Triangle, which encompasses the Project site.

Contrary to the inference in this Comment, the NYSDOT has submitted no comment
opposing the Proposed Action based on inconsistency with the Sustainable
Development Study. The Applicants engineer has submitted its proposed
improvements to Route 202/35 to the NYSDOT for their review and approval. The

__________________________________ _
III.A-20

proposed improvements will complement the NYSDOT work, which is currently
under construction. The NYSDOT improvements will provide two lanes in each
direction from west of the Bear Mountain Extension (Snap Fitness building) to Old
Crompond Road. The roadway improvements to be undertaken by the Applicant in
connection with the Proposed Action will extend the two eastbound and two
westbound lanes from the end of the NYSDOTs work at Old Crompond Road to the
east through the Taconic State Parkway interchange, west of Strang Boulevard. The
combined effort of the NYSDOT and the Applicant will provide two through lanes in
each direction between the Taconic State Parkway and west of the Bear Mountain
Extension. Refer to DEIS Section III.K.2.b and FEIS Site Plan, Offsite Highway
Improvements to Route 202/35 (Refer to FEIS Exhibit A-3).

Also refer to FEIS Response III.A 6a on how the Project is consistent with
Westchester County planning principles.

Comment III.A 9 NOT USED

Comment III.A 10 Form Letter E (Document 42.4, Residents of Yorktown), (Document
39.3, Gia Diamond):
- Costco would almost certainly not boost the local economy, when the impact of
existing retailers and the cost of additional government services are factored in. It
will forever eliminate the opportunity to establish the Crompond business
hamlet;

Response III.A 10:

The Project is anticipated to generate approximately $797,195 annually in property
taxes: $92,248 to the Town and $613,290 to the Yorktown Central School District. In
addition, during the first year of operations, the Applicant expects the Project to
generate almost $10.9 million in direct and indirect benefits. For more detail and
explanation, refer to DEIS III.Q 2.

With respect to potentially eliminating the opportunity to establish the Crompond
business hamlet, there are several other vacant or underdeveloped parcels on Route
202 to establish hamlet-like developments. Furthermore, Costco might attract
customers for local businesses as well, which would help boost the local economy.
Again, the Comprehensive Plan provides for a village center with small stores and
limited mixed-use downhill from the Project site, with larger uses such as the Project
located at the top of the hill (Comprehensive Plan ES-7). Refer to FEIS III.A

__________________________________ _
III.A-21

Introductory Response for a fuller explanation of the relationship of the Project to the
Comprehensive Plan.

Comment III.A 11 - (Document 42.7, Yorktown Smart Growth):
The Comp Plan adopted in June 2010 slated the Crompond site for
development; however, Costcos size and nature are wrong for this site.

From the start, Yorktown citizens played a vital role in envisioning what our
town could be in the process of shaping the Comprehensive Town Plan, which
cost the town hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Central to the plan is the development of five pedestrian-friendly urban
business hamlets that mix business, retail, and residential uses.
Unlike the other four hamlets, Crompond is essentially undeveloped, meaning
that it has the greatest potential for creating something new and different.
This is where the developer proposes to build a 151,092-square-foot Costco
Wholesale Club with 610 parking spaces, jointly covering 14.5 acres.
To do so is contrary to the very spirit of a pedestrian-friendly, town-center
environment.
Building Costco would eliminate forever the opportunity to establish the
Crompond business hamlet.

Response III.A 11:
Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and
III.A 8. Section III.Q of the DEIS also identifies the broad range of benefits that the
proposed Costco is anticipated to provide to the Town of Yorktown. Moreover, as
reflected in FEIS III.A Introductory Response, the proposed Costco is a permitted use
within the zoning, which in turn is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Comment III.A 12 - (Document 100.4, Steve Winkel):

The law seemed to indicate that development must conform to the comprehensive
plan. From my understanding of it, this development does not conform to the plan.
Can you please clearly address this?

Response III.A 12:

The law requires that land use regulations conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
Retention of the C-3 zoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

__________________________________ _
III.A-22

The Town Board stated in the Findings Statement for the Comprehensive Plan and
Future Related Zoning Amendments that they determined leaving the existing C-3
zoning on the Project Site and several surrounding parcels would allow more
flexibility for a retail draw in the BMP Triangle, and thus better supports a village
center style development on the parcels located at the bottom of the hill. Therefore,
the development conforms to both the Comprehensive Plan as well as C-3 zoning
requirements. Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A
3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the Project conforms with both applicable zoning and
the Comprehensive Plan.

Comment III.A 13 NOT USED

Comment III.A 14 - (Document 108.10, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

A discussion of the proposed major projects in the study area is provided. A map
showing the location and extent of these proposals is recommended.

Response III.A 14:

Proposed major projects were discussed in DEIS Section III.K.2.a and FEIS Response
III.K.6.1. Their locations are shown on the following map.


__________________________________ _
III.A-23


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-24

Comment III.A 15 - (Document 109.1, Julian Charnis):

I attended both public hearings. Based on what was discussed and the many reasons
given not to go ahead with this proposal, I cannot understand why the planning board
would even consider implementing this plan. Besides being environmentally contrary
to the long range plan for Yorktown, it will make my life, and thousands like me, a
living hell!

Response III.A 15:

The Planning Board is required to consider every complete application presented to it.
Also, refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5,
III.A 6a and III.A 8 as to how the project conforms with both the Comprehensive
Plan and Sustainable Development Study.

Comment III.A 16 - NOT USED

Comment III.A 17 - (Document 117.6, Megan S. and John M. Flynn):

Megan and I have lived in Yorktown since 1985, and I currently serve on the towns
Planning Board. In addition, Megan is a licensed clinical psychologist and, as you are
probably aware, the link between the built environment and residents mental health
has been well established, beginning with the city parks movement early in the last
century. Also, as New J ersey natives, we have witnessed the outcomes of failed
planning policies, as once productive farmland surrounding our hometowns was
transformed into auto-centric, commercial sprawl.

Thus, through our interest in the quality of life for Yorktown residents as well as
volunteer service, we have become interested in the proposed construction of a
Costco store and fueling station on Rt. 202. Since Megan was unable to attend the
recent public hearings on this proposal, we are submitting, for the record, questions
about this proposal in the areas of the projects economic, environmental, traffic, and
public health impacts. We bear no ill will towards the applicant or its subcontractors.
Rather, we simply believe the Planning Board as well as Yorktown residents require
detailed answers to these additional questions before they can determine whether the
proposed development and accompanying impacts meet the towns standards for
sound planning and sustainable development.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-25

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS

In correspondence to the Planning Board, dated October 11, I outlined the findings of
research into the public health impacts of automobile-dependant land uses that are
relevant to the proposed action, yet not examined in the DEIS. Moreover, the
Yorktown Comprehensive Plan recognizes the costs of such development in
discussing C-3 Zones as excluding auto-oriented uses that attract heavy volumes of
traffic. Requiring upwards of 600 parking spaces and nearly eight acres of paved
surface and likely generating nearly 1,000 daily auto trips (estimates of the
projects trip generation were disputed by applicant and non-applicant
professional experts at the hearing), the proposed development clearly rises to the
level of increasing both Yorktowns dependence on automobile travel and the
associated public health risks described in this research. Therefore, if the Planning
Board was to approve such development in a C-3 zone, it would be reasonable to seek
to manage the negative impacts of the projects emphasis on automobile
transportation using the same public policy approach currently applied in the areas of
recreation, traffic, and the environment for example, such remedies as
contributions of park land, street widening, and wetland enhancement. And so, we
offer the following questions:

Does the applicant accept the findings of recent research on public health
impacts of auto dependent development? If not, please explain why. Can the applicant
provide data refuting this research?

How does the applicant plan to offset the proposals likely public health
impacts as well as meet the spirit of C-3 zones as envisioned in the comprehensive
plan?

Response III.A 17:

In adopting the Yorktown Comprehensive Plan, the Town Board determined that the
development of a retail use with a regional draw is an appropriate use for the Project
site and, therefore, is consistent with public health and safety. This use, by its very
nature, depends largely on automobile access in suburban areas like Yorktown. Refer
to FEIS Responses III.A 2, III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 with respect to the consistency
of the proposed Costco with zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant has
expressed no position on recent academic research into broader public health impacts
of auto-dependent development, as its position on such literature is beyond the scope
of the Proposed Actions SEQRA analysis. However, the Project includes a number
of measures designed to promote alternative means of transportation to the Project

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-26

site, including improving pedestrian and public transportation amenities. The
Proposed Action includes providing a new sidewalk on the north side of Route 202
between Strang Boulevard and Old Crompond Road. This sidewalk will connect to
the sidewalk being constructed as part of the NYSDOT improvement project. At
Strang Boulevard a crosswalk with pedestrian signals will be provided for access to
FDR Park and the Bus stop on the south side of Route 202. In addition, the bus stops
on the north and south sides of Route 202 at Strang Boulevard will be reconstructed.
Also, paved shoulders will be provided on both sides of Route 202/35 adjacent to the
Project improvements from Old Crompond Road to Strang Boulevard, which will
facilitate bike traffic. The Project will include onsite bike parking racks. For more
information, refer to FEIS Section III.K.

Moreover, to the extent the Project provides a local shopping option for consumers
who currently frequent the Costco stores in Danbury and Yonkers, it may reduce
vehicle miles traveled and enable more residents to access Costco via public transit
and other non-automobile-dependent transportation. As discussed in the DEIS (at
Section III.K), the Project would provide extensive improvements to sidewalks,
pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths, promoting the use of alternative means of
transportation and addressing the public health concerns referenced in this Comment.

Comment III.A 18 (Document 139.10, Jonathan Nettelfield):

With reference to DEIS Page III A-18: Potential Impacts, a) Land Uses. The DEIS
states, The proposed project does not entirely comply with the design and
development concepts of the C-3 zoning district as set forth in the Towns
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project specifically does not conform to the
zones conceived purpose of small minimum lot size for the project site, as the
project requires a large floor area on a large tract of land. We couldnt put it any
better. Why does this not prevent this development?

Response III.A 18:

Table 2-11 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the C-3 zone has a small minimum
lot size, (emphasis added). This is not the maximum lot size for this zone. The C-3
requires a minimum 10,000 square foot lot, which for commercial lots in Yorktown is
small; other properties in the triangle have C-2 zoning, which has no minimum lot
size. Therefore, in terms of minimum lot size requirements, the Project site will
comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, providing a regional draw
would be difficult, if not impossible on a 10,000 square foot lot, meaning the

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-27

Proposed Action is compliant with and implements the vision of the Comprehensive
Plan. Refer to FEIS III.A. Introductory Response and FEIS Response III.A 3.


With reference to DEIS Page Ill A-23: Public Policy. The applicant states, Since it
will be a retail destination with different merchandise and a regional draw, the
Applicant does not anticipate the national retailer to have a significant adverse impact
on existing local stores along the Route 202 commercial corridor. Also, the Applicant
believes the proposed Costco serves a different demographic than BJ s Club, and the
two are known to co-exist successfully in other areas. Can the applicant provide hard
data to show that Costco and BJ s coexist, other than physical proximity? For
example we would like to know the impact on sales on the existing warehouse club
when the second one came in. The fact that they both currently exist does not
necessarily mean they both prosper, which is a requirement for the store to remain in
business. Can the applicant provide data on which stores closed within 3 years of the
establishment of a Costco within a 5 mile radius. This information might better
support the statement made above. Also, the applicant states that they believe the
proposed Costco serves a different demographic than BJ s Club.

We would like supporting data for this assertion. The reason for our concern
regarding the future of BJ s is central to the applicants assertion that the arrival of
Costco will reduce blight in the vicinity. We note the vacancy history of the shopping
center that BJ s anchors and the difficulty of finding tenants without a strong anchor
store. With Best Plumbing already scheduled to leave, any additional vacancies might
have a detrimental effect on that location.

Response III.A 19:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 5 and III.Q 46 on how BJ s and Costco can coexist
successfully. FEIS Response III.Q 5 contains a map of existing Costco and BJ s
locations within the New York Metro area, as well as a map of Costco and BJ s
locations within 5 miles of each other.

Examples of locations where BJ s and Costco coexist successfully show both
businesses remain in operation. Furthermore, there are ten locations in the Tri-State
Area where a Costco and a BJ s are located within 5 miles of one another.
Therefore, the Applicant asserts that the proposed Costco will have no material
adverse impacts on the existing BJ s in Yorktown.

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-28

The Comment requests explanation for the assertion that Costco serves a different
demographic than BJ s Club, as stated in the DEIS. The Applicant advises that BJ s
tends to be more grocery store oriented than Costco. BJ s carries more Stock-Keeping
Units (SKUs), or distinct products, than Costco, and has smaller package sizes in the
grocery department. According to the Applicant, by stocking different types and
mixes of goods, BJ s and Costco stores target and attract shoppers of different
demographics.

The Comment asks the Applicant to provide data on which stores closed within three
years of the establishment of a Costco within a five-mile radius. Neither the Applicant
nor the Planning Board is aware of either store closing within such time frame.

The DEIS does not provide impact on sales on the BJ s in areas where BJ s and
Costco exist in close proximity. Such information is not generally available and is
proprietary to individual retail establishments.

Also, in regard to Best Plumbing vacating the BJ s/Staples Shopping Plaza, Best
Plumbing has relocated to the Crompond Crossing development across the street from
the BJ s/Staples Shopping Center and new users were granted permission to occupy
significant square footage of the basement storage area that was vacated by Best
Plumbing. Best Plumbing choosing to build their own store in relatively the same
location and new businesses beginning to in-fill vacated spaces within the
BJ s/Staples Shopping Center suggest positive economic health of the area.

The Market Study and the Commercial Character Assessment prepared by the
Applicant have looked into potential blight in the five-hamlet study area and found
the Proposed Action will not cause blight. Please refer to the FEIS III.Q Introductory
Response and FEIS Response III.Q 1.


With reference to DEIS Page III A-24: Public Policy. The DEIS quotes Patterns for
Westchester as cautioning that while a project may be located in an appropriate
development corridor (as the applicant asserts), it could generate traffic, overburden
existing infrastructure, markedly alter an existing community character, or have
adverse economic impacts on existing centers. In response to this caution the
language of the DEIS only addresses the visual impact issue without answering the
other cautions posed.

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-29

Response III.A 20:

Patterns for Westchester cautions that certain types of development could pose
negative impacts, the DEIS addresses all of the cautions posed by Patterns for
Westchester. The DEIS examined the potential impacts of traffic and road
infrastructure in DEIS III.K, utility infrastructure in DEIS III.H, visual and
community character in DEIS III.B and fiscal & socio-economic impacts in DEIS
III.Q and identified no unmitigated adverse impacts. Refer to FEIS Response III.A
6a for further discussion of Patterns for Westchester.


With reference to DEIS Page III A-24: Proposed Mitigation. The Applicant suggests
that the Proposed Action will help implement the conceptual vision established for
the site, with the exception of its large lot size, and will not adversely impact
surrounding land uses. This quote from the DEIS completely ignores the vision for
Crompond Business Hamlet as specified in the Comp Plan, for a walkable, mixed-use
business hamlet. To suggest that it will not adversely impact surrounding land uses
is bordering on willful disregard for the realities of development since it is very
unlikely that anyone will want to create an urban hamlet next to a warehouse club.

Response III.A 21:

The Comprehensive Plan segments its discussion of the Crompond Business Hamlet,
or Bear Mountain Triangle, into two distinct areas; the eastern end at the top of the
hill where the Project Site is located and the western end at the bottom of the hill. At
the eastern end, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to promote retail and office uses with
a regional draw. The Plan further describes that on the north side of Route 202,
adjoining the Taconic State Parkway, the underlying zoning should be maintained,
while a village center with smaller stores and limited mixed-use be created at the
bottom of the hill. Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses
III.A 3, III.A 5, III.A 8, and III.A 18 as to how the development conforms with both
applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-30

Comment III.A 22 (Document 144.1, Jonathan Nettelfield, Yorktown Smart Growth),
(Document 177.1, Henry Steeneck):

Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy
There is much discussion about the surrounding park lands being a CEA area, and the
DEIS states as such the project warrants detailed analysis as to how it will impact
the park; however, the only analysis they give is on page 19 where they state the
applicant has determined that the project will not be visible during full leaf season;
this does not appear to be the very detailed analysis that the DEIS said was needed.

REQUEST--We would like to see an independent study of this issue by the Town to
insure that this CEA is being adequately protected

Response III.A 22:

The DEIS recognized the Projects adjacency to the Critical Environmental Area /
CEA (i.e., FDR State Park) and analyzed the potential impacts in several sections.
Based on the balloon studies described in DEIS Section III.B, it was demonstrated
that the Project would not be visible from the FDR State Park during full leaf on
summer conditions. The Project may be visible during winter full leaf off conditions,
solely from the area of the park that lies within the Projects study area; however, the
Project will not be visible from the greater area of the park during these winter
conditions. DEIS Section III.M analyzed potential air quality impacts and found
there would be no significant adverse impacts of Project related traffic, construction
activities, and Project related stationary air emission sources to the surrounding area.
DEIS Section III. N analyzed noise impacts which included impacts to the Park. It
was found that the park would not be significantly affected by noise from increased
traffic since it is separated from the Project Site by the intersection of the Taconic
State Parkway and Route 202 as well as an internal access road within FDR State
Park and that the noise levels at all test locations were found to be below existing
ambient conditions. The impacts of the Proposed Action on the CEA have been
sufficiently analyzed in the DEIS and therefore a separate study is not warranted.
Therefore, the Applicant asserts that, the Project will not have a significant adverse
impact on the unique characteristics of the CEA.

There is much discussion regarding some PDD overlays being retained. None of this
discussion, however, applies as it does not directly reference the adopted comp plan.

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-31

Only those overlays that were adopted by the Comp plan, not the findings statement,
apply.

These are:

PDD Office Business Campus

Minimum lot size: 10 acres
Campus-like layout, with maximum F.A.R. of 0.175 after open space set-aside
and maximum building height of two to three stories.
The preferred layout is a grouping of smaller structures, rather than a single
large mass. Development should be compatible with the countryside or scenic
setting.

PDD-Mixed Use

Must have a commercial core with a mix of small-scale shops and
professional offices in a Main Street or village center environment If
present, this commercial core should build off of existing adjacent commercial
areas.
All residential development would not be allowed to exceed the yield
permitted by the underlying zone.
Surrounding residential areas should have a mix of housing types, with a
gradual transition of intensities out from the commercial core, such that the
area blends in seamlessly with adjacent single-family residential areas.
Outside the commercial core and residential areas, space permitting, there can
also be office business park development in a campus style setting
Sidewalks throughout, including connections to adjacent commercial and
residential areas.

REQUESTPlease have the applicant provide a copy of the adopted overlay
where it states that a big-box development is allowed on this site.

Response III.A 23:
The Planned Development District Overlays (PDD Overlays) discussed in the
Comprehensive Plan were proposed as an additional tool to allow more specific
planning of an identified area of town that could benefit from a more detailed design
plan. The Bear Mountain Triangle was identified as a potential PDD-MX overlay
area; however a plan for the overlay has not yet been mapped or undertaken and

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-32

therefore current development proposals on parcels within the triangle do not have
additional requirements such as those listed in the Comment. To the extent that there
are no PDD Overlays within the Town, the underlying zoning dictates what type of
development can occur.
Refer to FEIS III.A. Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and
III.A 8 as to how the development conforms with both applicable zoning and the
Comprehensive Plan.

Furthermore, the potential for large-scale retail development on site is further
established by the Comprehensive Plans authorization of retail uses with a regional
draw within the Bear Mountain Triangle.


Also, on the same page, the applicant lists the zoning land use description from the
zoning description in place before the adopted plan; however, he does this while
discussing the impacts of the project on the Adopted Comprehensive Plan. They need
to show the impact of the project as it relates to the comp plans land use which is as
follows:

Purpose: To allow for small, freestanding, roadside commercial uses, along major
arterial roadways in the business hamlet centers, but excluding auto-oriented uses that
attract heavy volumes of traffic.
Typical Land Uses: include retail stores, personal services, and restaurants, but does
not include auto- oriented uses such as car washes and auto dealerships. This zone
Woodland buffers adjacent to single-family residential zones, and minimum
20-foot landscaping strips along street frontages.
Sidewalks along the street frontage, and walkways connecting store entrances
on adjacent lots.
Lighting standards should require outdoor light to be focused downward and

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-33

away from residential areas.
Standards should also strive to reduce glare effects.
All areas should be subject to natural resource protection requirements

REQUEST--Please have the applicant comply with the spirit of the scoping
requirements, and have them show the impact of the project as it relates to the
Comp plans land use definition.

Response III.A 24:

Refer to FEIS III.A. Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and
Comprehensive Plan.


With reference to DEIS Section III.A-17, it states that the proposed project does not
fall within a center; this is not so, as already discussed via memo dated 1/20/12 to
the Planning Board from the Planning Dept., pg 7 of 16, item #15The Plan does
speak to the Crompond area as its own center

REQUESTPlease have applicant comply with the Planning Depts ruling.

Response III.A 25:

The Comment refers to DEIS Section III.A-17 which discusses and identifies centers
as defined by Patterns for Westchester. The DEIS correctly states that the Property
does not fall within a center as defined within Patterns. The Applicant has addressed
the comments in the referenced Planning Department memo dated J anuary 20, 2012,
which cited concerns related to Yorktown 2010 Comprehensive Plan as it regards
each commercial hamlet or center. Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and
FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5, III.A 6a and III.A 8 regarding the Comprehensive
Plan and the Bear Mountain Parkway Triangle.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-34


With reference to DEIS Section III.A-pg 18, the applicant discusses how the project
specifically does not comply with the comp plan in about 4 lines. This makes a
mockery of the DEIS process.

REQUESTPlease have the applicant provide an in depth analysis of how it
does not meet basically any of the requirements of the adopted comp plan.

Response III.A 26:

The DEIS provides an in depth analysis of the different aspects on the Project. Refer
generally to the DEIS and also to FEIS Section III.A Introductory Response and FEIS
Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development conforms to both


The applicant fails to meet the standards of review as previously pointed out via
memo dated 1/20/12 to the Planning Board from the Planning Dept., pg 6 of 16 to
wit:

The public policy sections outline the recommendations from the Yorktown
Comprehensive Plan, the Sustainable Development Study, and Westchester Countys
Patterns. Many of these recommendations are contrary to the objectives of the
Costco project, yet there is little discussion in the potential impacts section on how
the project does comply with goals from these reports or how the project will
enhance the Bear Mountain Triangle/Crompond Hamlet Center area despite these
differences. The Comprehensive Plan describes the C-3 zone as a small scale
roadside commercial hamlet center with woodland buffers to adjacent residential
zones, 20 foot landscaped areas along street frontages, significant open space, and
excludes uses that generate heavy volumes of traffic, The DEIS simply states Costco
complies with the Comprehensive Plan because it furthers improvements and
establishes retail services in the Bear Mountain Triangle area. There is no mention of
the goals of which the project does not comply. As another example, in reference to
Westchester Countys Patterns, it is stated the proposed project is buffered by the
Taconic State Parkway from nearby residential neighborhoods, so it is not expected
to have significant adverse impacts on the character of the surrounding
neighborhoods. There is no discussion of the residential neighborhood immediately

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-35

adjacent to the site on Old Crompond Road.

REQUESTPlease have the applicant address the specific comments and
concerns of the planning department.

Response III.A 27:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5, III.A 6a and III.A 8 as to how the
development conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan as
well as the Sustainable Development Study and Westchester Countys Patterns.
Additionally, Section III.A 2a and VI.A of the DEIS discusses how the Project should
not adversely impact the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

We feel that the applicant is in direct violation of the Towns Zoning code as
explained below:

FirstThe Yorktown Comprehensive Plan was adopted by Yorktown in 2010

Second - NYs zoning enabling statutes all require that zoning laws be adopted in
accordance with a comprehensive plan. The comp plan should provide the backbone
for the local zoning law (NYS Dept of State Pub Zoning and the comp plan,
Revised 2009; reprinted 2011), page 1

The comp plan also provided the means to remove the planning process from
immediate political considerations and allow for more objective analysis of
community growth and need (Ibid, page 3) (Basset, supra, p. 28)

Illegal spot zoning occurs whenever the change is other than part of a well-
considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the
community (Ibid. page 5) (Collard y Village of Flower Hill, 52 NY 2d. 594, 600)

Once an actual plan is adopted, however, all land use regulations must be in
accordance with it. (Town law, 272-a(11); Village law 7-722(11); General City law,
28-a(12)

This usually means (though it is not mandated) that the plan adoption is followed by
the adoption of a series of zoning laws designed to implement the comprehensive

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-36

plan. For these communities, then, the statutory requirement that zoning be in
accordance with a comprehensive or well-considered plan refers to the
comprehensive plan pursuant to Town Law, Village Law or General City Law, as the
case (Ibid. page 9)

Once a comprehensive plan is adopted using the State enabling statutes, all land use
regulations of the community must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. In the
future, the plan must be consulted prior to the adoption or amendment of any land use
regulation; once the plan is adopted, the communitys land use regulations must be
consistent with it. (Ibid. page 10)

Third - Pursuant to NYS Town law 272-a paragraph 11

Effect of adoption of the town comprehensive plan

(a) All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a
comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section

Fourth - The land use for the C-3 zone as stated within the Adopted Comprehensive
Plan (Section 2 Land Use, page 2-17) states:

Purpose: To allow for small, freestanding, roadside commercial uses, along major arterial
roadways in the business hamlet centers, but excluding auto-oriented uses that attract heavy
volumes of traffic. Typical Land Uses: include retail stores, personal services, and
restaurants, but does not include auto- oriented uses such as car washes and auto dealerships.
This zone replaces the C3 zone.
Woodland buffers adjacent to single-family residential zones, and minimum 20-foot
landscaping strips along street frontages.
Sidewalks along the street frontage, and walkways connecting store entrances on
adjacent lots.
Lighting standards should require outdoor light to be focused downward and away
from residential areas.
Standards should also strive to reduce glare effects.
All areas should be subject to natural resource protection requirements relating to
wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes, tree clearing, etc.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-37

Fifth the parcel of land is located in a C-3 zone; which zone is replaced by the
Commercial Limited (CL or C-3) as stated above.

Sixth Therefore the use for which they are applying is not only, not of right, it is in
direct contradiction to the land use as specified.

Response III.A 28:

After the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Town Board adopted several
zoning amendments to implement the Plan, at which time the Board left the C-3
zoning in place for the Project Site. Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and
FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8. As reflected in these FEIS Responses to
earlier comments, the proposed Costco is a permitted use within the zone, which in
turn is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Comments III.A 29 thru III.A 33 NOT USED

Comment III.A 34 (Document 150.2, Small and Medium-sized Businesses of Yorktown):

Refer to Document # 150 in Appendix A for a complete list of the (25) Businesses

Our opinions of both residents and businessmen of this town should be taken into
consideration. In this instance, destroying the hamlet cannot be justified by
COSTCO: less tax revenue, more closed and boarded up stores, more businesses not
making enough to keep up the appearance and variety that Yorktown deserves and
that consumers demand.

Response III.A 34:

Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Response III.Q 1 as to how the
proposed Costco will generate tax revenue as well as new jobs for the Town of
Yorktown. Also, refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 3 and III.Q 5 regarding how the
proposed Costco will not adversely impact existing businesses in Yorktown.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-38


Refer to Document # 150 in Appendix A for a complete list of the (25) Businesses

We want the right kind of growth for Yorktown, the growth as per the adopted
Comprehensive Plan that will make our community thrive with distinctive, hamlet
type stores, restaurants, places to go to and enjoy.

Please refer to Appendix for the 25 enterprise signatures

Response III.A 35:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development
conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.

Comment III.A 36 and III.A 37 NOT USED

Comment III.A 38 (Document 171.8, Evan Bray):

Special Use Permit Criteria for a Gas Station:

The criteria set forth in the zoning code prescribe, among other things, that the station
have no more than two driveways and that they shall (not may), be a minimum of 20
feet and shall not exceed 35 feet in width.

At what height is the canopy over the gas station? Zoning requires that the canopy
not exceed ___ feet in height. In the site lines drawings provided, the gas station is
represented to be 40 feet high. Are there any additional zoning variances required for
height and

The applicant provisions zero (0) additional parking spaces for the gas fueling station.
Zoning requires that parking be provided for the sum total of all occupancies and uses
on a given zoning lot. Therefore, the applicant is actually requesting an even larger
zoning variance than previously reported.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-39

Response III.A 38:

The Applicants FEIS Site Plan reduced the entrance of the fueling station to 25 feet,
which now meets the dimensional criteria stated in this Comment.

Exhibit II.6 of the DEIS indicates the canopy height to be 166, not 40 feet high, as
indicated in this Comment. Section 300-46(J )(1) states, Canopies shall provide 15
feet of ground clearance above grade. No canopy shall exceed three feet in thickness.
Accordingly, the maximum height for a canopy shall not exceed 18 feet.

Parking for the fueling facility is accounted for in the overall site parking. The
fueling facility does not require additional parking spaces since no service amenities
are offered. If the customer combines shopping with the fuel purchase, the parking is
accounted for in the shopping demand. Parking for the Costco facility is based on the
whole facility and not by the individual services.

Since a discount club is not listed as a specific use in Chapter 300-182 subsection
A, of the Towns Zoning Code, the Planning Board is granted, in subsection 300-182
B (below), the authority to determine the parking requirements.

B. Reasonable and appropriate off-street parking requirements
for structures and land uses which do not fall within categories
listed above [subsection A] shall be determined in each case by
the Planning Board, which shall consider all factors entering
into the parking needs for such use.

After acceptance of the DEIS and in response to comments, the Applicants engineer
performed a Parking Utilization Study at two nearby comparable Costcos having
similar amenities including Tire Service Centers and fueling facilities. The study
confirmed that even during the peak parking demand of the holiday shopping season,
the maximum number of occupied parking spaces was less than those proposed at the
Yorktown facility. Refer to FEIS III.L Introductory Response.

It should also be noted that Section 300-46(G) of the Town Code states that the Town
Board may vary any of the required special permit standards as it sees fit if it makes a
better plan. Refer to FEIS Response III.A 8 in regard to general special permit
criteria.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-40


Zoning lots:

The character of the neighborhood, as it exists today within that __ zoning lots the
developer has acquired and proposes to to combine into a single zoning lot, is 85%
woodland and wetland. Combining the lots to establish a __ acre parking lot with
a __acre building would completely alter the character of this area, I would argue,
in a detrimental way. An area which is at the confluence of the Sylvan Glen nature
preserve, Granite Knolls, and the FDR state park. The applicant consistently refers to
the __zoning lots as blight, as if this were the south Bronx. I just want to point out
that abandoned motel only makes up approximately __of the site. The woodlands and
Hunterbrook are the most defining characteristics of the site, percentage-wise,
currently.

I am arguing that the act of combining these 4 zoning lots runs contrary to the
comprehensive plan. What is the position of the board with respect to the lot
combination to create a super-sized 18 acre parcel relative to the historic character of
these 4 separate, small scale, mix of unique occupancies

Response III.A 39:

Although there are woodlands and wetlands located on the Project Site, the 4 zoning
lots that make up the Proposed Action are zoned C-3 and the Proposed Action avoids
impacts to the Wetland A wetland and wetland buffer to the greatest extent
practicable. Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the
development conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.


My last question to the board is does the Comp Plan carry the weight of law? Does it
mean anything, or is it so vague and inconclusive that it allows for this proposal to be
deemed in conformance with the spirit of the plan?

Response III.A 40:

The zoning regulations and land use laws in Yorktown must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan are
implemented through amendments to the Towns zoning ordinances and other

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-41

sections of the Town code or local laws. Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and
Comprehensive Plan.

Comment III.A 41 (Document 172.1a, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society):

Section III, A. Existing Conditions, Impact, Mitigation: Land Use, Zoning, &
Public Policy

How was the size of the study area determined? A large commercial development of
this magnitude, is likely to have an impact on a much larger area than a one-half mile
radius of the project site.

Response III.A 41:

The study area was determined by the Planning Board in concert with the Applicants
consultants. The study area was based upon standard land use study boundaries, as
well as the boundaries of the Bear Mountain Triangle Crompond Hamlet in the
Comprehensive Plan.

Comment III.A 42 (Document 172.3, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society), (PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The proposed development will disturb approximately 78 percent of the site, and
irreparably convert about 10 acres of wooded and open space to impervious parking,
roadway, and building surfaces. This development will, undoubtedly, have an impact
on the areas current open space character despite a statement in the Executive
Summary of the DEIS to the contrary. How will a large commercial development of
10 acres maintain the open space character of Yorktown?

Response III.A 42:

As described in FEIS III.A. Introductory Response, the Project complies with the
zoning. Also, the Proposed Action includes a landscape buffer to help maintain the
open space character of Yorktown. This buffer will also provide screening from the
Taconic State Parkway and surrounding residential uses. Therefore, it will protect the
scenic value of roadways as well as the areas open space character.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-42

Approximately 10 acres of the site is presently developed, which includes
approximately 3 acres of impervious surfaces. After development of the Project,
approximately 4.7 acres, or 25% of the Site, will remain wooded. One acre, or
around 5% of the site, will be re-vegetated embankments adjacent to wetlands. A
total of 5.7 acres, or around 30% of the Site, will remain as open space.

Society):

The DEIS posits that the proposed development is consistent with the Towns newly
adopted Comprehensive Plan (page 11). The DEIS states that according to the
Comprehensive Plan that the purpose of the Commercial Limited (C-3) zone was
modified to allow for small, freestanding, roadside commercial uses along major
arterial roadways in the business hamlet centers, but exclude auto-oriented uses that
generate heavy volumes of traffic.

The proposed development is a warehouse wholesale operation of 151,092 square
feet. How does the Planning Board define a small, freestanding, roadside
commercial use and does a 151,092 square foot development meet that definition?

The proposed development is not located within a business hamlet center. Given this,
how is the proposed development consistent with the Towns Comprehensive Plan?

Response III.A 43:

The Comprehensive Plan envisions both a retail regional draw and a business hamlet
center within the Crompond-Bear Mountain Triangle. Consistent with that vision, the
Project provides a regional draw while still allowing for hamlet-style development to
the west of the Project site. Refer to FEIS III.A. Introductory Response and FEIS
Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development conforms with both

Society):

The DEIS states on page 19 that in fact the proposed development does not entirely
comply with the design and development concepts of the C-3 zoning district as set
forth in the Towns Comprehensive Plan. Does the applicant consider their proposed
development to comply (page 11, page 24) or not comply (page 19) with the Towns

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-43

Comprehensive Plan? Does the Planning Board consider the applicants proposed
development to comply or not comply with the Towns Comprehensive Plan?

Response III.A 44:


Comment III.A 45 (Document 174.6, Stephen L. Steeneck):

The DEIS goes put forward the following claim as asserted in Section III Existing
Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation A. Land use, Zoning and Public Policy.
EXHIBIT 5 is page A-18 of Section III A. Under 2. Potential Impacts, a Land use
it states The proposed project does not entirely comply with the design and
development concepts of the C-3 zoning district as set forth in the Towns
Comprehensive Plan. It further goes on to state The proposed project
specifically does not conform to the zones conceived purpose of small minimum lot
size for the project site, as the project requires a large floor area on a large tract of
land. It further goes on to say, The project does not comply with the Town Lighting
Ordinance, and will require a variance from this requirement. Nothing could be more
clear, the DEIS as supplied by Costcos respective Attorneys and Representatives are
telling The Planning Board that the project does not fit within the scope of the
intended plan for the Towns own Comprehensive Plan. Right there alone this project
should be rejected due to the clear language and severe size alone of this project. Not
to mention the FACT that the DEIS is clearly stating it violated the Towns very own
Comprehensive Plan. This is a supporting FACT that cannot be overlooked. The
proof is the DEIS own words and as such this project should be denied and NOT
allowed to proceed any further. This is a clear violation of the Town of Yorktowns
own Plan for the Future Growth of the Town. Please dont think I am against growth,
it is all about sustainable growth that will allow our Town to Progress with
Preservation as the Town of Yorktowns own motto states. We need to put out best
foot forward and grow with sustainable growth suitable and consistent with the true
intent of the Town of Yorktowns own Adopted Comprehensive Plan. I urge you
based on the DEISs own failure to strike down this massive project and say sorry this
is not what the true intent of the Town of Yorktowns own Comprehensive Plan for
future growth for our town


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-44

Response III.A 45:

The Comment refers to development concepts suggested in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Applicant believes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and the Town of Yorktown Zoning Code. Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5
and III.A 8 as to how the development conforms with both applicable zoning and the
Comprehensive Plan.


With reference to DEIS Section III Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation A.
Land use, Zoning and Public Policy. EXHIBIT 6 is page A-15 of Section III c. Public
Policy paragraph 2 states, The Town of Yorktown Comprehensive Plan was adopted
on J une 15, 2010. The Plan states that the Towns land use vision is for Yorktown to
remain a primarily low- density community, with a mix of retail, office, civic and
residential uses in its five-hamlet business centers. According to the Comprehensive
Plan, the purpose of the Commercial Limited (CL or C-3) zoning district was
modified to allow for small, freestanding, roadside commercial uses along major
arterial roadways in the business hamlet centers, but exclude auto-oriented uses that
generate heavy volumes of traffic. Again another clear point in the DEIS about the
fact that this project does clearly go against the intent of the Town of Yorktowns
very own Comprehensive Plan. It is extremely clear and further read does note the
fact of an increase of 750+Cars per hour AVERAGE addition of TRAFFIC to the
projects area. A point of fact, a direct violation of the Town of Yorktowns own
clear vision of what the Zonings intent is. Based on this ALONE, this project
should be scrapped and told sorry the Town of Yorktowns vision for the future does
not include this type of massive 151,000 square ft footprint in the Zoning of CL or C-
3, as stated directly by the Town of Yorktowns own Comprehensive Plan. Again,
exclude auto-oriented uses that generate heavy volumes of traffic as clearly stated
in the DEIS. This is a crystal clear violation of the Town of Yorktowns own vision
for its future, all the while keeping in the true intent of Progress with Preservation. I
strongly urge you and the board to reject this project as one not suitable, keeping
with the vision and direction of the Town of Yorktowns own Comprehensive Plan.
There is sustainable growth out there and as a Town looking to further its very own
future must come up with real solid business ideas that further the growth of our
precious town all the while still preserving it for our future generations to enjoy, play
and live. We are at a fragile point in time where there is no going back, this is not a
simple small project that will have little impact to everyone within a 10 mile radius.
In fact, this is a Town changing even that can change the impact of our community

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-45

for future generations to come. We owe them that little bit of hard thought to think
ahead, is this really where we are going. Is there really the true direction as pointed
out in the Town of Yorktowns Comprehensive Plan. We all the real truth behind this,
it is not and it will have life altering repercussions for generations to come. Please
stand up for Yorktown and say, this is not the direction our Comprehensive intended
us to take. In fact, the DEIS own admission state is it NOT the right direction as per
the Town of Yorktown. I urge you to please vote down this project and say our
town is all for Progress with Preservation. We can move forward with the right
plans for that current site. We can do better and we should. We owe it to our future
generations to stand up for what is right and stand together in unity for our Special
Place, a Town I call home.

Response III.A 46:



I know the Planning Board can see that is Project is NOT consistent with the Town
of Yorktowns very own Comprehensive Plan and as such has NO other way but to
say NO. This is not the right Project for this area and is in DIRECT VIOLATION
of the Town of Yorktowns very own plan for the future and the Town of Yorktowns
Comprehensive Plan. This cannot be more clear for all the reasons as set forth above
and the Towns very own view for the Future. Growth is needed, yet Sustainable
Growth is what is needed.

Response III.A 47:


It is very clear there are major deficiencies in the DEIS, in fact in reading what I have
so far, it is very clear that this Project does violate New York State Byways Laws
and the Towns own Comprehensive Plan.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-46

Response III.A 48:

conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. The Comment
does not identify any support for the claim that Project violates the New York State
Byways Law, or identify which provisions of the Byways Law the Project is alleged
to have violated. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Places (OPRHP), which has jurisdiction over cultural resources including scenic
byways, has been included as an interested agency in the Projects SEQRA review
and received a copy of the DEIS. For a description of the Projects compliance with
signage requirements for scenic byways such as the Taconic Parkway, please refer to
FEIS Response III.B 15.


This project is a CLEAR VIOLATION of The Town of Yorktowns own
Comprehensive Plan NOT to add additionally traffic to that area. As per under
Zoning CL and C-3, of course stated above.

Response III.A 49:


Comment III.A 50 (Document 180.1, Gia Diamond):

Much has been said during the public hearings on DEIS of Costco submitted to you
for approval. I trust that the FEIS for this project will encompass all the suggestions
and answers all questions raised by Yorktown community and will certainly be in
line with 2004 Sustainable Development Study and Yorktown Comprehensive Plan.
Both of these documents had to go through rigorous drafting and approval processes
by your predecessors.

Response III.A 50:
development conforms with applicable zoning, the Comprehensive Plan and the
Sustainable Development Study.

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-47

Comment III.A 51 (PH2, John E. Schroeder):

In the DEIS, Section 3A, page 19, refers to one of our local nature preserves as the
Silver Nature Preserve, the correct terminology is the Sylvan Glen Park Preserve. So
just a house cleaning issue. [PH2, page 73, lines 17-21]

Response III.A 51:

Comment noted. This shall acknowledge the correct name of the referenced preserve
as the Sylvan Glen Park Preserve.

Comment III.A 52 - (Document 60.2, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.3,

The proposed project is grossly inconsistent with Town and County plans, State
transportation arterial management practices, and recently adopted interagency and
municipal land use and transportation agreements. These plans and studies
recommend small lot retail uses and disallows auto oriented business at the subject
site. The traffic congestion that will result from the Costco project and the impact on
the quality of life in this transportation corridor is the primary reason why the
Sustainable Development Study linking land use and transportation decisions
recommendations were agreed to.

Response III.A 52:

development conforms with applicable zoning, the Comprehensive Plan and the
Sustainable Development Study.

Comment III.A 53 - (Document 60.2a, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.3a,

The fueling facility requires a special permit from the Town Board, however it
appears that the project will not meet the standards for granting a special permit.

Response III.A 53:

Refer to FEIS Response III.A 8 regarding the fueling facility and how the proposed
fueling facility does meet the standards for granting a special permit.

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-48

Comment III.A 54- (Document 122.8, Al Boutross):

Attached to this e-mail is a document entitled: Some Reasons to reject Costco
Proposal RE: Rte 202 & Taconic which represents my opinion on the subject. I will
appreciate it if you would take these reasons (which may have already been
expressed) under consideration in your decision making process. Originally, I was
FOR the project, but more careful thinking has changed my conclusion. Yorktown is
doing very well financially at present and does not need a time bomb dressed as Santa
Claus.

Another large store, Big Lots, has recently been reported to have opened in the former
Circuits City location in Cortlandt, and so, we continue to add to the number of
accessible large stores, obviating the need to encourage any more.

Response III.A 54:

The inclusion of Big Lots in the larger trade area does not demonstrate that additional
large stores are unnecessary. The Applicant asserts that Big Lots and Costco have
different product lines and retail strategies. Big Lots specializes in reduced price
close out items, and does not carry bulk wholesale goods. Moreover, Big Lots has a
very small grocery product line, with no refrigerated items, meats, fresh produce, etc.
Therefore, the Applicant asserts that the product lines and the target markets have
only marginal overlap, as each retailer caters to distinctly different retail needs within
the trade area. Both retailers can be readily accommodated based on the Market
Study prepared by the Applicant, which was included in Appendix K of the DEIS.
Also refer to DEIS III.Q for more information.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-49

Comment III.A 55 - (Documents 29.01 29.55, Costco Petition), (Documents 77.01 77.45,
Costco Petition), (Documents 116.01 116.12, Costco Petition), (Documents
166.01 166.32, Costco Petition):

Refer to Appendix for the 144 petition signatures

Response III.A 55:



______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-50

Comment III.A 56 - (Document 41.6, No Costco Post Cards (11)), (Document 44.1, No
Costco Post Cards (4)), (Document 49.1, No Costco Post Cards (2), (Document
87.1, No Costco Post Cards (1), (Document 141.1, No Costco Post Cards (3),
(Document 160.1, No Costco Post Cards (11)):

Refer to Appendix for the 32 post card signatures

Response III.A 56:



______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-51

Comment III.A 57 - (Document 42.15, Say No to Costco):

Response III.A 57:

Comment noted

Comment III.A 58- (Document 86.1, Robert Reynolds):

I am writing this email to urge you to reject the Costco plan.

I was at the last meeting and listened to the Costco experts paint the rosy picture
of how we will all be so well off with the Costco in the proposed location in
Yorktown. They are professionals at doing what they do. In this case selling this
Costco. Again I hope you will see the reality of this. Costco only will benefit.
The town will not nor the residents.

This site is not the place for this kind of development and does not conform to the
spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. On the Yorktown website the banner on all
pages reads Progress with Preservation!!


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-52

Yorktown Heights is a model of poor or no planning, letting the developers do
whatever they want. Lets not continue with this mistake and let the developers
win this. They will be the only ones benefiting.

Response III.A 58:



Refer to Letter 150 in Appendix 1 for a complete list of the (25) Businesses

Yorktown Planning Board should be exercising its due diligence by exploring all
adverse impacts of COSTCO before making a mistake of approving this project. You
have responsibility as the Town Supervisor and Members of Yorktown Town
Planning Board to help Yorktown achieve its potential with careful consideration of
interests of small and medium-sized businesses. It is up to you to help us avoid the
threat of existence as businesses once and for all.


Response III.A 59:

conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. Refer to the
Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment prepared by the Applicant and
included in DEIS Appendix VI.K, and FEIS Responses III.Q 1, 2 and 3, which show
that the Proposed Action is not anticipated to adversely affect existing businesses in
the Town.


What The Planning Board needs to do it decide what is best for the Town of
Yorktown and say to Costco, NO SORRY our Plan for the Future and our
Progress with Preservation own motto holds true. We need to develop
sustainable growth for our future generations to live in harmony and there are
OTHER BETTER OPTIONS for that Location. There is nothing wrong with
building a few common stores, a hotel and something that will add and bring value

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-53

to our Town. Not degrade our town and regress it to the land of Big Box Stores.
We have our future and our children and (childrens childrens) to think about. I
hope The Planning Board will consider the HUGE IMPACT this project will
have on our Town and our Community. We are a small in size (population) town,
NOT a big city. PLEASE, do not degrade our Community and our Town, we are
better than that.

Response III.A 60:

Both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code allow the proposed
development on the Project Site. Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and
III.A 8. as to how the development conforms with both applicable zoning and the
Comprehensive Plan.


In fact, it should be noted that this is NOT a Public Referendum. A vote has not
been planned for the residents of the Town of Yorktown, and as such the Planning
Board has the right to do as it sees fit. Also, the Planning Board, MUST
ADHEARE [sic.] to the Town of Yorktown Comprehensive Plan and as such,
MUST deny this application in its entirety. Anything less would be a clear
violation of the Town of Yorktowns own Comprehensive Plan. As the Town of
Yorktown has adopted this plan, it must be followed fully.

Response III.A 61:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8. as to how the development

Comment III.A 62 - (Document 45.5, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and
Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola):

This proposal IS consistent with the Towns Comprehensive Plan, and with the
Sustainable Development Study. It should be noted here that both the Comprehensive
Plan and the Sustainable Development Study made huge efforts to include residents
of the Town in order to plan development in a way that would be consistent with
residents ideas, wishes and concerns. BEAR MOUNTAIN TRIANGLE residents
participated in both efforts. As a result, both studies are consistent with the vision of
local residents as to what makes the most sense here (based on our more intimate

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-54

knowledge of the area) and what we not only would like to see in the way of
development, but also what we think we can live with.

The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for building blocks that would
enable the kind of development the Town envisions especially infrastructure like
road improvements and sewer connections. The Costco development offers the
opportunity to create those blocks.

Response III.A 62:

Comment noted.


A few comments on specifics of the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the Bear
Mountain Triangle follow.

While Auto Oriented Uses are discouraged in the Bear Mountain Triangle
Crompond Hamlet, Auto Oriented Uses are defined as car lots or dealerships, not
other commercial retail enterprises. The proof is that the subject site was zoned
Commercial Zone, which allows for this type of project.

The Plan calls for infrastructure development and improvements in conjunction
with or prior to development. The Costco proposal is entirely consistent with that
guidance and will enable hamlet development in the rest of the BEAR MOUNTAIN
TRIANGLE. Costcos inclusion of the rest of BEAR MOUNTAIN TRIANGLE in
Sewer improvements makes possible more reasonable future hamlet development as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.

The Plan envisions mixed residential, office, and retail/commercial in the center
of the Bear Mountain Triangle, not along boundaries where Costco is proposed. The
high volume Taconic Parkway/202 intersection is not appropriate as a hamlet
development site.

Response III.A 63:

Comment noted.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-55


In the Comprehensive Plan, sidewalks are encouraged as well as ensuring
appropriate vehicular access and adequate parking. Costcos proposal includes
sidewalks, bike lanes and racks, again consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and
the developer has worked with NYS DOT to get the planned state project to include
widening of 202 from OLD CROMPOND ROAD east to BJ s light which in
conjunction with rest of state project will not only improve traffic, but also create
walk-able/bike-able connections to Yorktown, including recreation, for first time.
Now must we always use car, no matter how near or far our destination.

Response III.A 64:

Comment noted.


The impact of this development and any improvements to trails and the
abandoned park behind the site will allow us in the BEAR MOUNTAIN
TRIANGLE to benefit from amenities the rest of Yorktown has had for years. It is
currently not possible to connect to Yorktown trails in the area without serious
suicidal actions. If this proposal is approved, connections will enable us to access
areas to the east and north, as well as providing a safe way to reach the Hunterbrook
area.

Response III.A 65:

Comment noted.

Comment III.A 66 - (Document 93.2, Ben Falk), (PH2, Ben Falk):

This site has periodically been the subject of development proposals which have
never gone anywhere, including for a conference center and hotel use and for retail
shops, reportedly because the economics of the proposals didnt work.
Since Whites left the area over 20 years ago, we havent had any food options
other than BJ s, unlike other areas of Town. And although traffic is consistently
much worse on Route 6, Mohegan Lake has seen dramatic retail and restaurant

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-56

development over the years. Much of what we have gotten or might have gotten
has been lured away to Cortlandt!

Response III.A 66:

Comment noted.

Comment III.A 67 - (Document 93.4, Ben Falk), (PH2, Ben Falk):

This proposal IS consistent with the Towns Comprehensive Plan, and with the
Sustainable Development Study. It should be noted here that both the
Comprehensive Plan and the Sustainable Development Study made huge efforts to
include residents of the Town in order to plan development in a way that would be
consistent with residents ideas, wishes and concerns. Bear Mountain Triangle
residents participated in both efforts. As a result, both studies are consistent with
the vision of local residents as to what makes the most sense here (based on our
more intimate knowledge of the area) and what we not only would like to see in
the way of development, but also what we think we can live with.

The Plan envisions mixed residential, office, and retail/commercial in the center of
the Bear Mountain Triangle, not along boundaries where Costco is proposed. The
development site.

Response III.A 67:

Comment noted.

Comment III.A 68 - (Document 93.18, Agin and Cyme Mujaj), (Document 93.18, Barbara
and Brian Hoy), (Document 93.18, Rose Mazzola), (Document 93.18, Edmund
Chan), (Document 93.18, Alfio Della Vecchia), (Document 93.18, Mr and Mrs
Mike Hanlon), (Document 93.18, Ben Falk), (Document 93.18, Renee
Cerasuolo), (Document 93.18, John Bauso), (Document 93.18, Peter
Aritonaros), (Document 93.18, Gilbert Claudio and Elizabeth Martinez):

The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for building blocks that would
enable the kind of development the Town envisions especially infrastructure
like road improvements and sewer connections. The Costco development offers the
opportunity to create those blocks.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-57

Response III.A 68:

Comment noted.


A few comments on specifics of the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the Bear
Mountain Triangle follow.

While Auto Oriented Uses are discouraged in the Bear Mountain
Triangle/Crompond Hamlet, Auto Oriented Uses are defined as car lots or
dealerships, not other commercial/retail enterprises. The proof is that the subject
site was zoned Commercial Zone, which allows for this type of project.

The Plan calls for infrastructure development and improvements in conjunction
with or prior to development. The Costco proposal is entirely consistent with that
guidance and will enable hamlet development in the rest of the Bear Mountain
Triangle. Costcos inclusion of the rest of Bear Mountain Triangle in sewer
improvements makes possible more reasonable future hamlet development as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.

The Plan envisions mixed residential, office, and retail/commercial in the center of
the Bear Mountain Triangle, not along boundaries where Costco is proposed. The
development site.

In the Comprehensive Plan, sidewalks are encouraged as well as ensuring
appropriate vehicular access and adequate parking. Costcos proposal includes
sidewalks, bike lanes and racks, again consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
and the developer has worked with NYS DOT to get the planned state project to
include widening of 202 from Old Crompond Road east to BJ s light which in
conjunction with rest of state project will not only improve traffic, but also create
walk-able/bike-able connections to Yorktown, including recreation, for first time.
Now must we always use a car, no matter how near or far our destination.

The impact of this development and any improvements to trails and the abandoned
park behind the site will allow us in the Bear Mountain Triangle to benefit from
amenities the rest of Yorktown has had for years. It is currently not possible to

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-58

connect to Yorktown trails In the area without serious suicidal actions. If this
proposal is approved, connections and sidewalks will enable us to access areas to
the east and north, as well as provide a safe way to reach the Hunterbrook area.

Response III.A 69:

Comment noted.


One big difference will be the fueling station. We have heard many concerns from
those representing the local gas stations that approval of this project with the
fueling station will drive many of them out of business. We should remember that
only Costco members can purchase from their fueling station, so competition to
local stations will be limited. And Yorktown stations are already higher priced than
stations outside Yorktown, especially in center of Town. They have been ripping
us off for years.

For all these reasons, we respectfully urge you to approve the Costco proposal.

Response III.A 70:

Comment noted.

Comment III. A 71 (Document 178.9c, Henry Steeneck):

Please refer to the listed articles that I have submitted regarding the Costco project
at route 202/35& Taconic Parkway in the Town of Yorktown.

Article 9.

The 2010 comprehensive plan calls for Country Commercial development not
BOX Stores and more traffic. According, to the comprehensive plan, The [sic]
traffic on route 202 is already excessive. I urge everyone to seriously think of what

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.A-59

the ramifications that such a project would do to our small town. Do We [sic] want
a ghost town?

Response III.A 71:

Document 178 in its entirety, including referenced articles, can be found in FEIS
Appendix A. References to this document in other sections of this FEIS are
identified in the Index, also included in FEIS Appendix A. Refer to FEIS
Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development conforms with
both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. Also, refer to FEIS Response
III.K 98 regarding traffic.
III.B VISUAL CHARACTER
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-1
Section III.B Visual Character

Comment III.B 1 - (Document 81.2, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture and

The Advisory Board on Architecture and Community Appearance (ABACA)
reviewed the subject item during its meeting on October 23, 2012, 2012.
The ABACA needs to see the proper elevation from the Taconic southbound off-ramp
to determine the appropriate height of the Norway spruce.

Response III.B 1:

DEIS Exhibits III.B-41 to III.B-46 illustrate computer simulated 3-dimensional views
of the Site from the Taconic southbound off-ramp. Additional views from the
Taconic mainline are illustrated in this FEIS Exhibits 40a to 46a, which are provided
in FEIS Response III.B 2. The exhibits include views with and without (transparent)
proposed landscaping. DEIS Exhibit III.B-56 has been amended to include the
Taconic off-ramp as well as the mainline. FEIS Exhibit III.B-56 illustrates cross-
sectional views showing sightlines from the off-ramp and mainline southbound lanes.
(The locations of the cross-sections are shown on FEIS Exhibit III.B-55.) FEIS
Exhibit B-20a also illustrates the relationship between the Taconic parkway and the
Project Site and ground surface illustrations are provided. Note that the building will
be in view but it will be screened by the proposed landscaping. The proposed trees
are shown at the height of 20 feet approximately 5 years after initial planting (refer to
FEIS Response Site Plan 2h and 15).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-5


The visible impact on a car traveling southbound on the Taconic needs to be more
accurate. Show what the site will look like from a car in the southbound lane on the
Taconic. The ABACA emphasizes a request for a right-hand southbound lane. Costco
has provided this information for a southbound exit ramp.

Response III.B 2:

In order to improve the readers understanding of the potential view of the Project site
from the mainline of the Taconic Parkway, additional computer simulated 3-
dimensional illustrations were prepared. FEIS Exhibits III.B-41a thru III.B-46a
illustrate the view of the Project Site as it will be seen from the Taconic southbound
travel lanes. The exhibits represent the views with the proposed landscaping and
without (transparent view). FEIS Exhibit III.B-40a is a key map showing the
locations of the three views.

The illustrations show that the Site will potentially be visible from the southbound
lanes. The Applicant estimates this visibility is for a distance as long as 1500 feet.
Based on the motorist travelling at the legal speed limit of 55 MPH, the length of time
the motorist could see the Site while passing by would be less than 20 seconds.
However, the main landscape component will be evergreen trees that will effectively
screen the Site, even in winter. Refer to FEIS Response Site Plan 2h and 15.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-6

FEIS Exhibit III.B-40a: View Reference Key


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-7

FEIS Exhibit III.B-41a: View 1a (Building roof elevation 476; Viewer elevation 484)

Exhibit III.B-42a: View 1a (Transparent) (Building roof elevation 476; Viewer elevation 482)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-8


FEIS Exhibit III.B-44a: View 2a (Transparent) (Building roof elevation 476; Viewer elevation
509)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-9


FEIS Exhibit III.B-46a: View 3a (Transparent) (Building roof elevation 476; Viewer elevation
525)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-10


D) Clarification on the elevations is required. Exhibit III-20a. indicates the elevation
as 454.0 in the back of the building at the property line and showing the elevation of
the Taconic south off ramp as 458.0. Graphically it looks like its more than 458.0.

Response III.B 3:

DEIS Exhibit III.B-20a has been revised to reflect the elevations of the Site in
relation to the Taconic State parkway (Refer to FEIS Response III.B 1 for exhibit).
The corrected elevations are shown on FEIS Exhibit III.B-20a and pertinent
elevations are summarized below:
The elevation at the Costco building has been raised to elevation 445 (from
444) for the FEIS Site Plan as described in the FEIS Site Plan Introductory
Response.
The elevation at the Costco roof will be 476.
The elevation at the property line is 454.
The elevation at the Taconic southbound off ramp is 488. The elevation of the
viewer would be 492.
The elevation at the Taconic southbound travel lanes is 521. The elevation of
the viewer would be 525.

Comment III.B 4 - (Document 100.3, Steve Winkel), (PH2, Steve Winkel):

The transcript of Public Hearing 2 is provided in Appendix B.

What about the visual appear [sic]? To a lot of people, that exit is a gateway to the
town.

That gas station and the motel are an eyesore. No arguing that. But Im not sure that
all the people in support of this plan understand the magnitude of this project. And Id
hate for them to only come to that realization when the bulldozers defoliate 15 acres
and replace it with acres of parking lot and 25 light poles blasting the night sky.

Think about the Taconic now. You ride from 84 all the way down to the Saw Mill and
what do you see? Trees, houses, the reservoir.., a few cows up north. Pretty much the
only interruptions you see are some townhouses.., a self storage facility.., a little hint
of Millwood. Now the gateway to our town would be a massive 150,000 square foot
warehouse club with acres of asphalt and gas pumps. And a quarter mile of cars lined

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-11

up to the exit. Welcome to Yorktown. Its a great place to bring your family.

Response III.B 4:

The visual 3-dimensional computer simulations in Section III.B of the DEIS indicate
how the Project will appear from a variety of angles. These depict how the Costco
store will appear as viewed from adjacent roadways including the Taconic State
Parkway (TSP), Route 202/35 and Old Crompond Road. As stated in the DEIS, the
proposed Costco will be visible from the Taconic TSP. See additional graphics
illustrating views from the TSP southbound lanes in FEIS Responses III.B 1, III.B 2
and III.B 3. The views shown in FEIS Response III.B2 illustrate the trees five years
after initial planting. The screening immediately after planting will be somewhat
thinner. The main landscape component will be evergreen trees that will effectively
screen the Site, even in winter. Refer to FEIS Response Site Plan 2h and 15.

Since the TSP and southbound off-ramp are higher than the proposed building, the
potential view would be looking down at the building roof. The roof will be flat and
will contain skylights as well as mechanical equipment. Views of the Costco building
and Site from the TSP, including the roof, will be screened by the proposed
landscaping as shown in FEIS Response Exhibits III.B-41 to 46 (depicting views
from TSP within five years of landscape planting) .

Current views from the TSP are visually impacted by the abandoned, overgrown
motel site with boarded up windows and doors and graffiti written walls. Under the
Proposed Action, these negative visual impacts will be replaced with the new
development. The proposed Costco building will be tucked below the elevation of the
TSP and will therefore not be visible from the TSP northbound lanes and from areas
further east. The building walls will be earth tone colors so as to blend into the natural
background. There will also be a horizontal red stripe around the building. A Costco
sign is proposed to be placed above the building entry door. The sign on the south
building elevation as shown on Exhibit II-5 in DEIS Section II will not be permitted
by the NYSDOT (see below).

The Taconic State Parkway is listed as a Scenic Byway on the State and National
Register of Historic Places. Evaluation of the visual impact of the Project to the
parkway will be reviewed and determined by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation,
and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) as well as by the Yorktown Planning Board
during site plan review. Due to its proximity to the TSP, building signage is limited
by NYS Parks Law, which is enforced by the NYS Department of Transportation
(DOT). Signage will be limited by the DOT to those facing away from the TSP.
Refer to FEIS Responses II.13 and III.B 15.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-12

Comment III.B 5 - (Document 109.3, Julian Charnis):

From the construction phase of the project, to its completion, it will all have a severe
negative effect on everyday life in Yorktown. When it is finished we will be left with
the largest hideously ugly shopping complex imaginable. If the town was facing
bankruptcy a good argument could be made for such a severe and disruptive change
to our way of life. This proposal should only be carried out because of a desperate
need, since it will forever change the character and quality of life here.

Response III.B 5:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.B 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Comment III.B 6 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.B 7 (Document 125.1, Dale Saltzman):

How can you allow one of New York States prime view sheds to be compromised?
When you drive north on the Taconic and cross over Route 202 you are presented
with a gigantic crossroads of engineering wonder, of forested landscape and
highways. To the west the Hudson and to the north Elevations that fill the joy of
being part of a large society that works.

If you allow Costco to pave over 15+acres in the Hunter Brook Watershed and light
it day and night, you destroy the forested landscapes of the Taconic. I believe there
are ample laws to be upheld already in place that must be enforced by you denying
permits.

So I ask you again, how can you let their view sheds on the Taconic and Route 202 be
destroyed? Aesthetics are calm to the heart and mind.

Response III.B 7:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.B 1, 2, 3, and 4.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-13

Comment III.B 8 (Document 139.14, Jonathon Nettelfield), (PH2, Jonathon Nettelfield):


DEIS Page III B-50: Comparison to Existing Conditions. The conclusion, The
Applicant asserts that the mere visibility of the proposed project from any of the
surrounding viewsheds does not imply a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of
the place; nor will the project, by virtue of its visibility, necessarily cause the
diminishment of public enjoyment and/or appreciation of the appearance of the visual
resources, nor impair the character or quality of the place. is astounding. While we
agree that decaying buildings do not add to perceived beauty, we do not believe
that under any circumstances a big box store and massive car park can be described as
more beautiful than trees, fields and open space which constitute the majority of the
current viewscape. It is this latter type of viewshed which gives Yorktown the rural
character which is so appealing to many of its residents.

Response III.B 8

The Applicant notes that the western portion of the Site will remain wooded. The
portion of the Site which will be developed presently consists of a combination of
natural and previously disturbed land uses. The Applicant merely noted in the DEIS
that some of the existing Site developments are in disrepair and remain visually
unattractive. The Applicant proposes perimeter landscaping to soften views from
offsite. Refer to DEIS Section III.B as well as FEIS Responses III.B 1, 2, 3, and 4
regarding the visibility of the Site from different viewpoints.

Comment III.B 9 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)
Comment III.B 10 (Document 162.2, Ellen Dolan):

All you have to do is go in the Palisades parkway to see how development has ruined
the landscape. I am concerned that the Costco will be seen from the Taconic and
destroy the beautiful views of mountains and trees.

Response III.B 10:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.B 4 and II.13 as to the visual impacts from the proposed
Costco as seen from the Taconic State Parkway.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-14

Comment III.B 11 (Document 171.7, Evan Bray):
Sight Lines

Additionally, the applicant failed to represent the 155 to 230 lamp posts on the sight
line drawings. This is important for the homes across the street, visibility from the
TSP and the 202/35. The gas station is only shown in one of the sections, its
represented as a 40 foot high gray box. The application has not details of the gas
station, other than its location in plan.

The site line drawing from the TSP is the only one with a single line. J ust want to
point out the fact that this has the effect of not showing how fully visible the parking
lot, store and gas station will be from the TSP. Granting a zoning variance to raise the
elevation nearly 60% compounds the problem and will bastardize the scenic TSP
view.

Why is this important? Visibility from the 202 scenic corridor. The lighting and
signage associated with the parking lot and gas station flies in the face of the stated
goals of the comp plan and Patterns of maintaining the scenic nature (e.g. the blighted
woodland and wetland character that exists today. Granting a variance for lighting
would only exacerbate that condition. If youve driven on the TSP north of the
Amvets bridge, ever, youd certainly note the lack of light pollution. Granting a
variance to increase visibility from the TSP is wrong.

Response III.B 11:

Refer to FEIS Responses II. 1, 2, 6, 12, 13 and 16 for discussion related to
lighting. Proposed light poles were added to FEIS Exhibits III.B-56 & 57 (refer
to FEIS Response III.B 1). While light poles will be visible from offsite,
measures to reduce visual impact include down-lit dark sky fixtures and landscape
buffering around the Site perimeter. Landscaping will be provided along the TSP
to screen the view from the Scenic Byway. Also refer to FEIS Responses III.B 2,
3 & 4.
An elevation of the fueling station was provided in the DEIS (Exhibit II-6). The
height of the canopy is 17.5 feet. Sight line F-F (FEIS Response III.B 1) depicts
the Fueling Facility canopy.
DEIS Exhibits III.B-46 and 48 illustrate the proposed view of the Site with the
fueling station. (Note however, that there will be no building and canopy signs
facing the TSP. Refer to FEIS Response III.B 15.)
Light poles (in sectional view) were added to site line DEIS Exhibits III.B-56 and
III.B-57 (Refer to FEIS Response III.B 1) were modified to illustrate light poles.
Additional comments about the variance for light poles noted.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-15

Comment III.B 12 (Document 172.6, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford
Audubon Society), (PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society):


Does the wind blow-down from Superstorm Sandy have any changes to the proposed
developments impact on the areas visual character?

This section details, with photographic evidence, of the current built environment, but
does not include any photographs or detailed assessments of the natural environment.
Why did the applicant neglect the visual character of the natural environment?

Response III.B 12:

There is no known long-term damaged environment in the immediate vicinity of the
Project resulting from Superstorm Sandy. Photographs of the existing natural and
built character of the environment were included in Section III.B of the DEIS as
illustrated in photographs III.B-1 thru III.B-39.

Audubon Society), (PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford
Audubon Society):


It should be noted that the applicant states on page 48 of this section that the
proposed light fixtures will be down lit dark sky luminaries to minimize sky glow
but this is not the same as the International Dark Sky Associations Dark Sky
Compliant Lighting (www.darksky.org). The International Dark Sky Association
recommends that:

Landscape and security lighting should be fully shielded so the majority of
light hits the target and is shielded from normal viewing angles and does not
cause glare.
Areas should not be over-lit. Reflected light contributes to sky glow, so
lighting levels should be kept low.
Lights should be turned off when not needed. Landscape and faade lights can
be turned off after midnight, or earlier, and parking lot luminaries can be
turned off after hours.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-16

According to the International Dark Sky Association, artificial light at night has
been shown to affect the mating, migration, and predation behaviors of many
different species and, consequently, the ecological community as a whole. Of
particular interest to Bedford Audubon is the disturbance artificial lighting can have
on both migrating and local birds. Birds confused by artificial lighting at night can
collide with other birds or buildings, or circle lights until they die of exhaustion. The
Fatal Light Awareness Program cites that more than 450 bird species that migrate at
night across North America are susceptible to collisions with night-lit towers,
including threatened or endangered species like the Cerulean Warbler and Henslows
Sparrow.

Both the Cerulean Warbler and Henslows Sparrow are listed as endangered species
for Westchester County (www.vhb.com/whiteplainsgeis/dgeis/append
ices/appendixD/6 Westchester%2OCo%20Protected%20 Species%2OList.pdf).

Additionally, bats, amphibians, moths and other insects are also negatively impacted
by artificial light at night.

The DEIS states that the parking area will be lit to levels required by Costco to
provide a safe shopping environment for its customers. What is this level? Does it
comply with Town standards? Does it allow for compliance with the International
Dark Sky Associations guidelines?

Response III.B 13:

Site lighting will be provided throughout the parking area. Illumination will be
provided to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety and meet the minimum lighting
criteria recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). Proposed
lighting fixtures will be down lit dark sky luminaires to minimize sky glow.
Perimeter light fixtures will be equipped with house side shields to reduce and
minimize offsite illumination (See FEIS Site Plan for illumination values).

Chapter 200-6 of the Town Code requires that illumination levels shall be less than
1.0 footcandle at the property line. When constructed, illumination levels at the
Property perimeter will be below the maximum illumination levels required by the
Town Code, thereby meeting the Town standards.

The parking area will remain illuminated from dusk to just after the facility closes.
Typical hours of warehouse operation will be Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to
8:30 p.m.; Saturday 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m (Refer
to DEIS II-26 for more information). Minimal security lighting will remain lit

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-17

throughout the hours of darkness when the facility is closed. Security lighting
typically allows for continued illumination of approximately 25 percent of the
luminaires, equally dispersed around the parking area to provide sufficient lighting to
discourage potential vandalism and aid in police patrol efforts. Lighting will be
reviewed by the Planning Board in connection with the Site plan approval process.

Regarding International Dark Sky Association recommendations noted in the
Comment, the Applicant asserts that the proposed lighting is dark-sky compliant
based on the following:
Landscape lighting is not proposed, thereby eliminating the greater potential for
upward directed lighting.
Parking and roadway lighting, with respect to traffic and pedestrian safety
issues will be required to comply with any conditions imposed by the Planning
Board in connection with the Site Plan Approval process. House shields will be
provided on perimeter lights to minimize offsite spillage as described in
paragraph 2 of this response.
After hours lighting will be limited as described in paragraph 3 of this response.
Also refer to FEIS Responses II. 1 and 12.

According to information on the Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP) website
(www.flap.org) during the night, birds are drawn to the artificial sky glow produced
by excessive, overnight lighting. They flutter around the lights until they drop from
exhaustion or collide with the buildings themselves. If they survive until daybreak,
birds find themselves trapped in a maze of reflective buildings and collide with the
windows and reflective walls in an attempt to escape. The executive director of
FLAP, a Toronto-based environmental organization, states that birds often become
disoriented when they fly through brightly lit areas such as tall, brilliantly-lit
broadcast towers or tall buildings in urban areas. The comparatively low height of
the Costco building, the lack of large glass windows or facades on the building, and
the minimal lighting proposed for the parking areas and building perimeter during the
overnight hours are all consistent with the FLAP recommendations for careful
consideration when planning both interior and exterior lighting systems, and reducing
unnecessary overnight lights which are intended to lessen the fatal attraction of [a]
building to birds.

Neither the Cerulean Warbler nor Henslows Sparrow is listed as endangered species
under the federal or state Endangered Species Act. The Cerulean Warbler is unlisted
under the federal Endangered Species Act, and listed as a species of special concern
in New York State. No Cerulean Warblers were observed during field investigations
of the Site or the surveys of the Site area published in The Second Atlas of Breeding
Birds in New York State (Cornell University, 2008). See DEIS III-E.16-17.
Accordingly, no impacts on Cerulean Warblers are anticipated from the proposed

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-18

Project.

Henslows Sparrow is unlisted under the federal Endangered Species Act, and listed
as a threatened species under state law. According to NYSDEC: In New York,
populations [of Henslows Sparrow] are very localized and found primarily in the
central and western parts of the state, especially the Appalachian Plateau and Great
Lakes Plain. In eastern New York, it may also be found in the Mohawk Valley.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/59554.html. No Henslows Sparrows were observed
during field investigations of the Site or the surveys of the Site area published in The
Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State (Cornell University, 2008). See
DEIS III-E.16-17. Accordingly, no impacts on Henslows Sparrows are anticipated
from the proposed Project.

The list of endangered species maintained by the Westchester County Parks
Department is intended to track local populations of species listed by the NYSDEC;
in any event, there are no additional regulatory requirements associated with the
County-specific list. Also, the link in the Comment is no longer available. The current
link for the list of endangered species in Westchester County is:
http://parks.westchestergov.com/images/stories/pdfs/EndangeredSpeciesList.pdf..

Audubon Society), (PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society):


The applicant intends to request a lighting variance in order to increase the height of
the light fixtures from 16 feet to 25 feet. Did the visual character assessments
properly consider the increased height of the light fixtures during nighttime
conditions, particularly from the Taconic State Parkway? Will the increased height in
fact negate the impact of down lighting? Did the applicant make any assessment or
consideration of migrating bird or bat species in the Atlantic Flyway that migrate over
the Site, or use the region as stopover habitat during migration?

Response III.B 14:

Most migratory species would be flying much higher than 25 in the air, and use of
the Site as stop-over habitat would occur during the daylight hours. Therefore,
Applicant asserts that no significant adverse impacts to migratory birds or bats would
be likely to occur from light poles at heights of 25.

Refer to FEIS Responses II. 1, 2, 12, 13 and 16 for discussion related to lighting.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-19

Comment III.B 15 (174.5, Stephen L. Steeneck):

New York State has Scenic Byways and EXHIBIT 4 is a copy of a print out of the
Current New York State Scenic Byways. Listed in the New York State Designated
Scenic byways is the Taconic State Parkway. Under New York State Law the Laws
that are controlling are N.Y. Highway Law 349-DD Article 12-C supra and as such
pertaining to New York Law Parks, recreation and historic preservation Title C
Article 13 13.03 proving this is a State Agency and as defined will be governed by
the Laws of New York State. Under which EXHIBIT 4 provides a copy of the laws in
succession to New York Law Parks, recreation and historic preservation Title C
Article 13 13.07 Signs and advertising structures restricted. As such the Law is
very clear and states, no person shall erect or maintain within five hundred feet of
the border of any state park or parkway any advertising sign or advertising structures
or devices of any kind, This is very clear as no sign of any kind have an area of not
more than twenty four square feet and do not extend more than fifteen feet above the
ground level and are placed on the fronts of buildings. The Law is very clear to this
and cannot be violated due to Costco decides to place a sign within the five hundred
foot buffer. This just cannot be allowed due to a clear violation of New York State
Law. As such the use of any signs on this proposed site should be strictly banned and
placed in accordance of the Law of New York State. Additionally, does the DEIS
make special note of this and take into accordance these very facts? Facts that NO
Costco sign can exist within a five hundred foot buffer to the Taconic State Parkway
plus no sign higher than fifteen feet above ground level with no signs placed forward
either?

Response III.B 15:

The DEIS addresses the restrictions imposed upon signage in the vicinity of the
Taconic State Parkway in multiple sections. The Description of the Proposed Action
describes the proposed signage and landscape mitigation to shield views of the signs
from the TSP. See DEIS pages II-19 to II-21. The Applicants engineer has consulted
with both the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and the New
York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation with respect to
signage. (Review for the S/NRHP (State/National Register of Historic Places) is
administered at the State level.) As required by law, Costco is seeking approval of
the signage; the required NYSDOT approval is listed in the DEIS under Required
Permits, Reviews and Approvals, in Table II.5 on p. II-33. Signage requirements are
also mentioned in the DEIS as part of the Visual Impacts analysis comparing the
proposed Project with existing conditions. See DEIS page III.B-48.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-20

Section 13.07 of the New York Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law
authorizes the placement of signs within 500 feet of the Taconic State Parkway
under written permit from the office or state agency charged with responsibility for
the maintenance of such park or parkway. The Taconic State Parkway is owned and
maintained by the NYSDOT, which oversees the placement of signs along and
adjacent to the Parkway.

The Applicant is in receipt of a letter dated 10/23/2012 from the NYSDOT (see
FEIS Appendix C) in which NYSDOT stated the following:

To the extent that proposed signage is not visible from the TSP, NYSDOT
is willing to permit the installation of the signs (#1, 2 & 3) on the west
building elevation and the sign (#5) on the west face of the fueling station.
The two south facing signs (#4 & 6) visible from the TSP will not be
permitted at this time.

The Applicant will continue to work with NYSDOT and other state agencies to
secure any necessary Project permits and approvals.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-21

DOT Sign Exhibit III.B-15
(Based on DEIS Site Plan and still pertinent to the FEIS Site Plan)

Comment III.B 16- (Document 86.2, Robert Reynolds):

I do like Costco as a store but again not at that site. The store structure, parking,
gas station and lighting, if built will be an eyesore forever at that location.

Response III.B 16:

The Applicant proposes landscaping to screen the building and lighting from the
surrounding area. This plan will be reviewed in greater detail during the site plan
approval process. Refer to DEIS Section III.B Visual Character and related FEIS
Responses to Comments in FEIS Section III.B with regard to the assessment of visual
impacts.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-22

Comment III.B 17 (Document 158.1, Dale Saltzman):

The addition of this large building will destroy the view shed of this intersection.
The Taconic crosses 202 and you can see the west side of the Hudson as you drive by.
This will be gone lost forever during the day and gone lost in lighting during the
night. A view shed is very important to the mental health of a community.

Response III.B 17:

Based on the Applicants field observation, while driving past the Site on the Taconic
Parkway at the posted speed limit (55 MPH), the view of the west side of the Hudson
River is visible for no more than a few seconds. Refer to DEIS Section II (pages II-
19 to II-21) with regard to site lighting and visual impacts. Responses to specific
comments are addressed in the corresponding section of this FEIS. (Refer to FEIS
Responses II. 1, 2, 12 and 13). The Costco building is situated below the elevation
of the TSP and will not block the view from the TSP to the Hudson on the western
horizon. Nighttime glow from site lighting will be minimized by utilizing down lit
dark sky optics to minimize offsite impact to the viewshed.

Comment III.B 18 - (Document 45.1, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and

The site of the proposed Costco development consists or vacant, abandoned buildings
that have been empty for many years. The area bordering Route 202 a Gateway to
Yorktown is debris littered and overgrown, and needs more than an absentee landlord
or series of absentee landlords, to properly maintain it.

The site is unattractive and the buildings are in rough condition, including a motel
with abandoned septic tanks and an old gas station site.

Response III.B 18:

The Comment indicates support of the Proposed Action based on improvements to
visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 19 - (Document 45.10, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and

The Town should also acknowledge that this proposal involves the development of a
problem site. As noted above, there are many aesthetic benefits to the Town and local
retailers in the development of a gateway property.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-23

Response III.B 19:

visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 20 - (Document 62.3, Rose Marie Panio), (PH1, Rose Marie Panio):

And finally, there is much to be concerned about the future of the North side of Rt.
202. The proposed Costco site, which is currently an abandoned eyesore, is not one of
them!

Response III.B 20:

The Comment acknowledges the existing abandoned condition as an eyesore and that
there are more important concerns than Costco.

Comment III.B 21 - (Document 66.1, Domenick Mascioli)

Costco is the BEST THING that can happen to Yorktown. It will not damage the
environment or destroy the beauty of Yorktown.

Beauty if you call BROKEN DOWN MOTEL with Rodents running around. Beauty,
look again with open eyes.

Response III.B 21:

visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 22 - (Document 68.5, William Rubin):

Finally, the Costco opposition tells us that Route 202 is lovely and historic. While this
is certainly true of some parts of Yorktown, sadly, unless you wear rose-colored
glasses, Route 202 is neither -- unless you want some historical evidence of the
downturn in the auto industry. Much of it, including the abandoned motel, is an
eyesore and an embarrassment to Yorktown.

Response III.B 22:

visual aesthetics.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-24

Comment III.B 23 (Document 121.3, Christopher D. John):

In addition, this project would clean up what is currently an eyesore on a major
thoroughfare.

Response III.B 23:

visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 24 - (Document 93.5, Ben Falk), (PH2, Ben Falk):

problem site. As noted in our written comments, there are many aesthetic benefits to
the Town and local retailers in the development of a gateway property. But there
are also very real benefits to the environment.

Response III.B 24:

visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 25 - (Document 93.10, Agin and Cyme Mujaj), (Document 93.10, Barbara
Mike Hanlon), (Document 93.10, Ben Falk), (Document 93.10, Renee Cerasuolo),
(Document 93.10, John Bauso), (Document 93.10, Peter Aritonaros), (Document
93.10, Gilbert Claudio and Elizabeth Martinez):

The site of the proposed Costco development consists of vacant, abandoned buildings
that have been empty for many years. The area bordering Route 202 a Gateway to
Yorktown, is debris littered and overgrown, and needs more than an absentee
landlord or series of absentee landlords to properly maintain it. The last real use of the
property was to house homeless single men, which did have a big impact on our quiet
neighborhood shopping carts from Staples Plaza were left abandoned along Old
Crompond Road, we had foot traffic at all hours of the day and night, and robberies at
the homes closest to the site.

The site is unattractive and the buildings are in rough condition, including a motel

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-25

with abandoned septic tanks and an old gas station site. The site contains at least one
toxic area that needs to be remediated, already filed with the DEC. (Spill number
1200067).

Response III.B 25:

The Comment indicates support of the Proposed Action based in part on
improvements to visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 26 - (Document 93.14, Agin and Cyme Mujaj), (Document 93.14, Barbara

problem site. As noted above, there are many aesthetic benefits to the Town and local
retailers in the development of a gateway property. But there are also very real
benefits to the environment.

Response III.B 26:

The Comment indicates support of the Proposed Action based in part on
improvements to visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 27 (Document 178.11l, Henry Steeneck):


answers.

They (the developer) say look at how ugly the property is, and we will clean it up.

The real facts are that they have owned it all this time. Why havent they acted like
responsible neighbors and cleaned it up by now?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.B-26

Response III.B 27:

Appendix A. References to this document in other sections of this FEIS are identified
in the Index, also included in FEIS Appendix A.

Neither the Applicant nor Costco own the Project Site. The Applicant is the Contract
Vendee, as they are in contract to purchase the Property. At present they have no
obligation to clean up the Site. However, if the Proposed Action is approved, as part
of the site development, the Site will be cleaned up. Clean-up will include demolition
of existing deteriorated and underutilized buildings as well as removal of existing
hazardous materials. Refer to DEIS Section III.D.

III.C SOILS, TOPOGRAPHY, SLOPES AND GEOLOGY
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.C

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.C-1

Section III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology

Comment III.C 1 - (Document 108.11, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

Based upon the review of the documents received, it is apparent that there are
deficiencies in the DEIS that need to be addressed before DEP can support a
Findings to Approve for the reasons identified below:

1. The soils maps show some areas of soils with slope classification of E. The
amount of E sloped soils must be quantified along with the amount of disturbance
proposed on these slopes. This information is necessary in order to reasonably assess
impacts from erosion in these areas as well as to verify whether or not the action is
eligible for coverage under the DEC Stormwater General Permit GP-010-001.

Response III.C 1:

DEIS Exhibit III.C-1b indicates the existing soil types and areas on the Site.
Approximately 0.78 acres of E soils were identified on the Site. DEIS Exhibit III.C-2
indicates the areas of the soils within the limit of disturbance. Approximately 0.51
acres of E soils were identified as being disturbed, mainly along the westerly limit of
the proposed development.

The Applicant has prepared an FEIS Site Plan, in part, to reduce impacts to steep
slopes and the Wetland A buffer by reducing the westerly embankment. (Refer to
FEIS III.G Introductory Response, Exhibit III.G-A1, which illustrates the reduction of
the westerly embankment.) By doing so, the impact to E soils will be reduced. The
FEIS Site Plan will disturb approximately 0.27 acres of E soils (refer to FEIS Exhibit
III.C-1) or 0.24 acres less than the DEIS Site Plan.

Part I.D.6b of SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction
Activity (GP-0-10-001) limits disturbance of soils with slope phases E or F on the
USDA Soil Survey to less than 1 acre. As noted in the previous paragraph, proposed
disturbance will be less than the permissible 1 acre threshold, thereby meeting the
requirements of the referenced permit.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.C-3

Protection):

2. This section should be revised to include a discussion on the erosiveness of the
soils to be disturbed. Charlton loam (ChD and ChE) soils identified on-site are
severely erosive. Disturbance of these soils will occur in close proximity to wetlands
and a watercourse. Impacts from the disturbance could be significant. In addition,
disturbance will occur in Udorthents, smoothed (lib) soils, which are difficult to
assess in terms of erosivity. Based on the parent soils and steep slopes, the potential
for erosion may be relatively high.

Response III.C 2:

FEIS Exhibit III.C-1 indicates the areas of proposed disturbance to ChD and ChE
soils. As identified in the exhibit, the FEIS Site Plan will reduce impact to these
soils. The DEIS disturbance would have been 0.85 acres and the FEIS disturbance
will be 0.43 acres.

Charlton loams are typically fine sandy loams with weak granular or sub-granular
blocky structure. The sub-solid is friable or very friable, with rock fragments.
Typical sub stratum textures can be loam, fine sandy loam, or sandy loam, with
pockets of loamy sand.

One factor that is used to measure the erosion potential of the soil is Erosion Factor
K, which indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water.
Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and
the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate
of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based
primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and
saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other
factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and
rill erosion by water.

Table 17 in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for
Putnam and Westchester Counties, New York lists a K value of 0.24 for Charlton
loam, while Table A.1 in the New York State Standards and Specifications for
Erosion and Sediment Control lists a Construction Site K Value of 0.43. These
factors would place Charlton loams in the medium to high range in terms of erosion
potential.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.C-4

The Udorthents soils are soils that were previously disturbed by cut and fill
operations associated with construction of the existing site development. The
Udorthents soils, as mapped by the Soil Survey of Putnam and Westchester Counties,
cover approximately 10 acres. Since these soils were previously disturbed, the Soils
Survey does not provide detailed characteristics such as erosivity. However, a site
specific Geotechnical Engineering investigation was performed and the detailed soil
analysis, which included locations within the Udorthents soils, was provided in
Appendix M of the DEIS. Section III.C.1.b of the DEIS discusses the site-specific
subsurface soil investigation and describes the existing fill (Udorthents) as generally
consisting of silty sand with gravel, which would tend to have a low erosivity for the
sand and gravel, and a higher erosivity for the silt portion. DEIS Section III.C.2
describes the findings of the soil investigation and DEIS Section III.C.3 describes the
implementation of a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan.

Field conditions relative to potential erosion will be monitored during construction by
an onsite Geotechnical Engineer and necessary erosion control measures will be
implemented and adjusted as necessary to meet site-specific conditions. The specific
Sediment and Erosion Control Plans will be submitted to the Planning Board for
review and approval in connection with the Site Plan Application.

As discussed above in FEIS Response III.C1, and further in FEIS Responses III.O1
and III.O5, proposed disturbance to the ChD and ChE soils will be significantly
reduced with the FEIS Site Plan and measures will be implemented to protect the
watercourse, wetlands and wetlands buffer from potential impacts. Soil erosion and
sedimentation will be controlled by limiting the amount of disturbance at any one
time through construction phasing, and the implementation of erosion sediment and
control measures will control potential erosion form all soil types. Also refer to FEIS
Site Plan Responses 8a, 8b, and 8c. Refer to FEIS Response III.O 4 .for
Construction Phasing.

Protection):

3. It is recommended that a table of soils types be provided with the amounts of
disturbance in each type. A figure showing soils types and limits of disturbance is
also recommended.

Response III.C 3:

DEIS Exhibit III.C-2 indicates the areas of proposed disturbance to each soil type.
FEIS Exhibit III.C-3 indicates the area of proposed disturbance to each soil type

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.C-5

within the proposed disturbed areas based on the FEIS Site Plan. When comparing
the DEIS and FEIS impacts to D and E Soils (Exhibit III.C-1), the FEIS Site Plan
reduces the impact by 0.42 acres. While there was a reduction of soil disturbance
within the Wetland A buffer, there was an increase of Ub and ChC soils disturbance
primarily along the southwest extents of the proposed development resulting from
reconfiguration of the westerly embankment. Disturbance of these soils pose no new
adverse impacts beyond those studied as they are not sensitive/erosive soils. FEIS
Exhibit III.C-3, indicates a net reduction in soil disturbance of 0.2 acres.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.C-7

Comment III.C 4 (Document 172.9, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon


III.C. Existing Conditions, Impact, Mitigation: Soils, Topography, Slopes and
Geology

The soils assessment finds that All of the natural soils on the property have apparent
water tables, meaning that they are all part of the ground water table, and none are
perched above an unsaturated zone. Given this, how does the applicant rationalize
their assertion that the wetlands on the site are isolated?

Response III.C 4:

No claim is made in the DEIS that Wetland A is isolated, as it forms the headwater of
a small stream. Wetland B is considered hydrologically isolated because it receives
no groundwater inflow and has an intermittent outlet which dissipates into upland
soils. Connection (hydrologic) to groundwater is not the basis for determining
whether a wetland is isolated, as surface water connection is used for the
determination of jurisdictional isolation under the US ACOE definitions. The US
ACOE definition of an isolated wetland is non-tidal waters of the United States that
are not part of a surface tributary system to interstate or navigable waters of the
United States and are not adjacent to such tributary water bodies. For Wetland B,
there is no significant nexus between the wetland and any traditional navigable water,
therefore it is considered isolated (refer to FEIS Response III.F 36).

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have
recently signed and published, for public comment, a proposed rule defining the
scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act. The proposed rule clarifies the
definition of waters of the United States and excludes the following from the
definition:. ... groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface
drainage systems http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0880-0001.

Comment III.C 5 (Document 172.10, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon



______________________________________________________________________________________
III.C-8

Page 20 of this section states construction is anticipated to take approximately 14
months beginning in October 2012, with completion by November 2013. These
dates are obviously incorrect, as the public comment period is drawing to a close two
months after their anticipated construction start. If the applicant were to receive all
the necessary permits. when would construction begin?

Response III.C 5:

The construction period is estimated to take approximately 14 months. Construction
will proceed after completion of the SEQRA process and obtaining the necessary
permits and related approvals. The Applicant has stated that construction will begin in
the fall of 2014 and will be completed by the fall of 2015.

Comment III.C 6 - (Document 84.5, Martha Patterson):

It has come to my attention that a few days ago the Town Board has considered
Development and Environmental Impact Report of the Costco Wholesale Store and
Fueling Facility. You went as far as to discuss sewage lines and number of trees to be
planted around the mall. I hope those rumors are false. You see, as Yorktown
residents, we know that opening a Costco in our community will not only affect our
lives, lives of our neighbors and the entire community, but all those living in the
surrounding areas. We, our friends and neighbors cannot just sit and let this happen.
We are strong in the belief that Costco should not be allowed in our town or else air
will be polluted from traffic jams, soil and water with all Costco wastes, noise levels
will go up. All of this will cause enormous irreparable damage to the environment
and us. We would love nothing more but leave Yorktown Costco-free because we
care, and because you chose to represent us some time ago, we are sure, just like me,
other residents, you want nothing but the best for our peaceful town. We want better
quality of life, not worse. This is a reason I fled New York City to raise our children
and grandchildren here. Yorktown as is should be sustained for future generations;
the true cost of preserving Yorktown is so much more than any Costco promises. I
hope as the Yorktown Board members, you will make our voices heard.

Response III.C 6:

The DEIS Subjects referenced in this comment were addressed in the DEIS Sections
as follows: Section III.M Air Quality, Section III.N Noise, Section III.K Traffic and
Transportation , Section III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes, and Geology, Section III.F
Wetlands, Groundwater, and Surface Water Resources. Responses to specific
comments are addressed in the corresponding sections of this FEIS.


______________________________________________________________________________________
III.C-9

Comment III.C 7 - (Document 39a.02, The Concerned Residents of Yorktown), (42.1e, The
Concerned Residents of Yorktown):

We, our friends and neighbors cannot just sit and let this happen. We are strong in the
belief that Costco should not be allowed in our town or else air will be polluted from
traffic jams, soil and water -with all Costco wastes, noise levels will go up, all of this
will cause enormous irreparable damage to the environment and us.

(Please refer to Document 42 of FEIS Appendix A for the 103 signatures)

Response III.C 7:

The comment expresses opposition to the Project based, in part, because of soil
impacts. Impacts to soil will be controlled through sediment and erosion control
practices and hazardous soil conditions will be remediated. Refer to DEIS Section
III.C regarding general soils conditions. Refer to DEIS Section III.D regarding
hazardous soil conditions. Refer to DEIS Sections III.M, K, F, D, J and N regarding
air, traffic, water resources, hazardous and solid wastes and noise respectively.

Comment III.C 8 (Document 178.8a, Henry Steeneck):


Article 8. People Against Costco.

We, our friends and neighbors cannot just sit and let this happen. We are strong in
the belief that Costco should not be allowed in our town or else polluted soil will
cause enormous irreparable damage to the environment and us.

Response III. C 8 :


Article 8 expresses general opposition to the Proposed Action. Document 178, in its
entirety can be found in Appendix A. The DEIS subject referenced in this comment
was addressed in the DEIS Section III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes, and Geology.

______________________________________________________________________________________
III.C-10

Responses to specific comments are addressed in Section III.C of this FEIS. Also
refer to DEIS and FEIS Section III.D regarding hazardous materials.
III.D HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-1

Section III.D Hazardous Materials

Comment III.D 1 - (Document 70.1, William Canavan, HydroEnvironmental Solutions,
Inc.):

Hydro Environmental Solutions, Inc. (HES) has been retained by Mr. Henry Stenick
of 500 Chase Road in Yorktown Heights, New York to conduct a hydrogeologic and
hydrologic evaluation of a proposed gasoline station located at 3196 Crompond Road
in Yorktown Heights, New York (Figure 1).

Response III.D 1:

Comment noted.

Comment III.D 2 - (Document 90.1, Gia Diamond):

I was lucky to get my hands on the final version of the groundwater report prepared
by HydroEnvironmental Solutions, Inc. Please distribute it, as you may feel
necessary.

Response III.D 2:

The letter and report by Hydro Environmental Solutions, Inc. were submitted by
William Canavan to the Planning Board as a comment to the DEIS and made a part of
the Planning Department file, therefore they are available for the public to review,
and are listed herein as Documents #70 & 98 respectively.

Comment III.D 3 - (Document 90.2, Concerned Yorktown Residents):

An active and socially responsible resident of Yorktown Mr. Henry Steeneck has
retained HydroEnvironmental Solutions, Inc. (HES) to prepare a Hydrogeologic and
Hydrologic Evaluation of the proposed COSTCO box store and fueling facility.

Please be fully aware of the adverse impact of the proposed COSTCO project on the
ground waters flowing into Hunter Brook, which as you know, is a direct tributary to
the Croton Reservoir and the New York City Water Supply.

Response III.D 3:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.D 5.1 5.5, which respond to the conclusions drawn by

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-2

HES.

Comment III.D 4 (70.2, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental Solutions Inc.),
(Document 90.3, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental Solutions Inc.):

Please allow this letter to serve as formal notification that HydroEnvironmental
Solutions, Inc. (HES) has been retained by Mr. Henry Stenick of 500 Chase Road in
Yorktown Heights, New York to conduct a hydrogeologic and hydrologic evaluation
of a proposed gasoline station located at 3196 Crompond Road in Yorktown Heights,
New York (Figure 1). The investigation will include the following:

Development of a groundwater model using the USGS computer model
MODFLOW. Preliminary results of model development to date indicate that a leak or
spill from the proposed gasoline station at this location will have an adverse impact
on groundwater and will travel in the downgradient toward nearby Hunter Brook,
where gasoline impacted groundwater will enter the brook, a direct tributary to the
Croton Reservoir and the New York City Water Supply. Preliminary model results
indicate that impacted groundwater entering the brook could be at concentrations in
excess of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
Groundwater Quality Standards (GWQS) depending on the volume and duration of
the leak. Figure 2 consists of preliminary model output showing particle flow lines of
a gasoline release and subsequent travel to Hunter Brook.

The investigation will also include a hydrologic or surface water analysis of the
potential impact of a proposed gasoline service station at the subject site to Hunter
Brook and the surrounding New York City Water Supply Watershed. Preliminary
results from the hydrologic analysis are shown on Figure 3. As indicated on Figure 3,
a gasoline spill at the subject site will flow overland downgradient and directly
toward Hunter Brook.

HES anticipates that the groundwater model and site hydrologic evaluation will
be completed along with a comprehensive hydrogeologic/hydrologic report by Friday,
November 2, 2012.

Response III.D 4:

Comment noted. Refer to FEIS Responses III.D 5.1 5.5, which respond to the
conclusions drawn by HES.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-3

Comment III.D 5a - (Document 98.1, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental
Solutions Inc.), (PH2, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental Solutions
Inc.):


A site model was prepared utilizing inferred and known site specific information to
predict the results of water and particle transport from the proposed Costco fueling
facility. The MODFLOW, MOD PATH, and the MT3DMS groundwater modeling
programs were used to solve the equations for groundwater flow and particle
transport within the model. These programs are widely accepted industry standards
for simulating both groundwater flow and contaminant transport through porous
media. The modeling effort resulted in a simulation that accurately represents
groundwater contaminant flow across the site.

Response III.D 5a:

For the referenced GROUNDWATER AND PARTICLE TRANSPORT
MODELING REPORT in its entirety, including figures, refer to Document #98 in
Appendix A.

In addition to the Letter submitted by HES, a copy of the October 2012 Report
entitled Groundwater and Particle Transport Modeling Report for Proposed Costco
Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility (HES Report) was also submitted (Appendix
A). This report is the basis for the HES comment letter and draws three conclusions.
The HES Report conclusions and the Response are as follows:

The Applicant agrees with HES that MODFLOW, MODPATH, and the MT3DMS
models are widely accepted industry standards for simulating groundwater flow and
contaminant transport. Although HES used acceptable computer models to generate a
simulation that may accurately represent groundwater flow and contaminant
transport, the Applicant disagrees with key assumptions used as input into the model,
especially the initial and continuous contaminant input concentration selected by
HES. Therefore, as described in FEIS Response III.D.5b, the Applicant asserts that
the HES Report relies on an unrealistic and speculative series of assumptions
regarding the potential for the migration of gasoline in groundwater, and thus does
not realistically or accurately simulate contaminant transport. Accordingly, the
Applicant disagrees with the conclusions of the HES Report.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-4

Comment III.D 5b - (Document 98.2, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental
Inc.):

Transport of benzene was accurately simulated and modeling results indicate that
contaminant will flow toward Hunter Brook. Results from the MT3DMS program
indicates that, in the case of a gasoline spill at the proposed fueling facility, a harmful
level of dissolved benzene will reach Hunter Brook in about two and a half years.

Response III.D 5b:

As stated in FEIS Response III.D 5a above, the Applicant accepts that the model,
with accurate and appropriate input of data, may simulate groundwater flow and
contaminant transport for the Site. However, the initial benzene concentration
selected by HES for this hypothetical gasoline spill represents a hypothetical and
unrealistic long-term spill that, as explained below, is not reasonably foreseeable and
is, according to the Applicant, implausible. Given this input data, the Applicant
disagrees with the conclusions of the HES Report.

The spill described in the HES Report consists of an instantaneous and constant
release (i.e. a spill that continues for a period of several years) of benzene at a
concentration in groundwater of 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of benzene
[equivalent of 10,000,000 micrograms per liter (g/L)]. This is the concentration of
benzene in pure gasoline. The Applicant asserts that this assumption and other
assumptions in the HES Report are unrealistic, such that the conclusions of the HES
Report should be rejected. The HES Report assumes that the spill will occur
continuously over a 2.5-year period, over which approximately 4,000,000 gallons of
gasoline will leak from the tanks into the ground evenly across the entire 80,000
square foot gasoline fueling facility portion of the site. At $3.50 per gallon, this is
approximately $14,000,000.00 worth of product. The HES Report makes these
assumption despite the modern safety measures (discussed in detail in the DEIS
Section III.D on page III.D-24) required by law for new underground gasoline tanks.
In fact, the Applicant asserts that any release from the underground tanks is
unreasonable, given the modern safety measures required by law for new
underground double-walled gasoline tanks. A release from the tank would be
captured within the tanks secondary containment (i.e. outer wall of the tank) and an
alarm would sound, notifying the facility operator of the release. The facility
operator would have to repeatedly ignore alarms from the tanks, the secondary
containment tank would need to fail, and approximately 4,000,000 gallons of gasoline
would need to leak out of the tanks for two and a half years (approximately 4,375
gallons per day). This scenario is unrealistic.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-5

Although the Applicant asserts that it is unreasonable to assume that a release from
the proposed tanks will occur, the DEIS (Section III.D on pages III.D-7 to D-8)
provides an examination of the gasoline spill that occurred at the historic Texaco
filling station formerly located onsite as an example of the potential impacts to the
environment, in the event of a future gasoline spill at the Site.

As described in the DEIS Section III.D1b, the 3196 Crompond Road portion of the
Site historically operated as a Texaco gasoline filling station from 1963 until 1988.
Four 8,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) of bare steel construction were
used by the filling station. As discussed above, groundwater sampling conducted
after the removal of the tanks revealed the presence of benzene at a concentration of
up to 212 g/L due to spills associated with the former Texaco operation. The
benzene plume associated with these former spills did not migrate beyond the
immediate vicinity of the former gasoline filling station site and the plume was at
least 1,600 feet away from Hunter Brook.

As described below the Applicant asserts that HES initial benzene concentration and
the continuing nature of the release of benzene is not reasonable or realistic but
entirely speculative given the state-of-the-art tank systems and safety features that
will be installed at the proposed fueling facility. Furthermore, this speculative
scenario is not consistent with the real-world conditions observed during remediation
of the gasoline contaminant plume formerly present at the Texaco site (i.e. benzene at
212 g/L in the groundwater and no contaminant migration beyond the immediate
vicinity of the former Texaco site).

The DEIS Section III.D (page III.D-24) explains that each of the three tanks installed
at the proposed fueling facility will be 30,000-gallon fiberglass double-walled tanks
compatible with the type of products that will be stored (i.e. gasoline, ethanol). The
tanks are manufactured by Xerxes Corporation and feature a defined interstitial space
and are warranted against leaks due to internal or external corrosion for 30 years. All
tanks will feature a hydrostatic monitoring system that continuously monitors the
inner and outer tanks. This system meets or exceeds the United States Environmental
Protection Agencys (USEPAs) most recent and stringent requirements as a precision
tank test (tank tightness test) and is able to detect leaks as small as 0.1 gallons per
hour. All below-grade supply and vent piping will feature secondary containment
and corrosion resistance. The piping integrity will be monitored continuously during
fuel dispensing using an in-line electronic leak detection system. If a drop in pressure
is identified, the dispenser flow is automatically restricted. In addition, the system
will feature liquid level sump sensors with secondary containment, providing
redundant piping leak detection. Dispenser, submerged turbine, and product piping

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-6

leaks will be secondarily contained and monitored by liquid level sensors in the
dispenser and submerged turbine sumps. If liquid is detected, a visible and audible
alarm will identify the leak location and the fueling system will be shut down. These
types of sensors are discriminating and can differentiate between water and gasoline
in the sumps.

The Applicant asserts that these safety measures meet or exceed the changes to the
USEPAs UST Regulations that are presently proposed for enactment. These safety
measures include the addition of secondary containment requirements for new and
replaced tanks and piping; new operator training requirements; significantly enhanced
operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems; requiring new release
prevention and detection technologies; and updating codes of practice. The USEPA
stated that these changes will likely protect human health and the environment by
increasing the number of prevented UST releases and quickly detecting them, if they
occur.
1

According to the Applicant, the significant safety measures detailed in Section
III.D3c of the DEIS eliminate the potential for the type of spill envisioned by the HES
Report. In order for the hypothetical spill described in the HES Report to occur, a
massive release of gasoline would have to penetrate the inner and outer tanks (i.e. the
secondary containment). Assuming that the inner tank was breached, an audible
alarm would sound. The operator of the fueling facility would need to ignore this
audible alarm. Applicant asserts that in reality, the operator would respond
immediately (as is required by Federal and State law), and the release would never
migrate beyond the outer secondary containment into the environment. However,
under the HES scenario, the operator would need to ignore the audible alarm and the
release would then need to penetrate the outer secondary containment tank in a
substantial spill that would continue unnoticed and unabated for several years.
Applicant asserts that even if this scenario occurred, the spill envisioned by HES
would require a significant amount of product to be lost such that the spill would be
quickly detected through product reconciliation and thus the operator would be aware
of the spill and address it immediately. The Applicant asserts that the hypothetical
scenario proposed by HES is unreasonable and entirely speculative. According to the
USEPA, these types of major spills are infrequent and in the event of a release at a
facility such as that proposed by the Applicant, the severity of the release is reduced
when compared to a facility that does not include the safety measures proposed by the
Applicant.
2

1
Federal Register Volume 76, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2011). Page 71708

2
Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to EPAs Underground


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-7

As mentioned above, the Applicant asserts that the spill envisioned by the HES
Report is so improbable that the contaminant migration speculated by HES did not
even occur when the former 8,000-gallon bare steel tanks maintained by Texaco were
present at the Site from 1963 until 1988. The HES Report even references the
remediation conducted at this former gasoline station in their report and HES used
data from the 2009 Semi-Annual Status Report prepared by Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC). The SAIC report documents the remedial
activities conducted at the Site by Chevron, successor to Texaco. The NYSDEC
approved the report in 2010 and issued a No Further Action (NFA) letter on J uly 8,
2010. While the Applicant does not dispute that HES accurately used real-world data
from the SAIC work such as the hydraulic gradient, depth to groundwater, and
groundwater flow direction in their modeling efforts, it asserts that the HES Report
failed to discuss the limited extent of contaminant migration (limited to
approximately one acre) and the localized nature of the remediation that was
conducted at this former gasoline station site, the benzene concentrations that were
historically present in the groundwater due to a gasoline spill from antiquated USTs,
and omitted that the absence of the migration of groundwater contamination
previously present on the Property did not migrate beyond the vicinity of the former
gasoline filling station. The Applicant also asserts that, HES selectively used data
from the SAIC report and omitted information that did not support its hypothesis.

Applicant asserts that these historic benzene concentrations are particularly relevant,
as they represent real-world data from an actual gasoline spill on the Property.
Specifically, Applicant asserts that HES failed to mention that the highest benzene
concentration ever recorded at the Site by SAIC was 212 g/L. This concentration is
47,169 times lower than the hypothetical groundwater concentration used by the HES
Report in creating a hypothetical spill that adversely impacts Hunter Brook. The
actual Texaco gasoline spill that occurred was a long-term release from four
antiquated bare-steel underground storage tanks with no secondary containment.
While the actual quantity of gasoline historically spilled is not known, gasoline
impacted soil was encountered.

Throughout SAICs investigation and remediation, the highest benzene concentration
was 212 g/L and the extent of groundwater contamination was limited in size
(approximately one acre in size). Furthermore, the contamination did not migrate
beyond the immediate vicinity of the former Texaco service station parcel. While the
actual quantity of gasoline historically spilled is not known, the Applicant asserts that
the spills at the former onsite Texaco gasoline station that operated from the 1960s to

Storage Tank Regulations. Industrial Economics, Inc. August 2011.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-8

the 1980s were likely significant and continuous release events that occurred over a
period of years. Furthermore, it is the Applicants opinion that the nature of the spills
at the former Texaco service station are more significant than what could reasonably
occur at the proposed state-of-the-art fueling facility. With regard to potential
impacts to Hunter Brook, review of the SAIC reports do not indicate that any
sampling was conducted outside of the immediate vicinity of the former Texaco
parcel, as the groundwater contamination was limited to this area. According to the
Applicants consultant, EcolSciences, Inc., and based on a telephone conversation
with NYSDEC Case Manager Todd Ghiosay on April 3, 2012, potential impacts to
Hunter Brook from the former Texaco fueling station were never raised as a concern
by the NYSDEC.

Applicant asserts that the HES Reports claim that a Costco gasoline station at the
Site is a significant risk to the environment has no basis in fact, given the extensive
safety and protective measures that will be included. The Applicant also asserts that
Costco has been in the retail gasoline business since 1995 and has never had a leak
from an underground storage tank at any facility nationwide. In contrast, according to
the Applicants consultants review of environmental databases maintained by the
NYSDEC, New J ersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP), and the
USEPA, soil and/or groundwater contamination is found at many other major
gasoline retailers in the region such as ExxonMobil, BP, or Chevron. For example,
the Mobil Station located immediately opposite the proposed Costco Site (3205
Crompond Road) has three NYSDEC spill cases associated with the site and, as noted
above, the former Chevron station at the Site had a spill case.

Comment III.D 5c - (Document 98.3, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental
Inc.):

Surface water hydrology and stormwater drainage patterns indicate that the majority
of runoff from the project site will drain to Hunter Brook. Surface runoff would
include small surface spills that likely occur daily at gas stations, as well as the
potential for a significant surface spill that could possibly occur at the site given the
anticipated large volume of gasoline being dispensed.

Response III.D 5c:

As presented in the Section III.D of the DEIS (page III.D-24), the Applicant has
stated that it will provide the following gasoline filling station safety features relative
to surface runoff and surface spills:


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-9

Emergency telephone that will automatically dial 911 when the handset is
lifted from the hook
Eight canopy-mounted video cameras with a viewing monitor located in the
warehouse
Two emergency shut off switches located adjacent to the fueling area and the
equipment enclosure to shut off all electrical power to the dispensers and
turbines.
High level alarms located in the equipment enclosure and the Costco
Warehouse that sound when the tank reaches 90% capacity or in the event of a
UST or piping leak.
An overfill prevention valve that shuts the tank at 95% capacity
A system monitoring console (Veeder Root) located inside the Equipment
Enclosure
Absorbent materials located in close proximity to the fueling area
Automatic fire suppression systems (snuffers) installed in each dispenser and
turbine sump
A separate stormwater treatment facility to capture and treat runoff from the
fuel filling and dispensing areas is included in the stormwater management
design. (Refer to FEIS as follows: III.G Introductory Response item 2, III.G
Response 37h, SWPPP in Appendix E and FEIS Site Plans in Appendix J .)

Daily Facility Check Applicant asserts that the facility will be inspected daily
consisting of a complete walk through of the gasoline station area to visually check
the condition of the nozzles, hoses, dispenser damage or leakage, stained or
discolored pavement, spill buckets, and fill and vapor return tubes. Any potential
issues will be addressed prior to use of the equipment and a daily facility inspection
report will be prepared by the operator, filed onsite, and maintained for three years.

In addition, Applicant asserts the following:

Safety All of the safety equipment installed at the facility will be of the latest
technology available (i.e. hose breakaways to minimize spillage in the event of
premature vehicle departure) and meet or exceed all Federal and State regulations and
codes. All employees will receive instruction on the safety procedures at the facility.
A spill cleanup kit and emergency response plan will be located within the Equipment
Controller enclosure. In addition, absorbent materials will be staged at strategic
locations throughout the facility for use in immediately containing and addressing
minor spills. All used absorbent materials will be placed in a NYSDOT-approved
container for proper offsite disposal by a licensed hauler.

Delivery The facility will receive gasoline by common carrier tanker trucks. The

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-10

tanks will be continuously monitored during filling and an audible high-level alarm
will sound when the tank reaches 90% capacity. Each tank will be equipped with a
ball float vent valve and extractor fitting to restrict delivery flow at 95% of the tank
capacity. These systems meet all Federal and State requirements for overfill
protection.

Spill Response The paved surface upon which the gasoline dispensers are placed
will be concrete. Any potential spill at the gas dispensers of gasoline or oil will be
cleaned up immediately by gasoline station attendants using the spill kits discussed
above. Costco personnel are trained to respond immediately to all minor surface spills
using spill containment and cleanup kits that are located throughout the facility. All
potential minor surface spills would be cleaned up immediately and would not have
an opportunity to migrate into the soil or groundwater.

The safety and surface spill prevention features discussed above greatly reduce the
possibility for a substantial surface spill at the proposed Costco gasoline fueling
facility. In the unlikely instance that a major surface spill occurred, the Applicant
asserts that Costco would respond immediately to address the release in accordance
with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. However, the Applicant
asserts that the use of state-of-the-art safety equipment at the proposed facility will
prevent a major spill from occurring and potentially impacting Hunter Brook. In
order for impacts to Hunter Brook to occur as described in the HES Report, the
operator would have to ignore a large-scale surface spill of gasoline for a lengthy
period of time. According to the Applicant, this is not plausible, because any such
release would be plainly observable to the operators employees and customers.
Rather, a major spill would be reported to the appropriate authorities and promptly
addressed.

Therefore, the Applicant asserts that the hypothetical scenario envisioned in the HES
Report is not probable. See also FEIS Responses III.D 5a, III.D 5b and III.D 5c.

Comment III.D 6 - (Document 122.6, Al Boutross):

Claus.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-11

SOME REASONS TO REJ ECT COSTCO PROPOSAL RE: RTE 202 & TACONIC

Ground water contamination from the same fuel sources, plus the added risks
of fuel spills from self- service pumps, and the added risk of more major fuel spills
from the refueling trucks. These are risks to our water table, to our environment, and
to the Croton Reservoir (as reported recently).

Response III.D 6:
See FEIS Response III.D 5a-5c for details on safety precautions to prevent and
respond to surface fuel spills.

Comment III.D 7 (PH2, Michael Pierce):

I've been a resident of Yorktown for more than eleven years. Some of the things that
I have to say have been said, so I'll try to edit this. But, of particular concern, actually
anger is to hear that somebody is gouging people in a hurricane. I mean, we all know
who it is and what is that, but it is just amazing.

Obviously I am more for gasoline competition, if that would help, I don't know if
Costco would be gouging people, but that's a stretch, I agree. But, I have a question
or concern about the hydrological study that was presented by the gentleman from
Somers, and that I think was commissioned by one of the gas station owners.

The study says that there could be a runoff from Costco -- the Costco site into the
Hunter Brook. But, from what I understand and what I am asking is, that the Board
hopefully understands as well is that I do really believe that Costco has a
sophisticated environmental protection. That's got to be in place, that's gonna prevent
that.

But, here is what I want to ask. The gas station that is directly across the street from
Costco, the Costco site, I ask if such safeguards are in place and I am only suggesting
that perhaps the environmental committee of Yorktown could use those sophisticated
environmental protection plans if Costco as part of their package, when they look at
future gas stations they've done the work, and if it turns out that it is a good safe plan,
that we try to incorporate it to save time when we look at further gas stations.

But, I would like to see that gas station across from Costco -- it has the brook near it
too, whether safeguards have been looked at there. Thank you. [PH2, Page 90, lines
5-25], [PH2, Page 91, lines 1-23]


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-12

Response III.D 7:

The Comment assumes that Costco has a sophisticated environmental protection
(plan). Refer to DEIS III.D (page III.D-24) and FEIS Responses III.D 5b and 5c for
descriptions of state-of-the-art safety features and surface spill prevention systems to
be incorporated at the Costco fueling facility. In addition, Applicant asserts that
Costco has an impressive nation-wide safety and environmental record that is
unmatched in the industry. See also FEIS Responses III.D 5a-5c for further details.

With regard to the inquiry concerning safeguards in place at the gas station located at
3205 Crompond Road, analysis of the emergency response plans and compliance with
current regulations for an offsite property that is not part of the Proposed Action and,
therefore, beyond the scope of this review under SEQRA.

Comment III.D 8 (PH2, Walt Daniels):

Although, one person did mention the non-mentioning of their plans for storm
removal and de-icing, those add a potential for massive amounts of adding massive
amounts of salt or other chemicals into the ground water. [PH2, Page 93, lines 24-
25], [PH2, Page 94, lines 1-4]

Response III.D 8:

Section III.D of the DEIS (page III.D-26) states the following regarding de-icing
during the winter months, during the winter months, the minimum amount of sodium
chloride necessary to ensure public safety will be used for controlling ice throughout
the parking lot and sidewalk areas. This approach (use of a minimum amount of
sodium chloride) is recommended in Chapter 18-45 of the NYCDEP Rules and
Regulations for the Protection from Contamination, Degradation and Pollution of
The New York City Water Supply and its Sources. As specified in these regulations,
if outdoor loading, handling or mixing of winter highway maintenance materials
(such as sodium chloride) is necessary, these activities will be conducted in a manner
to prevent seepage and/or runoff from entering any watercourse or wetland and
removed snow will not be disposed of directly into a watercourse or wetland. The
Applicant will comply with the above-referenced NYCDEP rules and regulations
with regard to de-icing during the winter months. Also refer to FEIS Responses II.10
and III.G 52.

Comment III.D 9 (PH2, Peter Pergola):

I mean, to read this article in the paper about this gas spill that might happen

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-13

The gentlemen before me hit it on the head, what about the gas stations across the
street?

The one down below the river -- the one down below the street. These gas stations
have been there thirty, forty years, what prevention do they have intact that Costco is
putting a new project and we should be worrying about what their impact on the
environment is going to be. [PH2, page 98, lines 14-25], [PH2, page 99, lines 1-3]

Response III.D 9:

Refer to FEIS Response III.D 7.

Comment III.D 10 - (Document 45.2, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and

The site contains at least one toxic area that needs to be remediated, already filed with
the DEC. (Spill number 1200067).

Retirement of less than optimum septic systems in a sensitive watershed, and
remediation of known toxic areas on the building site are big pluses for the watershed
and for local storm water management

Response III.D 10:

The Comment expresses support for the Proposed Action based on the fact that
existing environmental hazardous conditions will be remediated.

Comment III.D 11 (Document 178.1, Henry Steeneck):


Article 1. Costco to Pay 3.6 Million dollars to settle environmental lawsuit.

Response III.D 11:

Document 178 in its entirety, including articles, can be found in FEIS Appendix A.
References to this document in other sections of this FEIS are identified in the Index,
also included in FEIS Appendix A.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.D-14

The referenced Article 1 (FEIS Appendix A) relates to California Costco facilities in
which it was alleged that Costco had violated state laws relating to the storage,
handling, and disposal of hazardous waste including pharmaceutical and pharmacy
waste. Subsequent to the referenced lawsuit, Costco has implemented procedures to
prevent improper storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous pharmaceutical waste.
These procedures include training of all pharmacy personnel with regard to
pharmaceutical waste and appointment of a compliance manager to each Costco
pharmacy to oversee operations. In addition, each Costco Warehouse appoints a
compliance manager to assure regulatory compliance with regard to other hazardous
materials (e.g. pool chemicals, fertilizers, etc.).
III.E FLORA AND FAUNA
Comments and Responses Section III.E

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-1

Section III.E Flora and Fauna

INTRODUCTORY RESPONSE

Many of the comments received from the general public on the DEIS Section III.E, Flora and
Fauna have questioned the methodology used to assess the existing site conditions on the
Property. The Costco DEIS Final Scope of work, adopted December 13, 2010, required that the
existing Flora and Fauna conditions be analyzed in order to provide a description of the
vegetative communities found on the site, a description of the wildlife species found on or
anticipated to be found on the site based on site surveys and review of existing data sources. In
addition, the scope required that the Applicants consultants assess potential presence of
wildlife corridors on the site, and discuss the Biodiversity Conservation Study (J une 2009)
prepared by Stearns & Wheler and the Croton-on-Hudson Biodiversity Plan (2004) prepared
by the Metropolitan Conservation Alliance as they relate to the site. The scope for Section E
also required an assessment of the potential presence of any rare, threatened or endangered
species on the site based on site-specific survey and input from the New York Natural Heritage
Program and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as a tree survey within the proposed
limit of disturbance.
Site investigations are summarized in the table below:
Site Inspection Details
Date of Site
Investigation
Evans
Associates
Personnel*
Purpose of Site Investigation
Approximate
Time on Site
Weather
Conditions
06/08/2010
RG, ES Boundary delineation of Wetland A
and Wetland B, including data
collection for vegetation;
Review of flow/hydrology of
Wetland A and Wetland B;
On-site data collection for upland
flora and fauna
4.25 70-75
o
F; mostly
sunny, then cloudy
with light rain
06/29/2010
RG Site review of Wetland A, Wetland
B, and stormwater ditch along east
side of property with DEP for
regulated watercourses
4.5 80-85
o
F; mostly
sunny
08/05/2010
BE, RG, ES Confirm wetland delineation and
jurisdiction of Wetland A and
Wetland B with Town (B. Barber);
Review off-site stormwater ditch
(along east side of property) with B.
Barber;
On-site data collection of upland
vegetation
4.5 80-85
o
F; overcast
08/30/2010
RG Site review of Wetland A and
Wetland B with DEP for regulated
watercourses
6.75 not documented
03/29/2011
RG On-site data collection of vernal pool
inhabitants (in Wetland A and in
surrounding uplands);
Review flow/hydrology and buffer of
6 40-45
o
F; clear

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-2

Wetland A;
Review flow/hydrology of Wetland
B;
Off-site review of northern uplands
and stormwater basin, streams, and
ponds
04/14/2011
RG, ES Tree survey;
On-site data collection of vernal pool
inhabitants (in wetland A and in
surrounding uplands) and
flow/hydrology of Wetland A;
Wetland B;
Off-site review of northern wetlands
(stormwater basin and ponded areas)
and southern wetland (south of Old
Crompond Road)
6.25 50-55
o
F; partly
sunny (rain
previous 2 days)
04/21/2011
RG, ES Tree survey;
On-site data collection: upland
vegetation, birds, Wetland B
flow/hydrology;
Off-site wetland review (between site
wetlands and Hunter Brook)
6.25 50-55
o
F; mostly
sunny
04/25/2011
RG, ES Tree survey;
Check flow/hydrology of Wetland B
6.75 60-65
o
F; overcast
04/26/2011
RG, ES Tree survey

6 65-75
o
F; overcast
to partly sunny
04/27/2011
RG Tree survey;
Check flow/ponding/hydrology of
Wetland A (with vernal pool) and
Wetland B
6 65-70
o
F; overcast
to partly sunny
05/03/2011
RG Tree survey;
Wetland B
6.75 65-70
o
F; overcast
05/25/2011
RG, ES Site review of Wetland A and
watercourses
2.25
10:AM
12:45 PM
70-75
o
F; clear
11/04/2011
BE Site walk with the Conservation
Board
4
04/01/2013
BE, ES On-site data collection of vernal pool
ponds
2.0
1:45-3:45 PM
47
o
F; cloudy with
intermittent rain
04/17/2013
flow/hydrology of Wetland A
2.0
1:30- 3:30PM
60-65
o
F; sunny
* BE Beth Evans; RG Ron Gautreau; ES Eva Szigeti

Biological assessments are conducted on properties in order to provide baseline, site-

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-3

specific biological information that can assist reviewers in making informed planning
decisions. Development can impact the biodiversity of a site by causing the loss,
disturbance, or fragmentation of natural habitats on and near the site. Alterations to
soils, vegetation, or the hydrology of a site can also impact plant and animal species.
As outlined in the Town of Yorktown guidelines for Wildlife and Plant Biodiversity
Assessments, the site assessment for the Project Site began with a review of resource
maps and other published information. Review of this information helps to identify
which habitats may be present on the site and which plant and animal species could
potentially use those habitats. This information included, but was not limited to:
Soils, topographic, and aerial maps;
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Environmental Resource Mapper to determine regulated wetlands, stream and
waterbody classifications (including those classified as being capable of
supporting trout populations, and/or trout-spawning), floodplains, and other
sensitive or rare habitats or species.
Westchester County Geographical Information Systems Data (steep slopes,
hydric soils, aerial photos, topography, streams, floodplains, and other
details);
Federal, State, and local listings for rare, endangered, and special concern
species, or significant natural communities, including accessing information
from the New York State Natural Heritage Program (NY NHP) and the US
Fish & Wildlife Service (US F&W);
Publications such as: New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History and
Distribution (DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2001) and Amphibians and Reptiles of
Connecticut and Adjacent Regions (Klemens, 1993);
The DEC Breeding Bird Atlas data;
Data gathered for the New York State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas Project
(NYSDEC, 1999).

In addition to resource reviews, site surveys were conducted to review actual site
conditions. As outlined in the table above, initial surveys consisted of a habitat
assessment to develop a list of possible endangered, threatened, special concern, and
focal species that could utilize the site. Habitats, natural and created, that exist on the
property were reviewed and evaluated to determine if detailed surveys were necessary
and for which habitats and/or species of plants or animals. If detailed surveys were
not deemed necessary, a brief description of site conditions and habitats was
provided.

The site assessment data and descriptions presented in the DEIS were collected over a
period of two years (J une 2010 J une 2012) by Evans Associates Environmental
Consulting staff, including Beth Evans, a Certified Professional Wetland Scientist

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-4

(Society of Wetland Scientists) with an undergraduate degree in biology (botany) and
graduate degrees in geology and environmental planning, Eva Szigeti, who is a
Certified Professional Soil Scientist (American Society of Agronomy and the Soil
Sciene Society of America), and Ron Gautreau, who was a senior Environmental
Analyst with the firm and holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in biology
(zoology) and environmental studies. Evans Associates staff that carried out the
natural resource assessment for this site have an average of 20 years of experience in
conducting such studies, and are well versed in the components which comprise
habitats associated with sensitive species. A total of twelve separate field
investigations totaling approximately 100 hours on site were made during the
growing season (generally mid-March to mid-October) over the two year period for
the current owner. Additional site surveys were undertaken by Evans Associates in
2000 and 2002 for previous owners. Evans Associates staff also conducted two
additional field investigations in the spring of 2013 prior to the compilation of the
FEIS in order to monitor the vernal pool in Wetland A. During the 2013 field
investigations an Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene Carolina) was observed on site, on
the west side of the vernal pool in Wetland A. The Box Turtle is listed as a Species
of Special Concern by NY NHP. The level of effort expended in the site assessment is
commensurate with the requirements set forth in the Final Scope, and is consistent
with the Yorktown guidelines for wildlife and plant biodiversity assessments in the
absence of documented rare, threatened and endangered species.

Many comments on the DEIS reference the survey methodologies set forth by the
New York National Heritage Program (NY NHP) and DEC. The NY NHP Protocols
and the data forms used by that agency, however, apply only to rare plant and animal
surveys or community characterizations, not the general site assessments required in
the Projects Final Scope. Had the site assessment, literature review (including the
2009 Biodiversity Conservation Study done for the Town of Yorktown), or
information obtained from NY NHP or the US Fish & Wildlife Service turned up any
evidence that there was a potential for the presence of any rare, threatened or
endangered species to be present on or near the site, then a more formal plant or
animal survey would have been undertaken by the Applicants consultants.

The site is separated from other parcels (such as FDR Park) that are considered to be
part of the biodiversity corridor by major transportation corridors (the Taconic
Parkway and Route 202/35) which disrupt and fragment movement of wildlife
species. In an effort to reestablish and preserve habitat surrounding the project site, a
landscape plan has been prepared using native species found in the area. The plan,
which will ultimately be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board, was revised
to include native species and species resistant to deer browse.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-5

Comment III.E 1a - (Letter 81.1, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture and

The Advisory Board on Architecture and Community Appearance reviewed the
subject item during its meeting on October 23, 2012, 2012.

The ABACA landscape architect offers the following recommendations on the
submitted landscaping plan.

The applicant should find a native alternative for the forsythia. Consider replacing the
forsythia with Doublefile Viburnum.

Response III.E 1a:

Forsythia has been eliminated from the plan and replaced with Doublefile Viburnum
(Viburnum plicatum) as recommended.

Comment III.E 1b - (Letter 81.6, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture and

The ABACA recommends keeping the crab apple trees but replace the juniper with a
different ground cover. The reason is not aesthetic. These plants are co-hosts for a
fungus which will effect the health of the plants.

Response III.E 1b:

The two species of groundcover J uniper have been eliminated from the plan and
replaced with Cotoneaster and Potentilla species. It should be noted that the plant list
is conceptual, and all species listed may not be used in the final plans, which will be
reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan approval process.

Comment III.E 1c - (Letter 81.7, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture and

The Board questions who will be responsible for maintaining the trees planted along
the southbound exit ramp? The trees are being proposed by Costco but they will be on
state property. ABACA has concerns that the trees planted as a screening will die
within 2-3 years when wild vines invade them. Will Costco maintain these trees,
especially keeping them free from invasive vines?

Response III.E 1c:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-6

The Applicant will maintain the proposed landscaping within the DOT right-of-way.
Refer to FEIS Response - Site Plan 15.

Comment III.E 2a - (Letter 83.3, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

Planting Concerns:

The DEIS states that the view of the proposed Costco building from the Taconic
Parkway, a scenic byway, will be mitigated by plantings of trees and shrubs. The
proposed planting plan does not adequately show the spacing and quantity of plants
that will be used for landscaping. Additional plant material may need to be added to
insure the visual character of the scenic Taconic Parkway and landscaping to mitigate
tree removal throughout the site.

Response III.E 2a:

The spacing of the evergreens, as shown on the FEIS Conceptual Planting Layout
Plan is approximately 15 feet on center, in a staggered double-row. The quantity of
the evergreens to be used for Zone 3 Road Screen Planting is shown on FEIS drawing
LP-1, Site Landscaping Plan included in FEIS Appendix J . This quantity does take
into account the spacing shown on the plan. The spacing of the trees is intended to
allow for natural growth habit that will provide a long term healthy screen. It should
be noted that the plant list is conceptual, and all species listed may not be used in the
final plans, which will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan
approval process.

Comment III.E 2b - (Letter 83.4, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

The seed mix for each planting zone needs further clarification. New England
Conservation Company provides several kinds of mixtures for different uses. The
analysis is incomplete unless the specific seed mixes are identified for each planting
zone.

Response III.E 2b:

To address this Comment, the seed mixes have been added to each planting zone on
the plan. Seed mixes include erosion control / restoration mixes for the slopes below
the parking lot and basin embankments, and conservation wildlife mix and wetland
mix for other portions of the site.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-7

Comment III.E 2c - (Letter 83.5, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

The landscape and planting plan is inadequate without a minimum 2 year guarantee
on survivability of plantings from day of acceptance. This is to insure that all plant
material is not dead or dying and adequate coverage is provided to satisfy the
intended purpose.

Response III.E 2c:

A two-year guarantee and maintenance period on the new landscape plantings is
reasonable. The Applicant has suggested that the final construction documents would
stipulate a 2-year maintenance and guarantee period on the new plant material that
will be required by the landscape contractor. The length of the maintenance and
guarantee period will be established in connection with the Planning Boards site plan
review.

Comment III.E 2d - (Letter 83.6, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

The DEIS does not address how the proposed project will comply with the Towns
Tree Ordinance.

Response III.E 2d:

A tree survey and ecological communities map (DEIS Exhibits III.E-2 and III.E-3)
and associated impacts thereto have been provided in the DEIS. As quantified in
Table III.E.4 of the DEIS, approximately 8.48 acres of the 18.75 acre Property are
forested. The forested cover types include successional southern hardwood forest
(4.25 acres), oak-tulip forest (3.31 acres), and red maple swamp (0.92 acres). Forty-
seven percent (3.9 acres) of the forest cover is proposed to be impacted by the project
under the modified FEIS plan.
A tree removal plan will be prepared in compliance with the Town of Yorktown Tree
Ordinance and it will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan approval
process and a tree removal permit will be obtained. A landscaping plan (Drawing
CLP-1) to mitigate the effects of the impacts to existing trees on site was included
with the DEIS. An updated landscape plan (LP-1) is included in FEIS Appendix J .

Comment III.E 3 - (Letter 101.3, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust):

The planting schedule for mitigation of wetland A buffer loss due to the location of
the parking areas should reflect not only the use of native plant species but species
that are deer resistant. White pine, mountain laurel, red cedar and rhododendron are

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-8

all listed in the planting plan but known to be readily consumed by deer. Their loss
will reduce the effect of mitigation efforts in the wetland buffer.

Response III.E 3:

No plant species is 100% deer-proof. When hungry, deer will consume almost any
species of plant. Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and Eastern White Pine
(Pinus strobus), which are included in the Applicants proposed landscaping plan, are
identified by Rutgers Cooperative Extension (www.rce.rutgers.edu) as deer-resistant
species which are seldom severely damaged by deer browse. Kalmia (mountain
laurel) and Rhododendron may be prone to deer predation, but provide year round
visual interest (evergreen foliage) and spring color. Appropriate deer protection
options (sprays, canopy netting, deer fence, etc.) will be employed at the time of
installation and during the maintenance periods. A guarantee and maintenance period
on the new landscape plantings will be established by the Planning Board.

Comment III.E 4 - (Letter 108.14, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Pg. III.E-13b Mammals: The discussion of mammal species that may potentially
utilize the site should include a more comprehensive list of bat species. In
addition to big brown bats, there are several other species many of which are
declining due to white-nose syndrome.

Response III.E 4:

According to the American Society of Mamologists, there are nine species of bats
found throughout the State of New York, including Little Brown Bat (Myotis
lucifugus), Keens Bat (Myotis kenii), Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis), Small-footed Bat
(Myotis leibii), Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), Eastern Pipistrelle
(Pipistrellus subflavus), Big Brown Bat (Eptisicus fuscus), Red Bat (Lasiurus
borealis), and Hoary Bat (Lasiuris cinereus). Seven of the species of bats listed are
considered common throughout the state, while Small-footed Bat is a special concern
species in New York and Indiana Bat is endangered at both the state and federal level.
Any of the species listed above have the potential to occur on the site. Mitigation
measures to avoid impacts to bats (Indiana Bat in particular) were discussed in the
DEIS at III.E-33, and include limiting tree clearing activity to the fall and winter
months when the bats are in hibernation and enhancing landscaped areas to include
species used for roosting during the summer months.



_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-9

Pg. III.E-13b (Birds): A formal breeding bird survey should be done to properly
assess potential impacts to species breeding on site. Additionally, discussion of
impacts to bird species should not be restricted to forest interior species. Species that
utilize successional forest and old field habitats should be assessed as well. Some
species, dependent on these habitats, are declining as rapidly as some forest interior
species.

Response III.E 5:

A formal breeding bird survey was not included in the Final Scope for the Project.
Bird observations were made during the field investigations of the Site, however, and
were noted in the EIS. Impacts upon bird species that utilize successional forests
within the Projects area of disturbance were discussed in the EIS. See DEIS at III.E-
32.

Data on bird distribution is available online from the NYS Breeding Bird Atlas
(http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html). The Project site falls in the middle of
Block 5957C. In accordance with the Final Scope, this data, together with
information from field investigations, was reviewed as part of the site analysis for the
DEIS. However, based on literature, the site is too small to provide suitable habitat
for most forest interior birds. The forest edge and old field species that were
observed on the site are typical of suburban / residential areas, and the species list
provided in the DEIS includes potential species found in these habitats.


Pg. III.E-18c: The discussion on wildlife corridors should be expanded to include
more taxonomic groups in addition to amphibians and to more fully discuss the site
within the context of the larger landscape. The project site is located between the
Sylvan Glen Biotic Planning Unit (cited in the Miller and Klemens report as
regionally important for biodiversity and as mentioned on Pg. III.E-20e) about 0.5
miles to the west and the Franklin D. Roosevelt State Park, also designated in the
Miller and Klemens report as an area regionally important for biodiversity,
immediately to the south and east and thus may serve as a corridor for mobile
wildlife such as birds between these two areas of high biodiversity. The site is also
situated above undeveloped parcels and Mohansic County Park, interspersed with
developed lands and roads, and to the south that connect the site with City owned
and other protected lands around New Croton Reservoir. This section should
acknowledge that the project site is connected to large undeveloped tracts of land to
the northwest, southeast and south and assess impacts to wildlife habitat and
connectivity in that context. Small links such as this can be very important for

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-10

connecting areas of high biodiversity.

Response III.E 6:

A potential localized wildlife corridor exists along the western and northwestern
portion of the Property, to the north and west of, and including, Wetland A. It is
possible for wildlife such as frogs and salamanders to travel from the vernal pool in
Wetland A to the north or west in the uplands, or to the south via the intermittent
stream within Wetland A. Other animals, such as mammals and reptiles, may also
use these routes to travel throughout the site and to nearby areas to the north of the
Property. Applicant asserts that it is unlikely that high value wildlife corridors occur
through the Property because the eastern side of the Property is limited by the
Taconic Parkway, and the southern side of the Property is constrained by Route
202/35. Any wildlife movement along the ground from west or north to the east or
south through the Property would essentially lead to a major transportation corridor.
In addition, Wetland B has seasonally variable hydrology due to fluctuating ground
water levels, and is therefore not capable of supporting breeding amphibians.
Wetland B would therefore would not be a desirable destination for many species
other than breeding song birds which may nest in the shrubby vegetation.

Off-site habitats to the north and west of the Property contain a variety of wildlife
habitats. These areas, and other areas within Yorktown, have been reviewed in other
documents, including Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study for the Town
of Yorktown New York (Environmental Design Consulting, 2007), Biodiversity
Conservation Study Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York (STEARNS
& WHELER, LLC, 2010), and Ecological Survey of the Costco Development Site,
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, NY (Barbour, 2012). However, the majority
of the assessments and study sites in these documents do not specifically address the
portions of the site that are proposed for development; therefore, the DEIS provided
more site-specific information.

The wildlife corridors along the western edge of the Property and to the north will not
be altered or impacted by the Project. The Project has been reconfigured several
times in order to best protect the natural resources on and near the Property, including
wildlife corridors.


Pg. III.E-20e: There are other development-sensitive species mentioned in the Miller
and Klemens report that are listed in Table III.E.2 as potentially or actually occurring
on site that should be discussed in this section. These species include: Yellow-

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-11

throated Vireo, Eastern Box Turtle, Northern Black Racer and Black Rat Snake.

Response III.E 7:

As discussed in the DEIS (Section III.E.1. e and f.), the MCA report prepared by
Miller and Klemens states that certain species of animals respond specifically to
development impacts. These species are termed focal taxa and can generally be
divided into development-sensitive species and development-associated species.
Development-sensitive species are those species that are typically habitat specialists
that are compromised by development. Development-associated species are those
species that are habitat generalists that tend to favor habitats that have already been
degraded or altered by humans. Each development-sensitive species is discussed
below.

An Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene Carolina) was observed on site, on the west side
of the vernal pool in Wetland A on April 1, 2013, and is therefore confirmed in the
forested portion of the Property where no development is proposed to occur. The
Eastern Box Turtle is a Species of Special Concern in the state of New York, as well
as in the adjacent states of Connecticut and Massachusetts. The Eastern Box Turtle is
a terrestrial species that inhabits a variety of habitats. These habitats include dry and
moist woodlands, brushy fields and field edges, thickets, marshes and marsh edges,
bogs, fens, swales, and stream banks. However, box turtles are most-often found in
well-drained forest bottomlands and open deciduous forests. Box turtles overwinter
(hibernate) in upland forests, and sometimes near closed-canopy wetlands in the
forest. They burrow a few inches under the ground surface, into soil, decaying
vegetation, and/or into mud, often under leaf litter or woody debris. In warm
weather, Box Turtles are most active in the mornings and evenings, and often spend
the warmer portions of the day in springs and seeps where they can burrow into the
moist soil, or they seek shelter in rotting logs, decaying leaves, or in mammal
burrows. They often spend the night in a form that they create in leaf litter, grasses,
ferns, or mosses. Females searching for a nesting site may travel great distances (up
to a mile or more) for nesting habitat. This habitat includes early successional fields,
meadows, utility right of ways, woodland openings, roadsides, cultivated gardens,
residential lawns, mulch piles, beach dunes, and abandoned gravel pits.

While Box Turtles can inhabit a variety of areas, preferred habitat on the subject
property is located in the forested area in the vicinity of Wetland A. The box turtle
that was observed on site was found a few feet to the west of the ponded portion of
Wetland A, on top of some leaf litter (see map). Wetland A and the area to the west
of the wetland are not proposed to be disturbed, with 93% of the upland forested
buffer remaining intact. In addition, much of the forested wetland buffer will remain

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-12

along the eastern side of Wetland A. A retaining wall is proposed to be built along
the eastern edge of the Wetland A buffer. This wall will provide a physical barrier so
that turtles and other animals will not be able to travel into the developed portion of
the property, or onto Route 202/35. Travel routes for turtles and other animals along
the localized forested corridor that extends along the western property boundary, from
Old Crompond Road through Wetland A and off site to the north, will not be
disturbed. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Box Turtle habitat on the site will be
preserved and the species will continue to inhabit the western portion of the site.

Northern Black Racers are typically found in transitional areas including fields and
roadsides, and therefore may inhabit the site. They eat a variety of insects,
amphibians and small mammals and birds, and would therefore have available habitat
in the western portion of the site following development. The same is true for the
Black Rat Snake, which often competes with the Northern Black Racer for habitat.

The Yellow-throated Vireo is a species that breeds in mixed deciduous forests such as
those found in the western portion of the site, which will remain undisturbed. None of
the other species mentioned in the comment are currently protected in New York
State.


Pg. III.E.21: The New York Natural Heritage Program response letter dated August
26, 2010 should be updated as the database is constantly updated and the letter is now
over two years old.

Response III.E 8:

The current response letter from the New York Natural Heritage Program is dated
October 9, 2012, and is identified as Document 40, which is included in its entirety in
Appendix A of the FEIS. Also refer to FEIS Comments III.F2 and III.F 23. The letter
identified the Red Maple Hardwood Swamp area found on the Franklin Roosevelt
State Park as significant natural community. The description in the letter also states
that the hardwood swamp has a relatively narrow buffer of natural communities
surrounded by a fragmented landscape. The Property is separated from this natural
community by two large transportation corridors (the Taconic Parkway and Route
202/35).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-13


Exhibit III.E-2, Tree Survey Map: Many trees depicted immediately adjacent to the
limit of disturbance may also be sufficiently disturbed by site grading and suffer
damage from disturbance activities. Typically, any tree that will have 1/3 or more of
its root system either covered with 3 or more inches of soil or other materials or cut
away will die within the first 10 years of disturbance. It is recommended that the trees
immediately adjacent to the limit of disturbance be reviewed to determine whether
additional trees may need to be removed prior to or during construction to avoid later
hazards resulting from mortality.

Response III.E 9:

The FEIS assumes that trees immediately adjacent to the limit of disturbance may be
impacted by the proposed construction. The limit of disturbance line is shown (FEIS
Site Plan Exhibits 2, 3 and 8c)10-feet beyond the actual limit of grading to account
for potential impact to trees adjacent to construction. The extent of the westerly
embankment has been reduced on the FEIS Site Plan (FEIS Exhibit III.G - A1),
resulting in reduced impact to existing trees. A landscaping plan (Drawing CLP-1) to
offset the effects of the impacts to existing trees on site was included with the DEIS.
An updated landscape plan, LP-1, is included in FEIS Appendix J . A formal tree
removal plan will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan approval
process, and a final Landscape Plan will be submitted at that time to offset any tree
loss. . During construction the actual trees to be removed will be clearly marked..


Exhibit III.E-5, Conceptual Planting Layout Plan: No seed mix was proposed for
Zones 1, 2 and 6. A mix such as the New England Erosion Control/Restoration Mix
for Detention Basins and Moist Sites or New England Wetmix would be suitable for
these areas. It is recommended that perennials or other native herbaceous plants be
added to the proposed plans for Zones 1, 2, and 4, since the addition of small plugs of
these would further enhance wetland function and wildlife habitat and establish
complete native vegetative cover more quickly than tree and shrub plantings alone.

Response III.E 10:

There is already an existing stable vegetative cover in zones 1 and 2; therefore, live
plugs are not needed in these zones. Live plugs are not recommended for zone 4 for a
number of reasons. First, the slopes to be re-vegetated would still require seeding,
mulching, and erosion control blanket in addition to plugs; therefore plugs are a

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-14

redundant step. Second, the plugs would be installed after the seeding operation,
thereby causing unnecessary and potentially erosion causing impacts to the slopes
recently seeded and covered. Third, due to the steepness of the proposed slopes,
plugs would not provide any significant habitat enhancement, and the quantity of
plugs that would be required to provide any kind of erosion control would not be cost
effective. The Conservation Wildlife Mixture proposed contains a diverse mix of
native species, including perennials. Please note that seed mixes have now been
proposed in all of the planting zones. See FEIS Response III.E.2b.


Exhibit III.E-5, Conceptual Planting Layout Plan: Upon review of the Planting Zone
Species Recommendations, minor modifications to the proposed lists for each
planting zone are suggested below:

While the majority of species within the Zone 2 - Wetland Buffer Enhancement
and Road Screen Planting list of trees and shrubs are native, limber pine (Pinus
flexilis) is a notable exception. This species is not native to New York and it is
recommended that native plants with similar characteristics be considered to
replace this one, such as: American holly (Ilex opaca), eastern red cedar (J uniperus
virginiana), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), and pitch pine (Pinus rigida). These
would provide more wildlife habitat values for our eastern species in addition to
screening the building from nearby highways and residences.

Response III.E 11:

The Applicant has eliminated Limber pine (Pinus flexilis) from the plan and
American Holly (Ilex opaca) has been added to the plan. It should be noted that the
plant list is conceptual, and all species listed may not be used in the final plans, which
will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan approval process.



In Zone 3 Road Screen Planting, there are some species that may pose problems
over time, depending on the maintenance schedule and proximity to deer herds.
American arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis) is known to be a favorite species for deer
herbivory, seldom providing the anticipated screening value as deer browse as high

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-15

as they can reach, sometimes standing on their hind legs. Locally, forsythia is
known to escape cultivation and can become invasive in forest understories.
Arrowwood viburnum may be severely impacted by deer herbivorynot only in
this zone, but in any areas where they are proposed for plantingand screening
value may be reduced. Some other native shrubs that are more deer-resistant and
have good screening value include ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius) and
sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana).

Response III.E 12:

American Arborvitae has been removed from the plan, and Sweetbay Magnolia and
Ninebark have been added. It should be noted that the plant list is conceptual, and not
all species listed will be used in the final plans. Appropriate deer protection options
(sprays, canopy netting, deer fence, etc.) will be employed at the time of installation
and during the maintenance periods. See also FEIS Response III.E.3.



In Zone 4 Wetland Buffer Slope Replanting, green ash is proposed. Emerald
Ash Borer is spreading from Dutchess, Orange and Ulster Counties and will likely
be in Westchester in the near future. It is recommended that any proposed ash be
replaced with another suitable species. There is some concern that many of the
shrub species proposed for this planting are not particularly shade-tolerant and may
not be suitable for planting in the arrangement depicted on the layout plan, where
many will fall under the canopy of planted trees. Although on a fairly exposed
west-facing slope, certain species really perform best in full sun though they may
survive in partial shade. There is also some concern that certain species will
require more moisture than they will receive at the top of a slope near a parking
lot. Consider either moving the summersweet, sweetfern, meadowsweet, beach
plum, and bayberry further downslope and into the sunshine, or replace them with
more shade-tolerant species. In addition, the summersweet, inkberry, arrowwood
viburnum, and meadowsweet prefer more moist conditions, while the other shrubs
can tolerate a good deal of thought. Please assure that the species that are less
drought-tolerant are placed in areas with sufficient moisture.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-16

Response III.E 13:

Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Beach Plum (Prunus maritima), Inkberry (Ilex
glabra), and Meadowsweet (Spiraea latifolia) have been removed from the plan.
Plant species such as Bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica) and Summersweet (Clethra
alnifolia) are very adaptable to shady, dry, and salt prone locations (from de-icing
compounds) and should thrive well in the locations shown for zone 4. It should be
noted that the plant list is conceptual, and all species listed may not be used in the
final plans, which will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan
approval process.



For Zone 5 New Parking Lot Ornamental & Street Tree Planting, white and
green ash are both proposed species. Please note comments above regarding
Emerald Ash Borer. It is recommended to delete these species from the plan.

Response III.E 14:

The Applicant has eliminated the ash species noted from the plan. It should be noted
that the plant list is conceptual, and all species listed may not be used in the final
plans, which will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan approval
process.



In Zone 6 Stormwater Basin Planting, a more detailed Stormwater Detention
Planting Plan is required to assure that material is properly matched to moisture
regimes. As soil moisture typically varies significantly from the bottom of a basin
to the top of the slope, basins should be divided into various zones by elevation. It
does not appear that plants listed tolerate drier conditions that would occur four or
more feet above normal water level. Drawing C-701 appears to indicate that the
difference in elevation between the base and rim of the basin may be as much as

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-17

20 feet. Please clarify the difference in elevation between normal inundation and
the top of the basin and provide a more detailed planting plan for this feature.

Response III.E 15:

The FEIS Stormwater Management Plan provides 100% of the water quality
treatment in an infiltration practice, which will provide both runoff reduction and
water quality treatment. (Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response.) As a result, the
stormwater attenuation facility will function as a dry detention basin.

With the changes proposed for the design of the stormwater management basin, the
planting of the basin has therefore been changed. The previously selected Zone 6
plants are not appropriate for this basin. Applicant now proposes to install a seed mix
of native herbaceous plants in the floor and side slopes of the basin. The seed mix
will consist of obligate and facultative wetland plants. These plants are very well
able to withstand periodic inundation from precipitation events, so long as there is no
long term or standing water in the basin.

Seed mixes that are appropriate for the planting of the stormwater basin include: (1)
New England Erosion Control/Restoration Mix for Detention Basins and Moist Sites
from New England Wetland Plants, Inc., and (2) Retention Basin Wildlife Mix from
Ernst Conservation Seeds.

Comment III.E 16 - (Letter 137.1, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

I am a New York State licensed wildlife rehabilitator (#1337) and collect reports of
Eastern Box turtle sightings in our area. I also volunteer at Teatown Lake Reservation
and have hundreds of hours of field experience with Eastern box turtle conservation
efforts.

In this letter I address concerns regarding the standard and thoroughness of the
biological survey at the proposed Costco development site. It appears that the data is
not adequate, overly generalized, and woefully incomplete, therefore all
environmental impacts of the project cannot possibly have been fully assessed as
required by the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Without a complete
biological survey, it is impossible to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate potential
environmental impacts of the project.

There are documented cases of Eastern box turtles living over 100 years. They have
site fidelity and cannot be moved from their home habitat. Habitat ranges from 500

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-18

square yards to over 1,000 acres. The New York DEC lists Eastern box turtles as
Species of Greatest Conservation Needs and the New York Heritage Program gives
this species a S3 ranking. They are listed as threatened in Westchester. The species is
listed as vulnerable on the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources) red list which just one step above endangered. These animals
are also CITES listed.

On or about August 21, 2012 I received a report of a box turtle sighting from a local
resident whose property abuts the proposed Costco development. I also help citizens
protect turtle nesting sites and in this report, there was concern that there had been
nesting activity. I was asked about. . . signs of egg laying by a box turtle we recently
found in our back yard.

According to the Croton-to-Highlands Biodiversity Plan: Balancing Development and
the Environment in the Hudson River Estuary Catchment Miller, N. A. and M. W.
Klemens. 2004, MCA Technical Paper No. 7, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance,
Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, the proposed Costco development
site abuts a critical wildlife corridor that spans the Croton to Highlands region.
This geographic area is at an ecological crossroads, and many ecological treasures
remain intact. Eastern box turtles (along with wood frogs and spotted salamanders)
are listed as Development Sensitive and Listed Focal-Species according to the Croton
to Highlands Biodiversity Plan.

The Costco parcel is situated between two delineated biodiversity areas of the Croton-
to Highlands corridor. As such the proposed Costco parcel is important as a buffer;
one which. . . buffers the existing habitat hubs from externally caused degradations
(e.g., runoff of polluted water from roads and parking lots, noise pollution). It also
reduces edge effects, (e.g., changes in vegetation structure, temperature, predation
levels, parasitism levels, and other factors near habitat edges), all of which can
negatively impact area-sensitive species. In addition, the buffers will often serve as
additional habitat. (Ibid.)

According to Surveying for New York s High priority Reptiles and Amphibians:
Implications for Standardized Protocols a report prepared for the DEC by the New
York Natural Heritage Program, it is critical that surveys be done at the appropriate
seasons, during times when turtles are known to be active, and with sufficient man
hours per survey. (See table 26.)

Table 26. Suggested guidelines for Eastern box turtle presence/absence surveys.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-19

Chaloux, A.M., J .W. J aycox, J .D. Corser, M.D. Schlesinger, H.Y. Shaw, and E.A.
Spencer. 2010. Surveying for New Yorks high priority reptiles and amphibians:
implications for standardized protocols. A report prepared for New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. New York Natural Heritage Program,
Albany, NY.

According to the Conserving Natural Areas and Wildlife in Your Community: Smart
Growth Strategies for Protecting the Biological Diversity of New Yorks Hudson
River Valley by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
The standards outline detailed methods: the survey must be conducted by a qualified
biologist and must occur during a season appropriate for finding the target species.
For example, breeding birds must be assessed during the breeding season (from mid-

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-20

May to early J uly), when they are most likely to be observed (in the early morning).
The standards also require that surveys are conducted in all habitats on the property.
Applicants must prepare a report for the town that includes methods, location specific
wildlife observations, and recommended development alternatives to minimize
disturbance. Finally, the data need to be delivered in a way that can be incorporated
into the towns GIS.

Animals such as the Eastern box turtle (as well as many other reptiles and
amphibians) with cryptic coloration and behaviors are difficult survey subjects. A
badly timed survey can easily create the false impression that these animals are not
present. It is vital that surveys be conducted at times and in weather conditions when
these animals are known to be active. Otherwise false negatives are likely. The only
site visits listed as happening in close temporal proximity to rain were in April, at
very low temperatures, meaning that turtles would not be very active.

The Costco DEIS provides no indication of how many man-hours were spent per
survey or overall. Nor does the DEIS provide any information about the exact times
when the surveys were conducted.

In light of the foregoing information, the following questions should be answered:

1) Without documentation of the exact times that the surveys were conducted, how
can the survey be considered sufficient to meet the DEC and New York Natural
Heritage Program protocols?

Response III.E 16:

The site investigations total over 100 hours of field time over a period of two years,
with additional investigations occurring after the completion of the DEIS. The date, time,
purpose and weather conditions are described in the table below.
Site Inspection Details
Date of Site
Investigation
Evans
Associates
Personnel*
Purpose of Site Investigation
Approximate
Time on Site
Weather
Conditions
06/08/2010
RG, ES Boundary delineation of Wetland A
and Wetland B, including data
collection for vegetation;
Review of flow/hydrology of
Wetland A and Wetland B;
On-site data collection for upland
flora and fauna
4.25 70-75
o
F; mostly
sunny, then cloudy
with light rain
06/29/2010
RG Site review of Wetland A, Wetland
B, and stormwater ditch along east
side of property with DEP for
regulated watercourses
4.5 80-85
o
F; mostly
sunny

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-21

08/05/2010
BE, RG, ES Confirm wetland delineation and
jurisdiction of Wetland A and
Wetland B with Town (B. Barber);
Review off-site stormwater ditch
(along east side of property) with B.
Barber;
On-site data collection of upland
vegetation
4.5 80-85
o
F; overcast
08/30/2010
RG Site review of Wetland A and
watercourses
6.75 not documented
03/29/2011
RG On-site data collection of vernal pool
inhabitants (in Wetland A and in
surrounding uplands);
Wetland A;
Review flow/hydrology of Wetland
B;
ponds
6 40-45
o
F; clear
04/14/2011
RG, ES Tree survey;
On-site data collection of vernal pool
Wetland B;
Off-site review of northern wetlands
(stormwater basin and ponded areas)
and southern wetland (south of Old
Crompond Road)
6.25 50-55
o
F; partly
sunny (rain
previous 2 days)
04/21/2011
RG, ES Tree survey;
On-site data collection: upland
vegetation, birds, Wetland B
flow/hydrology;
Off-site wetland review (between site
wetlands and Hunter Brook)
6.25 50-55
o
F; mostly
sunny
04/25/2011
RG, ES Tree survey;
Check flow/hydrology of Wetland B
6.75 60-65
o
F; overcast
04/26/2011
RG, ES Tree survey

6 65-75
o
F; overcast
to partly sunny
04/27/2011
RG Tree survey;
Wetland B
6 65-70
o
F; overcast
to partly sunny
05/03/2011
RG Tree survey;
Wetland B
6.75 65-70
o
F; overcast
05/25/2011
RG, ES Site review of Wetland A and
watercourses
2.25
10:AM
12:45 PM
70-75
o
F; clear
11/04/2011
BE Site walk with the Conservation
Board
4
04/01/2013 BE, ES On-site data collection of vernal pool 2.0 47
o
F; cloudy with

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-22

ponds
1:45-3:45 PM intermittent rain
04/17/2013
flow/hydrology of Wetland A
2.0
1:30- 3:30PM
60-65
o
F; sunny

The Property is located immediately to the west of the Taconic Parkway, and
immediately to the north of Routes 202/35. Because of this location, combined with
its past and current development history, the majority of the property that is proposed
to be developed does not contain high value wildlife habitat. The remainder of the
site will remain undisturbed, including the forested area in the western-most portion
of the Property, adjacent to and including Wetland A. Wetland A also contains a
vernal pool, which is considered important habitat for breeding amphibians and other
species requiring a fish-free aquatic environment. As discussed previously, Wetland
A and the wooded uplands surrounding it are areas which contain higher value
wildlife habitat, and are not proposed to be developed.

A potential wildlife corridor exists along the western and northwestern portion of the
property, to the north and west of, and including, Wetland A. It is possible for
wildlife such as frogs and salamanders to travel from the vernal pool in Wetland A to
the north or west in the uplands, or to the south via the intermittent stream within
Wetland A. Other animals, including a variety of mammals, may also use these
routes to travel. It is unlikely that wildlife corridors occur through the remainder of
the subject property, however. The eastern side of the property is limited by the
Taconic Parkway, and the southern side of the property is constrained by Route
202/35. Any wildlife movement along the ground from west or north to the east or
south through the property would essentially lead to a major transportation corridor
which fragments the available habitat. In addition, Wetland B does has seasonally
fluctuating hydrology and is not capable of supporting breeding amphibians, and
therefore would not be a desirable destination for many species other than nesting
songbirds. The localized wildlife corridors along the western edge of the property,
and to the north of the site will not be altered or impacted by the proposed project.

Off-site habitats to the north and west of the site contain a variety of wildlife habitats.
These areas, and other areas within Yorktown, have been reviewed in other
documents including Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study for the Town
of Yorktown New York (Environmental Design Consulting, 2007;
http://www.yorktownny.org/planning/freshwater-wetlands-functional-assessment-

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-23

study-2007), Biodiversity Conservation Study Town of Yorktown, Westchester
County, New York (Stearns & Wheler, LLC, 2010;
http://www.yorktownny.org/planning/biodiversity-conservation-study), and
Ecological Survey of the Costco Development Site, Town of Yorktown, Westchester
County, NY (Barbour, 2012; Document 170 included in FEIS Appendix A). However,
the majority of the evaluations done in these documents do not specifically address
the portions of the site that are proposed for development; therefore the DEIS was
prepared to address more site-specific information.

In the Ecological Survey, the on-site habitats of concern include the wetlands
(Wetland A and Wetland B) and the west ridge (west of Wetland A), of which only a
small portion is located on the Property. Wetland A and the west ridge are not
proposed to be impacted, and the proposed stormwater infiltration practices will
maintain the groundwater-driven hydrology of the wetland. Some encroachment into
the 100-foot buffer of Wetland A is proposed, and these indirect impacts to the
wetlands are discussed in the DEIS and FEIS Section III.G. (Refer to FEIS III.G
Introductory Summary Response, item 1). Other potential indirect impacts to
Wetland A include changes in surface water runoff due to proposed increases in
impervious surfaces. Under the present Stormwater Management Plan, no direct
surface runoff will be directed to Wetland A, including the vernal pool in the upper
reach of the wetland. As discussed in the DEIS, Wetland A is sustained mainly by
the groundwater table. The Stormwater Management Plan has been revised to
provide infiltration to the water table in order to to retain hydrology, as well as to
maintain the quality of the water infiltrating to the groundwater and/or flowing off the
site. Stormwater management, including water balance to Wetland A are discussed in
FEIS Section III.G Introductory Response, and the hydrology of the wetlands is also
discussed in FEIS Section III. F.

Little of the remaining property contains high value wildlife habitat, and development
is proposed primarily in areas that are currently developed, or were developed in the
past. These areas include abandoned hotel buildings with surrounding paved areas,
an abandoned building (former fence contractor), a nursery, and a residence. In
addition, former septic tanks and fields (since removed) were located to the west of
the hotel, and a swimming pool (currently filled) was located to the east of the hotel.
Therefore, the Applicant asserts that additional environmental evaluation of the
property is beyond the scope of what is necessary to adequately evaluate the impacts
of the proposed project on the property and its surrounding areas.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-24


2) Without documentation of the precise weather conditions at the time the surveys
were conducted, how can the survey be considered sufficient to meet the DEC and
New York Natural Heritage Program protocols?

Response III.E 17:

Weather conditions were recorded for all but one survey date. According to the
weather records for the Yorktown Heights area, the weather on August 30, 2010 at
mid-day was clear and temperatures were between 75 - 80F
(http//weathersource.com).


3) Without documentation of the number of man hours spent surveying for turtles
and other cryptic animals, how can the survey be considered sufficient to meet the
DEC and New York Natural Heritage Program protocols?

Response III.E 18:

Species-specific wildlife and vegetation surveys were not undertaken on the site as no
records of threatened or endangered species of plants or animals or significant natural
communities were identified for the project site by the NYS DEC Natural Heritage
Program or for northern Westchester County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In
accordance with the Yorktown Biodiversity Policy, the Croton-to-Hudson
Biodiversity Study (MCA Technical Paper Series #7, 2004) was reviewed to
determine if the Project was located within or near an area identified as rich in
biodiversity. In conducting the routine site evaluation for the DEIS, Evans Associates
staff biologists were on the site twelve days between 2010 and 2012, including eight
days spent performing a tree inventory and general site assessment (6 to 8 hours per
day) from late March through the end of May in 2011. Additional site investigations
were undertaken in April of 2013 during the daylight hours in order to further
document conditions in Wetland A and the surrounding forested area. Refer to III.E
Introductory Response and DEIS page III.E-1.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-25


Since these surveys were conducted at times when Eastern box turtles and other
reptiles are likely to be inactive or difficult to find, how can the public be assured that
a good faith effort was made to find and document species that may be subject to
protection under County, State, or Federal statutes?

Response III.E 19:

Multiple site assessments were conducted during the Eastern box turtles active
season, which lasts from approximately mid-April to mid-October, and, as set forth in
the DEIS, such surveys included a search for box turtle nests and eggs. (Refer to III.E
Introductory Response.) While no evidence of Eastern box turtles were detected
during the field assessments prior to 2013, the DEIS (III.E-17) noted the potential
presence of box turtles based upon the Applicants analysis of potential habitat and
literature review.

An Eastern Box Turtle was observed on site, on the west side of the vernal pool in
Wetland A on April 1, 2013. The vernal pool was also monitored in the spring of
2013 to identify species of amphibian using the pool as breeding habitat. As
discussed in FEIS Response III. E. 7, Wetland A and the area to the west of the
wetland are not proposed to be disturbed, with 93% of the upland forested buffer
remaining intact. In addition, much of the forested wetland buffer will remain along
the eastern side of Wetland A. A retaining wall is proposed to be built along the
eastern edge of the Wetland A buffer. This wall will provide a physical barrier so
that turtles and other animals will not be able to travel into the developed portion of
the property, or onto Route 202/35. Travel routes for turtles and other animals along
the localized forested corridor that extends along the western property boundary, from
Old Crompond Road through Wetland A and off site to the north, will not be
disturbed. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Box Turtle habitat on the site will be
preserved and the species will continue to inhabit the western portion of the site.


4) Since one of the surveys was conducted on 3/29/11, which is typically during
the Eastern box turtle hibernation period, how can such a survey be considered
applicable to reptiles?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-26

Response III.E 20:

Please see FEIS Response III.E 19. In addition, weather conditions during the month
of March in 2011 (http//weathersource.com) were generally warm and there was
above average rainfall, both of which often trigger early emergence of reptiles and
amphibians.


5) Since the surveys of 4/14/11, 4/25/11, 4/26/11, 4/27/11 were conducted when
Eastern box turtles were just beginning to emerge from their hibernacula and there is
no mention of searching for forms, the term accepted by the scientific community
for the tunnels in which these animals rest as they gradually warm up from
hibernating, how can this survey be considered comprehensive, at least with respect
to this species?

Response III.E 21:

The dates cited in this Comment are well within the active period indicated for this
species in Comment FEIS III.E.16. The weather conditions documented for those
field dates are appropriate according to the guidelines presented in this Comment.
Also see FEIS Response III.E.20.


How can the survey of 8/30/10 even be considered as part of the DEIS when weather
conditions are noted as not documented?

Response III.E 22:

The work that was being conducted on the site in August of 2010 was not weather-
dependent, and therefore the weather conditions were not documented in the field
notes. According to the weather records for the Yorktown Heights area, the weather
on August 30, 2010 at mid-day was clear and temperatures were between 75 - 80F
(http//weathersource.com). Even if the 8/30/2010 field data were not included in the
DEIS, there are still eleven field days spanning a two year period when weather
conditions were recorded.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-27


How can the survey be considered sufficient when two surveys (6/29/10 and
8/5/10), were conducted when temperatures were high enough that many reptile
species are likely to have been in estivation and box turtles are more cryptic?

Response III.E 23:

Species-specific wildlife surveys were not undertaken on the Property as no records
of threatened or endangered species of plants or animals or significant natural
communities were identified for the Project Site. (Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory
Response.) Field work on the dates mentioned would have been focused on less
temperature-sensitive species of wildlife (mammals and birds) and vegetation.


If the surveys for Eastern Box Turtles and other reptiles were so poorly
conducted, how can the public rely on other statements made in the DEIS?

Response III.E 24:

As set forth above, the site assessments and biological community evaluations
performed by the Applicants consultants fully complied with the requirements in the
DEIS Final Scope for a description of wildlife species found or anticipated to be
found on the site and an assessment of the potential presence of any rare, threatened
or endangered species. The wildlife analysis was not based upon field assessments
alone, but also a review of prior regional surveys and relevant literature and an
analysis of potential habitat and migration corridors. It is noted that while the DEIS
identified the potential occurrence of Eastern box turtles on the Site, subsequent field
work in 2013 by the Applicants consultants resulted in the observation of an Eastern
box turtle in the area surrounding Wetland A. This is evidence that the amount of
time that biologists spent on the Site over a two year period in conjunction with the
review of literature and existing records in State data bases was ample to accurately
characterize the habitats present on the site and the potential species using the site.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-28


If there is a credible sighting of an Eastern box turtle on property that abuts the
proposed Costco development and a suspicion that nesting had recently taken place
(which suggests a breeding population may be present) how can the public be assured
that numerous animals of this and other species were not overlooked in the course of
the surveys?

Response III.E 25:

Please see FEIS Responses III.E 16, 19 and 24. It is entirely consistent with
biological survey methodology that not every species present on a site will be
detected in every field survey. This is why the Applicants consultants conducted
multiple field assessments over the course of several months and years (during the
growing season and when temperatures were above 42F), and relied upon published
literature and prior regional surveys to supplement the analysis.


Since the field notes are minimal and seemingly perfunctory times, exact
weather conditions, types of habitat and flora were not consistently provided how
can the public be assured that surveys were comprehensive, professional, and
sufficient to meet the statutory requirements?

Response III.E 26:

As described in the Introduction to this section, no records of rare species or sensitive
natural communities were identified in proximity to the site, and no significant habitats
were identified during the initial site surveys. Therefore no species-specific wildlife
surveys were conducted. (Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory Response.) Moreover, the
Applicants consultants conducted multiple field assessments over the course of two
years (during the growing season and when temperatures were above 42F), and relied
upon published literature and prior regional surveys to supplement the analysis.


No staff members at Evans Associates are listed as having advanced degrees in
biology, and the companys website does not indicate that any staff have other

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-29

certifications or specific experience in field biology. Given the lack of credentialed
field biologists on the Evans Associates staff, the perfunctory nature of the field notes,
and the questionable choices with regard to the timing of the surveys, how can the
public be confident that fieldwork was conducted n a competent and professional
manner?

Response III.E 27:

Evans Associates has over twenty-five years of relevant experience in natural
resource inventory and assessment in New York. Staff includes personnel holding
certifications in wetlands and soil science, undergraduate degrees in biology and
advanced degrees in biology and environmental science . The companys website is
frequently updated to reflect staff changes, and does not necessarily reflect the
personnel contributing to the data collection for this site. For more information on the
personnel who conducted the natural resource assessment, refer to FEIS III.E
Introductory Response.


Since some amphibian species are nocturnal, how can the public be assured that the
surveys are complete and thorough when all were done during daylight hours?

Response III.E 28:

Please see FEIS Responses III.E 16 and 19. Amphibian assessments looked for eggs,
spermatophores, and/or larvae, which would be detectible during the daylight hours.
Logs and large stones were turned over in the uplands on the site. Other survey
methods used to assess nocturnal movement, such as drift fences and pit-fall traps and
mist nets are not appropriate for this type of study, as they must be checked within 24
hours of being set, and often lead to mortality of the species being inventoried due to
predation or desiccation.


Given that this development will increase traffic through sensitive Croton-to
Highlands biodiversity areas, wouldnt that merit a thorough wildlife survey to
reassure the public that this natural resource is being adequately protected?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-30

Response III.E 29:

Increases in traffic are discussed in Section FEIS III.Kof the DEIS, but do not
typically relate to wildlife movement, which is impacted by the current levels of
traffic in this busy transportation corridor. The expected increase in traffic associated
with the Project will use existing transportation corridors and would not result in any
new fragmentation or disruption of existing wildlife corridors. Since new roads are
not required to serve the Project, no new impacts to the corridors identified in the
Croton-on-Hudson study are expected.


Have impacts on the entire biodiversity corridor been taken into account?

Response III.E 30:

Yes, refer to FEIS Response III.E 16 and DEIS III.E-32.


The State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process requires that all
environmental impacts of a project be identified in order to eliminate, minimize, or
mitigate them. Since the surveys appear to be inadequate by any scientific standard,
how can they possibly identify potential impacts on amphibian, reptilian, or other
species?

Response III.E 31:

No records of protected species were identified in proximity to the Site.. The
Applicants consultants conducted multiple field assessments over the course of
several months (during the growing season and when temperatures were above 42F),
and relied upon published literature and prior regional surveys to supplement the
analysis. Based on the analysis that was done, the Project has been carefully designed
to avoid impacts to the portions of the Site identified as most valuable relative to
wildlife. Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory Response for additional information about
the methodolody used to conduct the natural resource assessment.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-31

Comment III.E 32 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.E 33 (Letter 172.11, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

III.E. Existing Conditions, Impact, Mitigation: Flora & Fauna

In general, the biologic survey conducted of the site is woefully lacking.

The surveys do not appear to be conducted by a trained field biologist, as Evans
Associates Environmental Consulting seemingly does not employ appropriately
trained or credentialed field biologists. By what standards were the field surveys
conducted? Given this, does the Planning Board consider the applicants field surveys
thorough and complete as conducted by a trained expert?

Response III.E 33:

As set forth in FEIS Responses III.E 23 and 24, the reptile and amphibian
assessments were not poorly conducted, but rather fully complied with the
requirements in the DEIS Final Scope for a description of wildlife species found or
anticipated to be found on the site and an assessment of the potential preserve of
any rare, threatened or endangered species. The wildlife analysis was not based
upon field work alone, but also a review of prior surveys and relevant literature and
an analysis of potential habitat and migration corridors. Refer to FEIS III.E



The notes from the field surveys are decidedly brief and lacking sufficient data such
as times, durations, weather conditions, specificity of plant species (what kind of
goldenrod, what kind of grape?), among others. Does the applicant and Planning
Board consider such cursory observations to be thorough and complete for the
purposes of assessing the current flora and fauna conditions of the site?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-32

Response III.E 34:

The DEIS Final Scope called for a description of wildlife species found on or
anticipated to be found on the site based on site surveys and review of existing data
sources, and for an assessment of the potential presence of any rare, threatened or
endangered species on the site. The information provided in the DEIS was intended
to document the potential species on the site, and was not a full species inventory.
However, the Applicant and their consultants believe that the studies done are
adequate for the purpose of identifying potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife
habitat on this site. The field notes were used to record observations for the field
biologists, and were not intended to provide all of the data typically recorded for a
formal survey. Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory Response.



All field surveys were conducted during the day, eliminating proper observation of
nocturnal animals. How can day-only surveys properly assess the fauna of the site,
much of which can be considered nocturnal and/or elusive?

Response III.E 35:

The DEIS Final Scope called for a description of wildlife species found on or
anticipated to be found on the site based on site surveys and review of existing data
sources, and for an assessment of the potential presence of any rare, threatened or
endangered species on the site. The information provided in the DEIS was intended
to document the potential species on the site, and was not a full species inventory.
Some nocturnal species (e.g., raccoons) are often identified from scat or tracks, which
are plainly visible during the day. Common construction techniques, such as limiting
clearing of mature trees to winter months when nocturnal species such as bats and
most amphibians are in hibernation can reduce incidental impacts to nocturnal
species. Using these techniques can also reduce impacts to breeding birds, including
nocturnal species such as owls. Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory Response.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-33



The dates of the field surveys do not adequately provide for a comprehensive, multi-
season assessment of both the flora (particularly ephemeral species) and fauna
(specifically conducted during peak breeding and migration seasons) of the site as
well as the half-mile study area. Given this significant omission, does the applicant
and Planning Board consider the biologic survey to be thorough and complete?

Response III.E 36:

Please see FEIS Response III.E 34, The site assessments were done over a two year
period and covered the majority of the growing season, from early spring (mid-
March) through late summer (end of August). These assessments covered the peak
breeding seasons for amphibians, reptiles and birds, as well as most of the flowering
periods for flora on the site. No attempt was made to assess use of the site by
migratory birds in spring or fall, and no on-site assessments were conducted in the
fall or winter, as no species of concern were identified in the screening and record
review. A species of Special Concern, the Eastern Box Turtle, was observed on the
site on April 1, 2013, and is discussed in detail in FEIS Response III.E.7.



Birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and butterflies and insects are mobile.
However, the biological survey only focuses on the site, not the entire half-mile study
area. Amphibians are known to travel significant distances, across roads and even
highways, to reproduce in vernal pools and wetlands. Birds often roost in one habitat
type but hunt in a different habitat. The DEIS downplays the interplay between the
various impacted habitats wetlands, forests, and old fields. In particular, old field
habitat is a critical habitat type that we are losing across this community and across
the country. What evidence does the applicant have to show true isolation
whether hydrologically or from a wildlife perspective? Where is a biological
assessment at the point of stormwater discharge? The biologic survey does not
adequately consider habitat (including the presence of a 960-acre Critical

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-34

Environmental Area) within the study area in its assessment: does the applicant and
the Planning Board consider this prudent and sufficiently comprehensive?

Response III.E 37:

There was no half-mile study area identified in the Final Scope, and the Critical
Environmental Area referred to in this Comment is the FDR State Park, which is
separated from the Project Site by the Taconic Parkway and Route 202. The DEIS
Final Scope called for a description of wildlife species found on or anticipated to be
found on the site based on site surveys and review of existing data sources, and for
an assessment of the potential presence of any rare, threatened or endangered species
on the site. The information provided in the DEIS was sufficient to document the
potential species on the Site, and on-site assessment by trained biologists did not
identify any habitats likely to support rare, threatened or endangered species. As with
all similar studies, the adjacent properties were evaluated as well as the project site, to
the extent possible. As discussed in the FEIS III.E Introductory Response, the site is
separated from identified biodiversity corridors in the Town.



On page 19 of this section, a map shows approximate boundaries of the property
with respect to vernal pools. The DEIS states that Stems & Wheelers Biodiversity
Conservation Study identifies wetlands, vernal pools, and water bodies as
environmentally sensitive resources. The DEIS also states that the Biodiversity
Conservation Study identifies vernal pools and wildlife corridors as sensitive habitats.
Is the applicant unable to provide precise property boundaries? Why are wetlands.
hvdric soils, and tributaries to the drinking water reservoir not included in this
map?

Response III.E 38:

Exhibit III.E-1a depicts a background aerial photo with vernal pool locations and a
site property boundary overlain on the aerial. Because the aerial photo is not a
surveyed drawing, and was taken from an unknown angle, it is not possible to
precisely locate the vernal pools or the property boundary. While the locations are
very close to actual, they cannot be considered as accurate as information that is
survey located. This is also why other information (such as wetland locations) was

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-35

not shown. The drawing was created to provide a depiction of vernal pool locations
on or near the subject property in a form that provides a visual/special understanding
of the locations.



On page 30 of this section, the DEIS claims that discharges of runoff would actually
increase the success and productivity of onsite vernal pools. Unfortunately, this is
implausible. By definition, vernal pools are ephemeral. They support natal
development of amphibians that would be unable to withstand competition or
predation in ecosystems that are constantly inundated. Amphibians are extremely
sensitive to the pollutants found in runoff, including the increased temperature of
runoff. Increased PAHs, salts, sediment, nutrients like phosphorus, and other
pollutants commonly found in runoff originating from roads and parking lots would
decrease the reproductive success of vernal pool life. It is critical that vernal pools, as
well as wetlands and wetland buffers are protected. What evidence, such as case
studies, does the applicant have to show that stormwater discharges will actually
benefit vernal pool ecosystems? Does the Planning Board consider the discharge of
contaminant-laden stormwater runoff to vernal pools and wetlands to be a source of
pollution, or lawful restoration as the applicant suggests?

Response III.E 39:
The FEIS stormwater management plan has been revised so that surface water runoff
from the Site will not flow directly into the wetlands. Surface water runoff will be
treated (with Vortech units) and infiltrated into the soil and back into the groundwater
table (as discussed in FEIS Responses III.E.16, III.F 21 and III.F.34). The original
site plan and stormwater treatment system was changed to address concerns about the
quality and quantity of water from the proposed development that would have
reached Wetland A and the vernal pool. The vernal pool is sustained mainly by
groundwater and direct precipitation; therefore a critical component of an on-site
stormwater runoff treatment facility is to get the treated runoff back into the ground
and into the water table. This will be accomplished by the stormwater treatment
facilities that are proposed for the site development plan. Thermal and other pollution
impacts to the vernal pool will be avoided because runoff will be treated, then
infiltrated through the soil to recharge Wetland A. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory
Response.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-36



III.E. Existing Conditions, Impact, Mitigation: Flora & Fauna

The DEIS posits a conceptual landscaping plan as acceptable mitigation for the loss
of habitat and biodiversity. Unfortunately, the plan falls short of providing significant
wildlife habitat or value. The plan relies heavily on exotic and non-native species,
particularly Zones 3 and 5. For instance, J apanese Tree Lilac and Bumald Spirea are
species that show invasive tendencies in this region and should be avoided to prevent
the spread of invasive species. Did the applicant consider the large number of native
alternatives that would achieve a similar level of screening and wildlife value? If not,
why?

Additionally, significant deer pressure in the area requires the selection of deer-
resistant planting, protection from grazing, and a long-term commitment to
maintenance. What measures does the applicant intend to undertake to prevent deer
browsing from destroying landscaping and buffers?

Response III.E 40:
The use of native plant species is prevalent throughout the entire planting plan, and
the plant species lists are a conceptual sample and not the final selected material. All
of the species listed in zones 1, 2, 4, and 6 are native, and almost two-thirds of the
plants in zones 3 and 5 are also native, therefore the landscaping plan actually relies
heavily on native species and not on exotic and non-native species as the
commenter has stated. Nearly all of the non-native species conceptually proposed are
limited to the ornamental landscape of the parking lot, and only native species are to
be used in protected areas such as wetland buffers.
Thick, native plantings are proposed for zones 1, 2, and 3, and these plantings will
both mitigate disturbances to current wildlife usage as well as enhance existing
habitat that is to remain undisturbed. Examples of this would include the proposed
wetland buffer enhancement and road screen planting along the Taconic Parkway off
ramp (Zones 2 and 3). Currently, these locations are fairly open and sparsely planted.
The new plantings will provide new bird nesting opportunities and enhanced cover
for smaller, ground-dwelling wildlife that may be displaced during construction.

Comment III.E 41 (Letter 170.2, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-37

PROJECT SITE SURVEYS

The DEIS presents results of surveys conducted on the Costco site and lands to its
immediate north and southwest. Agents for the project also surveyed the NYS
parkway property north of the site, concentrating on prominent features of landscape
and historic significance, drainage, and biology. My reading of the DEIS strongly
suggests that Costco site surveyors did not survey, or at least report upon areas north
and west of NYS 821 (BME) or south of Crompond Rd. as I did in 2012. If the
Costco site surveyors did look at these areas, the DEIS contains no indication that
they did, and offers no assessment of the potential adverse impacts threatened there.

Response III.E 41:

The areas north and west of the Bear Mountain Parkway (NYS 821) and south of
Crompond are private property, and therefore were not surveyed. However, resource
maps and data were reviewed relative to these off-site areas, and that information is
included in the assessment of potential off-site impacts. The Final Scope for the
DEIS did not require surveys of the off-site areas referenced in this comment, which
are not impacted by the Proposed Action.


From the north end of the mid-level terrace I descended an even more eroded (and
debris strewn) slope northwest to the forested slope just above Wetland A, in an
upland area mapped in the DEIS as an Oak Tuliptree Forest Community (cite
Eddinger et al. 2002). This ecological community designation is used by the New
York Natural Heritage Program (NHP), and other organizations documenting habitats
and communities scientifically. However, the DEIS has relied on its own consultants
and surveyors to name and describe the communities on the Costco site. In my view
the forest surrounding Wetland A is a blend of described forest communities, of
which oak species and tuliptree are component elements, but lacks most of the non-
canopy species (understory trees, shrubs and herbs) listed under Oak-Tuliptree
Forest in the NHP manual.

Response III.E 42:
Many of the forested areas in Westchester County have been heavily browsed by
White-tail Deer and therefore lack a well developed understory or shrub stratum. In
many cases, including the northern portion of the Property, forested areas have taken
on an open appearance with very limited shrub and herbaceous layers. Often the
species that are found in the shrub and herb layer are invasive species such as

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-38

barberry, burning bush, and garlic mustard. While the changes that have resulted
from heavy deer browse are evident throughout southeastern New York, the
community characterization is accurate relative to the mature trees found on the site.


West Ridge

This is the rocky ridge west of wetland A and North Pond Outfall. Except for its east
flank that includes the buffer of Wetland A, it is outside the Costco site, and only
briefly and cursorily discussed in the DEIS. West Ridge is ideal summer habitat for
amphibians breeding in Wetland A. Though more supportive when moist than when
dry, in summer droughts resident amphibians can easily migrate downslope to wetter
living spaces and avoid desiccation. This value is not noted in the DEIS.

Response III.E 43:

In the Ecological Survey of the Costco Development Site, Town of Yorktown,
Westchester County, NY (Barbour, 2012), the on-site habitats of concern include the
wetlands (Wetland A and Wetland B) and the west ridge (west of Wetland A) of
which a small portion is located on the Property. Wetland A and the west ridge are
not proposed to be impacted; therefore, their ecological values noted in this Comment
will not be impaired by the Project. The Project has been reconfigured several times
in order to best protect the natural resources on and near the Property, and to maintain
the quality of the wildlife habitat in and near Wetland A, including the west ridge.


Critical Comments on Costco DEIS
Scoping Violations
- Describe impacts to existing resident plant and animal populations, especially
threatened and/or endangered species.
- describe potential impacts to wildlife corridors, if present on the site.

Response III.E 44:

No threatened or endangered species were identified on or near the Property. The
DEIS Final Scope called for a description of wildlife species found on or anticipated
to be found on the site based on site surveys and review of existing data sources, and
for an assessment of the potential presence of any rare, threatened or endangered
species on the site. The information provided in the DEIS was intended to document

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-39

the potential species on the site, and was not a full species inventory. An assessment
of the potential impacts to resident species and to wildlife corridors was provided in
the DEIS in both narrative and graphic form. Refer to DEIS III.E-29 III.E-32 and
Exhibit III.E-3.


Section III.E Flora and Fauna

The Flora and Fauna Study has numerous errors and omissions. Upon opening this
appendix of the DEIS I was puzzled by the intense focus on debris around the
developers old motel building, replete with color photographs. If only this level of
critical attention had been given truly significant environmental documentation
efforts and assessments of the projects impacts.

Response III.E 45:

The Project is located in a previously developed site, which is why the existing
conditions on that portion of the Property were documented. In accordance with the
Final Scope, the vegetative communities on the Property were described and mapped.
An assessment of the potential impacts to resident species was provided in the DEIS
in both narrative and graphic form. See DEIS III.E-29 III.E-33 and Exhibit III.E-3.


Exhibit III.E-1 Ecological Communities Map.

I have no serious issues with this interpretation of the sites ecological communities.
It reflects the difficulty of distinguishing ecological communities on relatively small
sites or historically disturbed landscapes. The community assignments fit the Natural
Heritage categories fairly well, and the mapped boundaries are reasonably accurate.
The onsite communities are simply too small in area and limited in biodiversity and
unique character to match Heritage descriptions well.

Response III.E 46:

Comment noted.


Wetland Biodiversity and Habitat Values

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-40

I found Wetland A to be a viable if not exceptional vernal pool amphibian breeding
habitat. The following passage from the DEIS is annotated below with my comments
emphasizing how this assessment unfairly and dubiously denigrates the habitat value
of the Wetland A pool.

DEIS p E-9

The vernal pool on site [referring to that of Wetland A] was observed both dry
(late spring 2010) and ponded (spring 2011) up to 1.5 deep, and therefore
exhibits some seasonal ponding during wet years although the area was
observed to dry out during the summer months.

In other words, Wetland A is an average or better than average obligate vernal pool
amphibian breeding habitat by any scientific standard. The surrounding forested
uplands enhance that value by providing undisturbed habitat ample for many
hundreds of wood frogs and mole salamanders. By the way, any reduction or
degradation of this upland habitat (including from other development nearby, and
several projects are being built or under consideration) could decimate the breeding
amphibian community using Wetland A.

Response III.E 47:

Wetland A contains a vernal pool in which a variety of wildlife species (including
species such as wood frogs, spotted salamanders, and fairy shrimp that prefer
reproduction within vernal pools) have been documented, most recently in April of
2013 (see FEIS ResponseIII.F 18). Wetland A and the upland area to the west of the
wetland are potential wildlife corridors and contain wildlife habitat. The wildlife
corridors along the western edge of the Property, within and near Wetland A, and to
the north of the Property will not be altered or impacted by the Project. The Project
has been reconfigured several times in order to best protect the natural resources on
and near the property, and to maintain the quality of the wildlife habitat in and near
Wetland A, including the vernal pool. In order to reduce impacts (as compared to the
DEIS site plan) to the forest habitat on the site, a retaining wall has been added to
provide additional protection to Wetland A by moving the proposed development
further from the wetlands and to reduce disturbance of the forested buffer. (Refer to
FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 1.) Construction of a retaining wall would
have the benefit of retaining more of the existing woodland habitat, reducing the
potential of sediment runoff from the adjacent slope impacting the buffer, and
minimizing incidental impacts to trees such as wind throw and root disturbance. In
addition, the wall will provide protection from inadvertent amphibian movement

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-41

through the developed portions of the property, which would not be ideal, even under
current conditions. See FEIS Response III.E 6. Concerns about the quality and
quantity of ground and surface water entering Wetland A and ultimately leaving the
site have also been addressed by improving site stormwater treatment facilities and
moving development farther away from Wetland A. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory
Response items 2 and 3.


The DEIS repeatedly misinterprets hydrological evidence, drawing dubious or
erroneous conclusions.
P E-15
During the field investigations in 2010 there was no ponded water observed in
wetland A on J une 8 nor during any subsequent site visits that year which indicates
that if any wood frogs or spotted salamanders utilized the vernal pool for breeding
that year they were most likely not successful. In 2010, a year with an early start to
spring and amphibian breeding (I performed several breeding amphibian surveys that
year), wood frog tadpoles might have transformed and exited some pools by J une 8.
This is less likely for spotted salamanders, which sometimes begin breeding the next
rainy night after wood frogs do, and tend to take longer to transform. Still, it is
possible that at least some metamorph spotted salamanders escaped the pool before
J une 8.

During field work on the site that was conducted by Evans Associates for a previous
applicant this portion of the wetland was noted as being ponded on August 31, 2000.
Based on these observations it appears that this seasonally ponded area does provide
breeding habitat for vernal pool species on some years but based on the low number
of egg masses observed and unpredictable hydroperiod it is not a very productive
vernal pool.
Response III.E 48:

Studies conducted in April of 2013 confirmed that vernal pool species (wood frogs
and spotted salamanders) were using the wetland for breeding, but the highly variable
hydroperiod of the pool is problematic in drier years.


DEIS P III.E-9

Because of the shallow depth of the vernal pool, the temperature of its water will
vary with the temperature of the air.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-42

An unwarranted and unsupported conclusion. There is substantial natural
groundwater input, and in late winter when amphibians breed precipitation is cold and
enhanced by equally cold snowmelt (ideally free of contaminants). The ground is still
frozen some depth below the surface, further cooling waters of woodland pools. Air
temperatures are also relatively cool, certainly at night. More commonly on cold
nights the surfaces of vernal pools refreeze, which has little or no effect on
amphibians that have entered and started breeding in the pools. Every herpetologist I
know has observed salamanders swimming around under the ice at night.

Based on temporary, shallow ponding and being located within glacial till soils
(derived from gneiss), the pH of the vernal pool would be expected to range between
slightly acidic (just below 5.5) to circumneutral (5.5 to 7.4).

Implying what? The DEIS says no more on this. The conclusion is reasonable, but
what is the impact of this level of acidity?

The vernal pool community on the site comprises 0.12 acres or less than 1 percent,
of the 18.75 acre site. The vernal pool community is found throughout New York
State and has a NY NHIP rank of G4 S3S4, meaning it is apparently secure globally
and limited acreage to apparently secure in New York State.

This comment is egregiously misleading, suggesting that there is little point in any
concern that the project could harm resident amphibians by degrading their essential
habitat. It may seem apparent to the authors of the DEIS but obligate VP breeding
species and other vernal pool-dependent animals such as fingernail clams and the
feminine clam shrimp (Cyzicus gynecia), proposed by experts for Endangered status
in some states, including New York, are by no means secure. Globally secure as
used here just means by implication that vernal pools could be wiped out in one
geographic area (e.g. Yorktown, Westchester County, New York State) and there
would still be plenty worldwide, meaning somewhere on Earth.

Response III.E 49:

In the early spring, before leaf-out, this shallow pool is exposed to solar radiation
which tends to warm the surface layers. While groundwater input to the pool is
generally cool, it is significantly above freezing, and the temperatures of shallow
pools can vary widely during the day depending on air temperature.

The pH of the vernal pool was confirmed on April 1, 2013, with a circumneutral
measurement of 6.0 (using pH paper). A reading of 6.0 indicates that the vernal pool,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-43

at least at this point in time, has not likely been highly impacted by acidifying
processes, such as acid rain or impacts from runoff. The pH is high enough to
support amphibian reproduction. Although some vernal-pool dependent species are
tolerant of lower pH levels, a combination of very low pH with high aluminum levels
can impact their development and survival. (Colburn, Elizabeth A., 2004. Vernal
Pools: Natural History and Conservation, Blacksburg VA: The McDonald &
Woodward Publishing Company).

species that prefer reproduction within vernal pools) such as wood frogs, spotted
salamanders, and box turtles have been documented, most recently in April of 2013
(see FEIS Response III.F 18). Protection of sensitive habitats, including the vernal
pool and 93% of the surrounding upland woods, has been a priority during the
planning process, regardless of the characterization of this community by the
NYNHP. The Project has been reconfigured several times in order to best protect the
natural resources on and near the Property, including the quality of the wildlife
habitat in and near Wetland A, including the vernal pool. Concerns about the quality
and quantity of groundwater entering the vernal pool have also been addressed by
revising the proposed site stormwater treatment facilities and moving development
farther away from Wetland A. Please see FEIS Responses III.F 1 and 5b for more
details and FEIS III.G Introductory Response..


DEIS P III.E-15
The adjacent State park property to the north of the site was also investigated for
potential amphibian breeding habitat. Several small ponded areas were identified in
the north end of the park that had wood frog and spotted salamander egg masses in
them. These ponded areas appear to have been created when the Bear Mountain
Parkway was realigned. The relatively undisturbed forested areas between the site and
these pools provides good post breeding upland habitat for wood frogs and spotted
salamanders. The ponded areas are 800 to 900 feet from the subject Site and therefore
it is possible that the adult wood frog that was observed on the site in late summer of
2010 came from one of these pools. A relatively recently constructed stormwater
basin [this can only be North Pond] that receives drainage from the Taconic Parkway
is also present approximately 650 feet north of the site. No wood frog or spotted
salamander egg masses were observed in the basin. The only amphibian observed in
the basin was a single eastern American toad on the April 14, 2011 site visit. I would
think that anyone examining North Pond would observe that this basin is too shallow
to hold much water, that the bottom has a dense growth of weeds, that its earthen
walls are porous, and that through a culvert about five feet below its rim (somewhat

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-44

below its bottom level in fact) and over a ten-foot wide stone- fragment spillway its
waters descend rapidly lo wetlands and stormwater basins at the level of the Bear
Mountain Parkway Extension (NYS 821). This holding pond doesnt hold much of
anything for more than a day or two, and has no potential for any amphibian species
to actually breed in it. However, water draining through the ground from the pond
may benefit downstream habitat. Toads wander all over the uplands, by the way, even
to the summits of ridges and mountains.

Response III.E 50:

Field investigations in April of 2013 support Mr. Barbours observations of the
stormwater basin hydrology and unsuitability to support breeding of vernal pool
species.


Habitat values

PEI2
The ability of the site to support less disturbance-tolerant species that require large
blocks of undisturbed land is greatly diminished by the existing on-site development
that includes the former motel, plant nursery, fence contractor building [and a house
or two]. The site surroundings that consist of major roads, commercial and residential
buildings along with paved parking lots also detract from the ability of the site to
support disturbance intolerant species. Therefore, species that were documented on
the site, or are expected to occur on the site, are those species that are tolerant of
human disturbance and are capable of using a variety of habitats
(i.e., they are habitat generalists rather than habitat specialists).

There are two distortions in this statement. 1) It entirely ignores the impact of site
development on at least one specialist species, brook trout that occurs in Hunter
Brook immediately west and southwest of the Costco site. This is a glaring example
of the failure of the DEIS to address significant impacts of the project to proximate
off-site resources, some less than 100 feet from the site. Although only spotted
salamander was found to breed in Wetland A, species listed by DEC and NHP such as
J efferson salamander and marbled salamander could breed there as well. These
species are protected under NY Conservation Law. The DEIS does not even mention
their potential occurrence on the site.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-45

Response III.E 51:

Brook Trout in Hunter Brook are discussed in FEIS Response III.F 34. The two
species of mole salamander mentioned are both species of special concern in New
York State. Both species have the potential to occur on the site, but were not
observed. For a description of the field study methodology and its consistency with
the Yorktown guidelines for wildlife and plant biodiversity assessments, refer to
Section III.E Introductory Response.


Biodiversity

The plant list in the DEIS exhibits lamentably poor plant species documentation. For
example, in the case of the main sedge genus, Carex, the list includes only tussock
sedge (Carex stricta) (in Wetland A). On my visits to the site I saw smaller tussocks
and individual plants of several other wetland sedges. Though reliable identification
features (flowers and fruit) were not in evidence in the dormant season, I recognized
brome sedge (C. bromoides), blunt broom sedge (C. tribuloides) or a closely related
species, and loose-flowered sedge (C. laxiflora), There were at least six others that
were neither tussock sedge nor any of the aforementioned species. The DEIS plant list
contains not one species of upland Carex, of which there have to be at least 10 on the
site, given the variety of elevations, light regimes, soils and moisture conditions. This
list was accumulated during visits that spanned an entire growing season, from April
to September. Its amazing to me how few species the survey revealed, and just as
amazing the low number of species said to be expected (but not found) on a site this
diverse in ecological conditions such as elevation, aspect, soils, rocks and moisture.

Response III.E 52:

In accordance with the Scope the plant list in the DEIS was not intended to be a
comprehensive species inventory of the Property, but was intended to supplement the
descriptions of the ecological communities found on the Property and described in the
text. Contrary to the assertion made in this Comment Applicant noted that, three
sedge species were identified in Table III.E.1 in the DEIS. None of the sedge species
identified on the site is threatened or endangered.


DEIS p III.E-12


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-46

No unique or rare habitats were identified on the site and all species that were
documented on, or anticipated to occur on the site are species common to northern
Westchester County.

But many common species that were not found are surely there. Let me name just a
few dirt common sedges for example, in alphabetical order: Carex albicans, Carex
blanda, Carex communis, Carex digitalis, Carex gracillima, Carex intumescens, C.
lurida, C. muhlenbergii, C. normalis, C. pensylvanica, C. rosea, C. scoparia, and C.
swanhi. I would not be surprised to find rare upland sedges such as Carex emmonsii,
C. glaucodea, C. retroflexa and C. nigromarginata.

Repeatedly the DEIS holds the site to an absurdly lofty standard, rather than
addressing potential significant adverse impacts to sensitive ecological receptors, and
waters. It is to all expectations and appearances an average but respectable natural
area. Rare habitats & species are RARE! In the larger context of downtown
Yorktown the site is objectively an interesting and valuable oasis in highly developed
surroundings. It should be seen and respected for what it is. The DEIS repeated [sic]
cuts it off at the knees, the blows and insults coming from two opposite directions.
The first is the argument that theres little there worth looking for (so they found very
little of what is there). The second complaint is that there is nothing extra special
there, just common stuff and not much of that.

Response III.E 53:

The portions of the Property that are proposed to be developed are highly disturbed
and bisected from other natural areas by major transportation corridors (the Taconic
Parkway, Route 202, and the Bear Mountain Parkway) which fragment the larger
landscape blocks critical to high-value wildlife habitat. The DEIS documented what
was found on the site by the Applicants consultants, and Mr. Barbour did not find
any rare, threatened or endangered species during his site investigation.

Comment III.E 54 (Letter 170.34, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG)

Vertebrates

P III.E-l4

Bird observations were made during the field investigations but a formal breeding
bird survey was not conducted on the site.

Why not? The short shrift is not justified by the quality of the habitat.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-47

Response III.E 54:

A formal breeding bird survey was not included in the Final Scope. Refer to FEIS
III.F Introductory Response. . Data on bird distribution is available online from the
NYS Breeding Bird Atlas (http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html). The Property falls in
the middle of Block 5957C. In accordance with the Final Scope, this data was
reviewed as part of the site analysis for the DEIS, and observations were made during
the site assessments in spring and early summer, when breeding populations most
likely to be impacted by development would be present. The species listed in the
DEIS includes species that would potentially use the Property as breeding habitat.


Data collected as part of the preparation of The Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in
New York State (Cornell University, 2008) were also reviewed. Specifically, data
collected between 2000 and 2005 for Survey Block 5957C, where the site is located,
were reviewed. In total 54 species were documented as confirmed, probable or
possible breeding in this survey block. Species on the breeding bird list for this
survey block for which suitable habitat is present on the site are indicated by BBA
in the documented on-site column in Table III.E.2.

This is a generic laptop study observed vs. possible, probable or expected
they just blend them together with no connection to the habitats and conditions of the
site and surroundings.

Response III.E 55:

See FEIS Response to III.E. 54. The species listed in the DEIS were reviewed to be
sure that appropriate habitat was available on the Property. Species for which
appropriate habitat was available were included in the list in the DEIS.


P III.E-14:

The breeding success of bird species that utilize forest interiors is greatly reduced
near the edges of a forest due to what is known as the edge effect. This is largely
due to species of birds and small mammals preying upon the eggs and young of forest
interior species, as well as nest parasitism from brown-headed cowbirds. Species that
are habitat generalists and tolerant of human disturbance such as the blue jay,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-48

European starling and American crow would most likely utilize the habitats on the
site.

But there is no onsite documentation of these edge effects. Incidentally, brown-
headed cowbird is not on the bird list in the DEIS.

Response III.E 56:

Brown-headed Cowbird was not reported as observed in the species list for Block
5957C, although it is a common species in Westchester County, particularly near
developed areas or disturbed sites. The edge effect is present on the Property under
the existing conditions due to the past development and clearing, and is anticipated to
continue to be a factor impacting the remaining forested portions of the Property
following development. The edge effect is not anticipated to be exacerbated by the
Project, and may even be reduced by consolidating the development into one portion
of the Property (as opposed to having fragment development on the Property).


Amphibians and Reptiles

An amphibian and reptile field survey was conducted by Evans Associates in the
spring and early summer of 2011. The major focus of the spring portion of the field
survey was amphibian breeding activity (see vernal pool comments). Active
searching for adult amphibians [and reptiles] was conducted by turning over cover
objects such as rocks, logs and anthropogenic debris. A search for characteristic turtle
nesting areas, as evidenced by the remains of turtle eggs, was also conducted.

These techniques are reliable and standard for herpetology inventories. Results are
largely depended: upon weather and other unpredictable factors. I have learned that
some biologists are adept at, or simply lucky, in locating reptiles and amphibians, too,
under objects.

Eastern garter snakes (abundant under debris) are very common and abundant and
utilize a wide variety of habitats from undisturbed forests to highly disturbed urban
settings. Although not documented on the site other species of snakes that could be
found on the site include the northern ring-necked snake, northern black racer, black
rat snake and northern brown snake.

And milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), no: listed in the DEIS even as potential,
but I would surmise to be more likely than racer and rat snake. American toad is on

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-49

their list, and one male was observed at North Pond. Fowlers toad, uncommon and
local, was not, and the site did not appear to me to be good habitat. However, I expect
that American toad may be far more common on the site and its vicinity than the
survey suggests. Occurring with American toad could be eastern hognose snake
(Heterodon platyrhinos), which feeds nearly exclusively on toads. Hognose snake is
not mentioned in the DEIS even as a potentially occurring species, but it
is listed as a species of Special Concern in New York, one rarity rank below
Threatened, as is Eastern Box Turtle, mentioned in the DEIS but not found in the site
survey. However, eastern box turtle is rather common in the wilder parts of
Westchester County, as in the wooded margins of the New York City reservoirs, as
land several colleagues have observed.

No amphibians or reptiles were collected as voucher specimens during the field
survey.
This is unfortunate. Most of us avoid collecting animals as vouchers, but occasionally
you find an individual that is baffling in its appearance. An example for me is the
salamander in the photo (p. 25, 2
nd
photo, top row) captioned red back salamander,
gray phase. During a survey by Hudsonia, Ltd. in Westchester County we found a
dark salamander we could not identify in the field. We borrowed it to identify in the
lab, then returned it to the stream where we had found it. The stream was Hunter
Brook where it enters the New Croton Reservoir. The subject was a northern red
salamander, not a state rarity, but a rare species in Westchester, and so a significant
find and an indicator of exceptionally clean water.

Response III.E 57:

As noted previously, formal surveys of flora and fauna were not required in the Final
Scope and therefore were not performed. (Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory
Response.) However, a comprehensive review of resource maps and published
records was made as part of the Site evaluation. Although the referenced species, for
example hognose snake and American toad, have the potential to occur at the
Property, they were not observed. Since a formal wildlife survey was not undertaken,
no license to collect voucher specimens was sought from the NYS DEC.


P III.E-18 Wildlife Corridors on the Site
The forested areas between the vernal pool in the north end of the western wetland
and the forested areas in the far western portion of the site as well as the forested
areas off site to the north in the adjacent parkland could be considered wildlife
corridors for wood frogs and spotted salamanders.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-50

Although not distinct corridors wood frogs and spotted salamanders would use these
forested areas to move between their spring breeding habitats in the vernal pool to
their non-breeding terrestrial habitat in the forest.

In this section of the DEIS there is no discussion of amphibian road kill potential on
paved areas of the development receiving high traffic loads, or nearby roads and
highways. Habitual amphibian migration and dispersal paths between wetland and
upland habitats may change unpredictably with project landscaping (e.g. steepened
banks, reduction of upland habitat) and altered drainage patterns (see Wetland
Biodiversity and Habitat Values). The DEIS does not address these potential
impacts, but instead asserts with no supporting evidence that changes brought about
by the development will only benefit resident amphibians.

Although travel may be possible between the on-site vernal pool and off-site vernal
pools to the northwest, the on-site pool would not provide improved habitat for the
vernal pool species when compared to the vernal pools that are located on the
adjacent properties.

First there is no question that travel between on-site and off-sue pools is possible;
there are no barriers through the continuo us forested upland. And how can it be
asserted that the on-site pool (of Wetland A) would not provide improved habitat and
at the same time assert the exact opposite, that the project will raise and stabilize the
water level in Wetland A, thus improving amphibian breeding habitat. Moreover, if
such improvement were plausible, breeding success and output of young amphibians
would increase, with greater dispersal levels of young adult frogs into peripheral
areas with high potential for losses from vehicles and other threats (e.g.
migration into urban areas with no suitable habitat).

Response III.E 58:

. By protecting Wetland A and the surrounding uplands (refer to FEIS III.G
Introductory Response item 1), the Applicant is avoiding and minimizing impacts to
wildlife using the on-site wetland/upland complex. As discussed in detail in the
Introductory Response for III. F,the stormwater management design has also been
revised to allow infiltration of the stormwater below the retaining wall footing back
into the soil and shallow groundwater which feeds the wetland complex. Refer also to
FEIS Introductory III.G Response Items 2, 3 and 5. The Applicant asserts that the
proposed retaining wall would prevent young amphibians from dispersing into the
project site, where increased mortality would be likely. The Applicant asserts that
incidental mortality (road kill) of amphibians traveling to off-site wetlands is not a

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-51

significant environmental impact associated with the Proposed Action, as the travel
corridors are in a north-south orientation and will not be altered by the development.


DEIS review of other studies

Discuss the Biodiversity Conservation Study, Town of Yorktown, Westchester
County, New York (Stems & Wheeler, J une 2009) (June 2009) as it Relates to the
Site

P III.E-20
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Park that is located to the south of the site, south of NYS
Route 3 5/202 is designated as a CEA. There are no riparian areas or floodplains on
the site. The soils in the wetlands on the site are hydric soils.

By definition!

The Biodiversity Conservation Study lists vernal pools and wildlife corridors as
sensitive habitats. So does every other study and statement by every environmental
regulator, conservation organization or scientific institute.

Response III.E 59:

The Biodiversity Conservation Study was discussed in DEIS page III.E-20.


Review of Croton on Hudson Biodiversity Plan (Miller and Kiemens 2004)
Prepared by the Metropolitan Conservation Alliance as it Relates to the Site

The site is not within any areas that were identified as important for biodiversity. The
closest biotic planning unit (BPU) to the site is located to the west of the Bear
Mountain Parkway and north of NYS Route 202/35.

I reiterate that the DEIS holds that only pristine, ultra-high-quality environments are
worth protecting. Additionally this dismissal violates the hard look requirement of
SEQR to potential significant adverse impacts on the communities environment
SEQRA is not limited to protecting rare and endangered species.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-52

Response III.E 60:

The Croton on Hudson Biodiversity Plan (Miller and Klemens 2004) referred to in
this portion of the DEIS focuses on high quality habitats which its authors felt were
important from a biodiversity standpoint. The DEIS (Section III.E) described the
ecological communities found on the Property, and also described how the Property
related to wildlife corridors in the area (Section III.E.-18). The Project has been
designed to protect the portions of the Property which have the highest value as
habitat, particularly as they relate to regional wildlife corridors on or near the
Property. The wildlife investigations conducted for the DEIS complied fully with the
Final Scope, and assessed the range of species and ecosystems on the Property, not
merely rare and endangered species or pristine, ultra-high quality environments.
Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory Response.


Rare Species

Federally Listed Rare Species
Six federally listed (currently or historically) rare animal species are recorded from
Westchester County. Bald Eagle was delisted in 2007. Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser
oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) and shortnose sturgeon (Acienser brevirostrum) are primarily
in the Hudson River, so not of concern in Yorktown. The three remaining species
with potential to be impacted by the proposed project are: Bog turtle (Clemmys
muhlenbergii), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and New England cottontail (Sylvilagus
transitionalis). The DEIS Study found no habitat or potential for any of these three
species.

My research found that no Federally listed plant species are recorded from the Town
of Yorktown.

State-listed Rare Species
Scoping required an assessment of the Potential Presence of any Rare, Threatened or
Endangered Species on the Site based on a site-specific survey and input from the
New York Natural Heritage Program (NHNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). In my view this assessment in the DEIS is flawed and inadequate as
explained below.

In J uly, 2010 a request was made by Costco ecological consultant Evans Associates
to the NYNHP. In a letter of response dated Aug 26, 2010 to Eva Szigeti Evans
Associates, Tara Salerno, Information Services, NYNHP wrote:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-53

If this proposed project is still under development one year from now, we
recommend that you contact us again so that we may update this response with the
most current information.

It has been over two years since NHP issued this response. Did Costco consultants
contact NHP again after the year elapsed? If not, then review of this project is not
complete.

More importantly, the initial identification of NHP rare species and habitats
potentially occurring on the site is still incomplete. The Yorktown Biodiversity Study
(Stearns & Wheeler 2009), not among the studies reviewed in the DEIS, did request
information on state-listed species for the entire Town of Yorktown, but the NYNHP
would only provide records of listed species for specific sites, not entire towns. So
there are no rare species records for the Costco site in Stearns & Wheeler. Other than
the requisite NHP (site only) correspondence in nearly every DEIS I have reviewed,
the Costco DEIS reports no NHP-listed state-rare species.

To obtain a list of rare species and habitats in the vicinity of the site I requested and
obtained from Nick Conrad, NHP Information Resources Coordinator, a Report on
Rare Animals, Rare Plants, and Significant Natural Communities for the Town of
Yorktown, Westchester County as documented in the Natural Heritage database as
of November 21, 2012.

Response III.E 61:

NHP issued a letter dated October 9, 2012, and identified as Document 40, which is
included in its entirety in Appendix A of this FEIS. Also refer to FEIS Comments
III.F2 and III.F 23. The report provided from Mr. Conrad, dated November 21, 2012
did not identify any species or significant habitats of concern relative to the Property.

Comment III.E 62 (PH2, Walt Daniels):

The DEIS does not address how the proposed project will comply with the town's tree
ordinance. [PH2, Page 93, lines 20-22]

Response III.E 62:

A tree survey and ecological communities map (DEIS Exhibits III.E-2 and III.E-3)
and associated impacts thereto have been provided in the DEIS. The appropriate tree
removal plan will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan approval

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-54

process and a tree removal permit will be obtained with the site plan approval, in
accordance with the Towns Tree Ordinance. A landscaping plan (Drawing CLP-1)
to mitigate the effects of the impacts to existing trees on site has been submitted for
Town review as part of the DEIS.

Comment III.E 63 (Letter 142.5a, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed Chapter-Trout Unlimited),
(Letter 149.2a, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed Chapter-Trout Unlimited):

The DEIS III-G acknowledges the Hunter Brook as a trout spawning stream.
However, the Flora and Fauna section of the DEIS (III.E) does not mention brook
trout. The DEIS does not evaluate the DO content, PH, nutrient levels or ambient
water temperatures of any of the receiving waters for the projects stormwater
discharges.

Response III.E 63:

Hunter Brook is located approximately 2,400 feet (almost half a mile) from the
Property, and the tributary which originates on the Property flows through thickly
settled areas south of Crompond Road (Route 202) before discharging to Hunter
Brook. The Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan includes a subsurface
infiltration system that will provide water quality treatment of the stormwater runoff
from the Projects impervious areas. FEIS Appendix E includes quantitative thermal
impact and pollutant loading analyses, which address the constituents mentioned (pH,
DO, nutrients and temperature). Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response. The results of the analyses indicate that post-development
stormwater related impacts will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to
reaching Wetland A and/or the point of discharge where leaving the Site. Since
impacts will be reduced at the Site, no adverse impacts to downstream water bodies
including Hunter Brook will result.

Comment III.E 64 (Document 172.40, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript is
provided in Appendix B.
In conclusion, is the Planning Board satisfied with the match between the proposed
development and the site in question? With the technology available today, and
progress in scientific discoveries, we know that the proposed development would
have an unnecessary and irreversible impact on the quality of our natural resources.
Yorktown deserves smart development that protects and conserves our natural and
community resources for generations to come, development that improves our

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-55

community and makes it safer, and ingenious development that leads and inspires our
neighbors.

Response III.E 64:

Refer to DEIS Sections III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology, III.E Flora and
Fauna, III.F Wetlands, Groundwater and Surface Water Resources, and III.G
Stormwater Management regarding impacts on natural resources. Responses to
specific comments are addressed in the corresponding sections of this FEIS.

Comment III.E 65 - (Document 45.14, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and

Woodlands on the site (mostly grown on abandoned farm lands by 1870 1910, but
some older existing wooded land) of BEAR MOUNTAIN TRIANGLE (excluding
Costco site) have recently been studied for development of FMP. Results of study
show forest here is rapidly dying, and as trees die and fall they are very quickly being
replaced by invasive species. These woodlands are mostly the same age and condition
as those on the Costco site. Much work needs to be done quickly to preserve the
woodland here, which can only be done by a viable, active landlord, not an absentee
landlord of an abandoned site. Preservation of wetlands and woodlands on the site
automatically also means that we maintain important habitat corridor connections.

Response III.E 65:

This Comment was submitted in support of the Project. As noted in this Comment,
the Project will preserve more than 4 acres of existing woodlands and wetlands
thereby maintaining the existing habitat corridor.

Comment III.E 66 - (Document 93.8, Ben Falk), (PH2, Ben Falk):

Woodlands on the site (mostly grown on farm lands abandoned between 1870 and
1910, but the site also includes some older preexisting wooded land) of Bear
Mountain Triangle (excluding Costco site) have recently been studied for development
of a Forest Management Plan. Results of this study show that the forest here is rapidly
dying, and as trees die and fall they are very quickly being replaced by invasive
species. These woodlands are mostly the same age and condition as those on the Costco
site. Much work needs to be done quickly to preserve the woodland here, which can
only be done by a viable, active landlord, not an absentee landlord of an abandoned
site.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.E-56

And the preservation of wetlands and woodlands on the site will automatically mean
that we will maintain important habitat corridor connections.

Response III.E 66:

The comment expresses support of the Proposed Action. The existing wetlands and
more than 4 acres of woodlands will be conserved.

III.F WETLANDS, GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER
RESOURCES

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-1

Section III.F Wetlands, Groundwater and Surface Water Resources


Many of the Comments included in this section of the FEIS (III.F) relate to potential impacts to
wetlands, groundwater and surface water resources resulting from proposed stormwater runoff.
Stormwater runoff is discussed thoroughly in FEIS section III.G. Rather than repeat information
in this section that is described in the stormwater section, the reader is referred to III.G of this
FEIS. Changes were made to the DEIS site plan in order to reduce impacts and provide a more
environmentally protective plan. For a description of the FEIS Site Plan, refer to FEIS Site Plan

A water balance analysis to determine the potential hydrologic impact to Wetland A was
included in the DEIS as described in DEIS pages III.G-17 to G-23. The water balance analysis
was updated for the FEIS to account for the modifications to the site plan and stormwater
management design, which includes greater runoff reduction through infiltration and no direct
discharge of stormwater to Wetland A. In the water balance analysis, runoff was calculated,
analyzed and compared for the pre and post-development conditions, as illustrated on FEIS
Exhibits III.G A4 and A5 and summarized in FEIS Table III.G A8. The water balance analysis
was calculated for the upstream ponding area (vernal pool) and two downstream reaches of the
Wetland A stream corridor. A detailed summary of results is included in the water balance
analysis provided in FEIS Appendix E

The Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan includes a subsurface infiltration system and
a detention basin that meet the regulatory requirements for runoff volume reduction, water
quality treatment and peak discharge attenuation. The water balance analysis indicates that the
pre and post-development change in water depth results in a minimal decrease (less than one-
half inch) in water depth, which the Applicant asserts is not significant to the overall health and
functioning of the vernal pool. The water balance analysis ignores the beneficial contribution of
groundwater to Wetland A, which provides the primary hydrologic input to this wetland system.

FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact analysis,
pollutant loading analysis and water balance analysis to Wetland A. Summary descriptions are
provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The results of the analyses indicate that post-
development stormwater related impacts will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to
reaching Wetland A and/or at the point of discharge where leaving the Site. Wetland A is located
approximately 150 feet from the proposed infiltration facility. The elevation of the bottom of the
infiltration facility is 419, which will be cut below existing grade, which will assure that infiltrate
will discharge into the existing soil rather than travel along the fill line. The adjacent wetland is


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-2

at elevation 390, which is approximately 29 feet below the bottom of the infiltrator. The soil to
which the infiltrator discharges are described in DEIS III.C (pages III.C-4 to 9). Based upon site-
specific field investigation by the Applicants geotechnical engineer, the soil to which the
infiltrator discharges is a well-drained sandy soil with rock located from 8 to 18 feet below the
existing ground surface (Test Pits BINF-6, BINF-12, Borings B-14 and B-115). (Refer to the
SWPPP in FEIS Appendix E.) The infiltration runoff will pass through well drained soils to and
along the confining rock layer toward Wetland A. Along the route toward Wetland A, it will
pass under the proposed retaining wall with about 10 feet of clearance.

As set forth in the Applicants thermal and pollutant loading analyses (FEIS Appendix E)
impacts will be reduced as a result of the infiltration practice and therefore, no adverse impacts
to downstream water bodies, including Wetland A, Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook and the New
Croton Reservoir will result.

Wetland A buffer:
In response to DEIS comments to reduce potential impact to the Wetland A buffer, the FEIS Site
Plans include a retaining wall along the westerly edge of the parking area that will replace much
of the earth embankment shown on the DEIS Site Plan, thereby reducing disturbance to the
Wetland A buffer. No impervious area is proposed within the wetland buffer. Refer to FEIS
III.G Introductory Exhibits III.G-A1 and FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8c.

The disturbance to the wooded buffer of Wetland A under the DEIS Site Plan was 1.05 acres.
When accounting for an additional 10-foot construction corridor at the toe of the slope, the
disturbance would have been 1.26 acres. Under the FEIS Site Plan, including the construction
corridor, the disturbance will be 0.5 acres of the buffer, 60% less than for the DEIS Site Plan.
The modified design will preserve 0.76 acre more of the wooded buffer when compared to the
DEIS Site Plan.
1
By preserving more wooded buffer, potential erosion will be reduced and more
effective protection of Wetland A will be provided. The disturbed portion of the buffer will be
revegetated.

1
The Wetland A buffer is 5.05 acres of which 3.48 acres are located within the Project Site. The FEIS disturbance
would be approximately 0.5 acres or 14% of the 3.48 acres of the onsite buffer (10% of the entire buffer), as
compared to the DEIS disturbance of 1.26 acres or 36% of the onsite buffer (25% of the entire buffer).


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-4

Comment III.F 1 - Form Letter C (Letter 10.1, Suzzora Grent), (Letter 11.1, Mr. Marc
Alfredo), (Letter 16.1, Alex Greenman), (Letter 21.1, Peter Bradstone), (Letter
24.1, Momhann Arfat), (Letter 34.1, Joseph Eduardo):

In studying the planned project for a Costco warehouse store on Rte. 202/35, it cannot
escape notice that the site borders not only on wetlands, but also one of the most
environmentally sensitive streams in the area. This watercourse, called the Hunter
Brook, serves as a major trout-spawning ground; additionally, it eventually makes its
way to the Croton Reservoir.

We respectfully suggest that adding 14.50 paved over acres to this area will have a
major negative effect.

In short, this Costco project is not only bad for Yorktowns image; it is also bad for
Yorktowns environment.

Response III.F 1:

Wetland A is the only surface water outflow from the property that reaches another
water body. Most of the site drains west to the small stream located within Wetland
A. The stream flows off site under Old Crompond Road to a wetland system that is
between Old Crompond Road and Crompond Road. This wetland drains into a
culvert that ultimately discharges to Hunter Brook, located approximately 2,400 feet
to the west of the site.

Currently, untreated stormwater runoff from the abandoned property flows directly
into the wetlands and watercourse. For the Proposed Action, the DEIS included a
Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and a Sediment and Erosion
Protection Plan prepared (see Appendix D of the DEIS) to manage stormwater runoff
during construction.

The Applicant notes that the Project will add approximately 8 acres of impervious
area to the Costco site, not 14.5 acres as stated in the Comment. Considering the
existing 3 acres and the new 8 acres, the Costco site will have approximately 11 acres
of impervious area. (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response,) The Applicant
has modified the FEIS stormwater management design for the Proposed Action,
resulting in a more environmentally protective project when compared to the DEIS.

The components of the FEIS stormwater design are summarized in FEIS III.G


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-5

Introductory Response. A description and graphical exhibits of the changes to the Site
Plan are discussed in FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response. After construction,
potential impact to Hunter Brook will be avoided through the use of onsite
stormwater management facilities to reduce surface water runoff volume and provide
water quality treatment, including temperature attenuation, of the runoff from the
proposed impervious surfaces on the subject property. Refer to III.F Introductory
Response, and Appendix E for the reports prepared by HDR.

Comment III.F 2 - (Letter 40.1, Jean Pietrusiak, NYS DEC):

In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage
Program database with respect to an Environmental Assessment for proposed New
Construction Costco Wholesale Retail Store, site as indicated on the map you sent,
located in the Town of Yorktown Heights, Westchester County.

Enclosed is a report of rare or state-listed animals and plants, and significant natural
communities, which our database indicates occur, or may occur, on your site or in the
immediate vicinity of your site. For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not
been conducted; the enclosed report only includes records from our databases. We
cannot provide a definitive statement as to the presence or absence of all rare or state-
listed species or significant natural communities. This information should not be
substituted for on-site surveys that may be required for environmental impact
assessment.

The enclosed report may be included in documents that will be available to the
public. However, any enclosed maps displaying locations of rare species are
considered sensitive information, and are intended only for the internal use of the
recipient; they should not be included in any document that will be made available to
the public, without permission from the New York Natural Heritage Program.

The presence of the plants and animals identified in the enclosed report may result in
this project requiring additional review or permit conditions. For further guidance,
and for information regarding other permits that may be required under state law for
regulated areas or activities (e.g., regulated wetlands), please contact the appropriate
NYS DEC Regional Office, Division of Environmental Permits, as listed at
www.dec.ny.govlabout/3938 I .html.

Our databases are continually growing as records are added and updated. If this
proposed project is still under development one year from now, we recommend that
you contact us again so that we may update this response with the most current


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-6

information.

Response III.F 2:

The NYNHP indicated that in the vicinity of the subject property there is a natural
community that is considered by the NYNHP to have high ecological and
conservation value. The community is a Red Maple-Hardwood Swamp that is
located in Franklin D. Roosevelt State Park (also called the Mohansic Swamp).
While red maple-hardwood swamps are not rare or protected, the NYNHP considers
this a High Quality Occurrence and recommends conservation of this community.

The Project Site is located to the northwest of Franklin D. Roosevelt State Park, on
the opposite sides of both Route 202/35 and the Taconic State Parkway. The site is
not connected in any way to this natural community. Drainage from the wetlands on
the subject property exits the property to the north and to the south. The intermittent
stream that flows off the property drains to the south, under Old Crompond Road, and
eventually to Sherry Brook and Hunter Brook (see DEIS section III. F.1.d for a
detailed description of the flow path from the property). Flow from the property is
part of a watershed that does not contribute to the Mohansic Swamp. Because of the
location of the property in relation to the Mohansic Swamp, proposed activities on the
property will have no impact on this natural community of concern. Also refer to
DEIS Section III.F.1.f.

Comment III.F 3 - (Letter 37.2, Ali Osama):

Are they donating enough to pollute our WET LANDS?
Response III.F 3:
Refer to response to Comment III.F 1.

Comment III.F 4 - (Letter 82.1, Dale Saltzman):

In response to the Costco DEIS to me, it goes against our current collective wisdom.
This is a blatant disregard for the ecology of important Yorktown water shed.
To pave over a hillside above a vital waterway is to create problems.
No [sic] many of the mitigation processes enacted nature would be better.
The DEP should step in and protect their water supplies and Costco would not
proceed. There is already a list of problems for the State Land Corp. which, as you
know is the western hillside above the Hamlet Brook.
The planning dept. has to stop this rape of our town resources.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-7

Response III.F 4:
The Applicant will comply with all regulatory requirements pertaining to water
resources. The proposed development will comply with all Federal, State and Local
requirements for stormwater management and wetland and watercourse protection.
Refer to FEIS Section III.G and SWPPP in FEIS Appendix E.

Comment III.F 5 - (Letter 83.1, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

Wetlands Concerns:

The project has significant wetland buffer incursion. Mitigation for this incursion is
not adequately addressed in the DEIS. Wetland A buffer is heavily wooded. It is
unclear if the plant material indicated will restore the wetland buffer and adequately
stabilize the steep slope from eroding into Wetland A. Further clarification is
required.

Response III.F 5:

The Applicant proposes modifications to the DEIS site plan and the FEIS stormwater
management design that will reduce direct impact to the wooded buffer of Wetland A
through the construction of a retaining wall (see FEIS Exhibit III.G-A1) Refer to
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response and FEIS Site Plan Responses 2a, 6, Site Plan
Exhibit 8c, and III.G Introductory Response item 1. Approximately 93% of the
wooded buffer surrounding the vernal pool in Wetland A will remain in an
undisturbed state, which exceeds the minimum 75% recommended development
guidelines contained in the Metropolitan Conservation Alliance Technical Paper No.
5, Best Development Practices: Conserving Pool-Breeding Amphibians in residential
and Commercial Developments in the Northeastern United States(2002). The
existing buffer around the vernal pool is 2.86 acres. The post-development
undisturbed buffer will be 2.65 acres. The proposed disturbed buffer will be
revegetated with native species that will provide suitable habitat for birds and small
mammals.

The modified/shortened embankment will be planted for stabilization, and the
proposed retaining wall will prevent the slope for eroding into the wetland.
Additional tree planting for the purpose of mitigation will be planted at the southern
end of the Wetland A buffer and within the Wetland B buffer, as shown on FEIS
Drawings LP-1 and LP-2. The proposed retaining wall at the base of the fill slope


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-8

above Wetland A will prevent erosion into the wetland, and will prevent wildlife
utilizing Wetland A and the surrounding wooded buffer from wandering onto the
developed portion of the site. Modification of the Stormwater Management Plan will
also prevent direct discharge of treated stormwater to the vernal pool and will instead
infiltrate the water back to the groundwater in the buffer area.

Temporary disturbance of the Wetland A buffer will be required for the installation of
the outlet pipe and level spreader serving the upper stormwater basin. Once the pipe
and level spreader are installed, the area will be reseeded with a Conservation seed
mix and allowed to naturalize.


The DEIS states that there will be an increased volume of water discharged into
Wetland A and the vernal pool associated with Wetland A. Increasing the volume of
water will change the existing character of the wetland. The DEIS fails to adequately
assess the functionality of the vernal pool and wetland after completion of the project.

Response III.F 6:

The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management design for the
Proposed Action, resulting in a more environmentally protective project relative to
Wetland A. A summary of the FEIS modifications are described in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response. The modifications include reduced impact to Wetland A
buffer, reduction of runoff volume being discharged to the wetland to more closely
replicate existing drainage conditions, increased groundwater recharge, improved
water quality treatment, and avoidance of thermal impact, thereby, benefiting
downstream water bodies.

The FEIS stormwater management plan includes an enlarged stormwater infiltration
system that will reduce surface runoff volume (improvement from the DEIS) from the
Project Site. The benefit of reducing runoff volume through infiltration will be to
reduce stormwater related impacts to downstream water bodies while cleansing the
discharge and recharging groundwater. FEIS Table III.G-A1 states that runoff volume
will be reduced from the entire Site. FEIS Table III.G-8A states that runoff volume
to Wetland A will be reduced, thereby reducing potential of flooding. The post-
development depth of water in Wetland A resulting from surface water runoff (from
adjacent vegetated area) will be reduced, however, by only less than a half-inch.
Treated stormwater from the infiltration system will be recharged to the subsoil up-


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-9

gradient to Wetland A, and therefore, provide additional source of hydrology to
Wetland A.

A pollutant loading analysis, a thermal impact analysis and updated water balance
analysis have been prepared for the FEIS (see FEIS III.G Introductory Response
items 2, 3 and 5 and FEIS Appendix E. These referenced FEIS studies show that
there will be an overall improvement in water quality leaving the Site as a result of
the Project. Also refer to Response III.F 7.


Stormwater Concerns:

The DEIS asserts that there will be an increase in stormwater volume that will likely
increase the success and productivity of the existing vernal pool, yet it also asserts
that runoff from the proposed parking area will have the highest thermal effects in the
summer when the vernal pool is dry. If the applicant is changing the character and
functionality of the vernal pool to make it a permanent pool then the thermal impacts
in the summer will have a deleterious effect.

Response III.F 7:

The DEIS site plan and stormwater management design has been revised so that
runoff from the paved portion of the Site will not flow directly into the vernal pool at
any time (refer to Response III.F 14) but will instead recharge the groundwater
upslope of Wetland A. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response. In addition to
direct precipitation and snow melt, stormwater runoff to the vernal pool will be
mainly from surrounding undeveloped wooded area. Surface water runoff from the
proposed impervious surfaces will be treated and infiltrated into the soil and back into
the groundwater table, as discussed in Response III.F 6. Treatment of stormwater
runoff through infiltration will avoid potential thermal impacts and will recharge the
groundwater table, thereby supporting the onsite wetland system, which is primarily
groundwater fed. See Thermal Impact Analysis and Pollutant Loading Analysis in
FEIS Appendix E. Also refer to III.G Introductory Response item 2, which
addresses thermal mitigation.


The DEIS states that the proposed development will increase impervious surface from
2.90 acres to 10.98 acres, a significant increase, which will result in significant


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-10

thermal pollution in stormwater runoff. The proposed mitigation does not adequately
indicate how this increase in thermal pollution will be managed. Additional
mitigation should include tree islands in the parking lot which would provide
increased shade, break up the wide expanse of impervious surface, reduce the amount
of thermal loading in stormwater runoff and improve the aesthetics
of the parking area.

Response III.F 8:

As discusses in FEIS Responses III.F 6 and 7, changes have been incorporated into
the proposed development plan to treat runoff from the site and return it to the
groundwater table, thereby avoiding potential thermal pollution from runoff. (see
Thermal Impact Analysis and Pollutant Loading Analysis in FEIS III.G Introductory
Response and FEIS Appendix E ) Plantings in and around the parking lot are shown
on DEIS Figure III.E 5 - Conceptual Planting Layout Plan. Refer to Response III.G
13.

Comment III.F 9 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.F 10 - (Letter 97.2, Greg Kravtsov):

Another concern our poll respondents had was inherent inequity in holding to two
different wetland performance/wetland mitigation standards between regular
homeowners wetland property and Costco proposed wetland mitigation and
variances.

Well be glad to provide concrete proof of very harsh wetland performance
enforcement to the point of complete financial distraction [sic] of individual
homeowners and we demand same rigor and harshness applied to Costco wetland
proposal.

Response III.F 10:

No direct impact/disturbance to onsite or offsite wetlands is proposed. The Applicant
will comply with all regulatory requirements pertaining to wetlands and wetland
buffers (Town of Yorktown). Refer to DEIS III.F.a and f.

Comment III.F 11 - (Letter 99.1, Krista Yacovone):

As a signatory to the New York City Watershed Agreement, we have a commitment


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-11

to ensure that development projects in the watershed do not adversely impact the
surface water resources that provide unfiltered drinking water to consumers, which
includes those in the Yorktown Consolidated Water District. Accordingly,
Riverkeeper opposes any project in the New York City watershed that proposes
potentially significant disturbance of streams, wetlands or their buffers.

As proposed in the DEIS, the Costco project will degrade water quality in on-site and
downstream receiving waters. The DEIS plan to discharge stormwater to a regulated
stream and wetland that flow to the New Croton Reservoirthe terminal reservoir for
the entire Croton Watershedis unacceptable. Furthermore, the wetland in question
is a headwater wetland that should be afforded heightened protection from such
disturbance. Scientific evidence clearly shows that healthy headwaters are essential to
the health of stream and river ecosystems. The National Research Council recognizes
that undisturbed wetlands and buffers positioned at the head of surface waters provide
the greatest water quality benefits because of their functions of sediment trapping,
nutrient uptake and adsorption. Discharging stormwater to wetlands and buffers at
their point of origin, as proposed in the DEIS, impairs their ability to perform these
functions and thereby degrades downstream water quality.

Response III.F 11:

As discussed in FEIS Responses III.F 6 and 7, changes have been incorporated into
the proposed development plan to treat runoff from the site and return it to the
groundwater table, thereby mitigating potential off-site impacts from runoff. (see
Thermal Impact Analysis and Pollutant Loading Analysis in FEIS III.G, the
Introductory Response to this section, and FEIS Appendix E) The wetlands on the
property will not be disturbed. The health and hydrology of the vernal pool at the
headwaters of Wetland A were a critical consideration in making these changes to
further protect the on and off-site wetlands and waterbodies. The Applicants
engineer performed a water balance analysis to Wetland A and the vernal pool. The
water balance analysis indicates that when compared to the pre-development
condition, post-development hydraulic characteristics remain similar. Refer to FEIS
III.G Introductory Response item 5 for discussion of the results. Also refer to FEIS
Responses III.G 12 and FEIS Appendix E.

Discharge of onsite stormwater from the proposed impervious surfaces will be treated
in a subsurface infiltration system that will recharge the groundwater table from
which the onsite wetlands are primarily fed. Surface water discharge from the
detention basin will be dispersed from a spreader ditch that will drain overland by
sheet flow through the existing woodlands to Wetland A. Discharge through a


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-12

spreader ditch will reduce concentrated flow and velocities, thereby providing greater
protection from potential erosion.

In summary, the Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan includes a
subsurface infiltration system and a detention basin that meet the regulatory
requirements for runoff volume reduction, water quality treatment and peak discharge
attenuation. FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,
thermal impact analysis, quantitative pollutant loading analysis and water balance
analysis to Wetland A. Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory
Response. The analyses conclude that post-development stormwater related impacts
will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A and/or at the
point of discharge where leaving the Site. Since impacts will be reduced at the Site,
no adverse impacts to downstream water bodies including Wetland A, Sherry Brook,
Hunter Brook and the New Croton Reservoir will result.

Comment III.F 12a - (Letter 101.1, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust), (PH2, John
E. Schroeder):


1. The discharge of storm water into wetland A will increase the volume of
water according to the DEIS. There is no mention of the risk to the surrounding
vegetation being flooded potentially causing die off due to root rot. This could
potentially cause the forest canopy to open up and result in increased water
temperatures.

Response III.F 12a:

FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact
analysis, pollutant loading analysis and water balance analysis to Wetland A.
Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The results
of the analyses indicate that post-development stormwater related impacts will be
reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A

Refer to FEIS Responses III.F 1, 6, 7 and 11. Wetland A is primarily fed by
groundwater under existing conditions. The Applicant has modified the proposed
DEIS stormwater management design to implement runoff reduction, improve water
quality treatment and increase groundwater recharge to more closely resemble
existing conditions. This will result in reducing surface water discharge to Wetland


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-13

A, increasing groundwater recharge, improving water quality, and avoiding potential
thermal impact. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response items 2, 3 and 5 and
Thermal Impact and Pollutant Loading Analyses in FEIS Appendix E. The FEIS Site
Plan and stormwater management design will result in runoff reduction for all storms
studied up to and including the 100-year storm, thereby reducing surface runoff
volume to Wetland A. , By reducing the potential for increased flooding, root rot and
reduction of forest canopy from vegetation die-back will be avoided. Refer to FEIS
section III.G Introductory Summary Response.

Comment III.F 12b - (Letter 101.3, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust), (PH2, John
E. Schroeder):


3. The discharge of storm water into wetland A does not factor in potential changes
to the pH of water in the wetland. The potential of change to the pH may come from a
number of sources, (ie: snow & ice control, rain, pollutants, etc.) pH is a critical
factor in the Hunter Brooks ability to sustain a healthy trout population.

Response III.F 12b:

Proposed Action to improve stormwater quality treatment. (see Thermal Impact
Analysis and Pollutant Loading Analysis in FEIS III.G Introductory Response and
FEIS Appendix E) With regard to stormwater quality, refer to III.G Introductory
Summary Response and Response III.G 38c. With regard to snow removal and
deicing, refer to FEIS Responses III.D 8, and III.F 12d. Also refer to FEIS Responses
III.F 1, 6, 5c, 11 and III.G 38c.

The use of infiltration practices allows the soils to moderate the pH of the stormwater
as it moves towards the wetland. The soils also tend to remove the majority of
pollutants typically found in stormwater and moderates the temperature of the water
during the hot summer months.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-14

Comment III.F 12c - (Letter 101.4, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust):

The DEIS does not mention a maintenance plan for snow and ice control and the
effects deicing will have on wetland A. There is no discussion of storing deicing
materials on site and any mitigation there might be to offset the potential for
movement of the material offsite.

Response III.F 12c:

A snow removal plan has been provided in Response II. 10 and is discussed in the
Pollutant Loading Analysis (FEIS Appendix E). The minimum amount of chloride
compounds necessary to ensure public safety will be used for controlling ice
throughout the parking lot and sidewalk areas, and all deicing compounds will be
stored inside the building. The use of chloride-containing materials for ice control
will be in accordance with Chapter 18-45 of the NYCDEP Rules and Regulations for
the Protection from Contamination, Degradation and Pollution of The New York City
Water Supply and its Sources. Refer to FEIS Response III.D 8. Runoff generated
on site will be treated in stormwater management facilities. Refer to FEIS Responses
III.F. 6, 7, and 11 and III.G Introductory Response.

Comment III.F 12d - (Letter 101.5, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust):

Wetland A is recharged primarily by groundwater seepage according to the DEIS.
The DEIS does not address the issue of how the underground storm water storage
structures under the parking areas will affect ground water quality as it recharges
wetland A. These structures are designed to release their contents into the ground
surrounding them.

Response III.F 12d:

Wetland A is primarily recharged by groundwater seepage. The Applicant has
modified the DEIS stormwater management design to enlarge the subsurface
infiltration system, which will provide increased runoff reduction, increase
groundwater recharge and improve water quality treatment when compared to the
DEIS. Stormwater runoff will be pretreated in multiple hydrodynamic structures,
prior to entering the RRv/WQ infiltration practice. The pretreatment facilities will
remove pollutant laden sediment prior to reaching the infiltration practice, thereby
maintaining the effectiveness of the infiltration practice. Pollutants will be captured in
pretreatment units and also treated through soil filtration prior to reaching Wetland A.
Refer to Item 3 of FEIS III.G Introductory Response as well as the Pollutant Loading


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-15

Analysis in FEIS Appendix E. Based on the results of the pollutant loading analysis,
pollutant loads will be reduced to below existing levels within by infiltration through
12 to 18 feet of soil media. Soluble constituents of the stormwater which are not
removed through adsorption onto soil particles will be diluted in the groundwater
moving towards the wetland to concentrations which will have little influence on the
wetland chemistry.

Soil investigations were performed by the Applicant and soil logs for the borings/test
pits in the area of the proposed infiltration system are included in FEIS Appendix E.

Comment III.F 13 - (Letter 108.26, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Page III.F 19: The sponsor should include a more detailed discussion of thermal
impacts to surface waters such as, the commitment to the use the proposed cool
roof should include more details as well documentation of thermal advantages.
Thermal impacts prior to flow approximately 700 feet through the forested wetland
should be considered.

Response III.F 13:

Surface water runoff will be treated and infiltrated into the soil and back into the
groundwater table (as discussed in Response III.F 6). This will avoid any potential
thermal impacts to surface waters., as discussed in FEIS III.G Introductory Response
item 3 and the Thermal Impact Analysis in FEIS Appendix E. The stormwater
infiltration and the application of a cool roof will reduce thermal impacts and are
further discussed in FEIS Response III.G 13.


Page III.F 19: It is unclear that the runoff analysis and the water budget calculations
reasonably represent the existing and proposed conditions. For example, off site
contours used to determine the limits of the tributary area are not provided and it
appears that a portion of the upland area east of E2c may drain towards the vernal
pool. In addition, it is unclear how the point discharge to the vernal pool is in anyway
similar to the groundwater feed or how the groundwater impacts to the wetlands and
watercourse were accounted for in the analysis. The water budget noted that peak
flows to the wetlands are maintained or lessened; however, due to the significant
increase in runoff volumes, the hydroperiod is significantly lengthened. This may
result in saturation of the watercourse bank and can lead to erosion of saturated soils
in subsequent runoff events. In addition, habitat and vegetation can be impacted by


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-16

changes in saturation of soils associated with wetlands and watercourses.

Response III.F 14:

Additional topographic contours were added to the site plan, which confirms the
contributing drainage area to the vernal pool. Refer to FEIS Response III.G 14.

Proposed Action, which will reduce potential impact to Wetland A. A summary of
the FEIS modifications are described in FEIS Section III.G Introductory Response,
which discusses reduced impact to Wetland A buffer, reduction of runoff volume,
increased groundwater recharge, improved water quality treatment, and avoidance of
potential thermal impact, thereby, mitigating impacts to downstream water bodies

The FEIS stormwater management design will infiltrate treated stormwater to the
groundwater table and reduce direct surface runoff to Wetland A, thereby maintaining
Wetland A as a primarily groundwater fed wetland. The outlet from the detention
pond was modified to discharge to Wetland A, downstream of the vernal pool,
thereby not increasing surface flow to the vernal pool. Surface water discharge from
the detention basin will be dispersed from a spreader ditch that will drain overland in
sheet flow through the existing woodlands to Wetland A. Discharge through a
spreader ditch will reduce concentrated flow and velocities, thereby providing greater
protection from potential erosion.

Since the FEIS stormwater management design will maintain the groundwater inputs
to Wetland A, and the vernal pool will continue to be primarily fed by groundwater
seeps from the undeveloped woodlands and precipitation, the extended hydroperiod
and related saturation and resultant erosion will be avoided under the FEIS plan.
Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 5 which describes the results of the
water balance analysis.


Page III.F 21: The section notes that the east buffer of wetlands A includes disturbed
areas with a mix of young forested area and old field habitat containing some
miscellaneous debris. It must be noted that disturbance in this area occurred
historically. In general, the buffer has been predominantly wooded for some time.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-17

Response III.F 15:

The DEIS states that the buffers on the west and east sides of Wetland A are closed
canopy forested areas that are predominantly vegetated with native species.
However, as you move further east away from the wetlands, the buffer becomes more
disturbed. Therefore, the lesser impacted forest within the eastern buffer is located
closest to the wetland. The western buffer will not be impacted.


Page III.F- 30: The language in Section III.F.3.c: of the DEIS indicates that the
proposed mitigation will improve the functionality of the entire buffer around
Wetland B should be removed. The project, as proposed, would replace 65% of the
on-site buffer of wetland B with impervious surface, which will be located within 20
feet of the wetland boundary. While enhancement of the remaining buffer with native
species may be a desirable outcome, it will not fully offset the loss of buffer and
placement of impervious surface directly adjacent to the wetland.

The stated objective of the buffer mitigation plan is to enhance the buffer by planting
native shrubs and trees to increase the abundance and diversity of vegetation on site.
Portions of the buffer currently include several non-native and invasive species. The
buffer mitigation plan should also include measures to remove or reduce the extent of
invasive species to further enhance the buffer area and help ensure the establishment
of the native plantings.

Response III.F 16:

The functionality of the remaining portions of the buffer surrounding Wetland B will
be improved through planting mitigation (as shown on DEIS Exhibit III.F 4
Wetlands Mitigation Plan). An invasive species removal plan targeted to the species
found in the wetland buffers will be submitted to the Town as part of Site Plan
Review and Approval.


Section III.F.3.c indicates that buffer enhancement area 4, located east of Wetland B
along the slope of the Taconic State Parkway (TSP), will be seeded with a wildlife
conservation mix. The site landscaping plan (Sheet LP-1) indicates that only new
slopes within this zone are to receive seeding. This contradiction should be clarified.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-18

If the slope of the TSP is to receive seed mix, it should also be clarified whether the
surface will be scarified to help establish the seed mix.

Response III.F 17:

There is already an existing vegetative cover in Buffer Enhancement Area 4 (Planting
Zone 2 on Sheet LP-1), which is why seeding and scarification of this area is not
referenced on DEIS sheet LP-1. Any seeding required in this area will be limited to
repair of any minor surface disturbances caused by normal planting operations, and
this will be addressed in final construction documents. Seed mixes have also now
been proposed for all planting zones.


Section III.F. l.a indicates that wetland A is not a very productive vernal pool habitat
based on a low number of amphibian egg masses observed in 2011 and an
unpredictable hydroperiod. Vernal pools are naturally highly variable systems, due
to variations in annual and seasonal precipitation levels and in the dispersal and
behavior of amphibians. Several years of data are required to determine an individual
pools functionality towards amphibian breeding. Statements made in this section and
in numerous other sections regarding the low productivity of this vernal pool should
be removed or qualified as productivity cannot be determined from the available
information.

Response III.F 18:

Site visits were made on the afternoons of April 1 and 14, 2013 to assess the current
conditions of on and off-site vernal pools. Wood frog egg masses were present in the
central portion of the vernal pool on both dates. No salamanders were found under
logs or rocks in the adjacent uplands during either site visit. On April 1, wood frogs
were heard calling, and two were observed (one male, one female). Spring peepers
were also heard calling. An Eastern box turtle was observed near the vernal pool; it
appeared to be recently emerged. Conditions on April 1 were cloudy with
intermittent rain; 47
o
F.

On April 14, the ponded area in Wetland A was smaller, and wood frog and spotted
salamander egg masses were found in the central portion of the vernal pool. Small
tadpoles and a green frog were also observed. While observing the wetland, two
wood ducks landed in the vernal pool, then immediately flew away (from and to the


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-19

west, away from the site). Conditions on April 14 were sunny; 60-65
o
F.

On April 1, off site areas near the Bear Mountain Expressway were investigated, as in
the past they had contained areas that acted as vernal pools, containing egg masses.
On this date, there were no egg masses present and rooted aquatics were present,
indicating that this area may no longer seasonally dry up. Wood frogs and spring
peepers were heard calling in the vicinity.

These recent site visits indicate that the vernal pool in Wetland A is likely productive
most, if not all years. The off-site wetlands may be less productive than originally
thought.


Claims in Section III.F.2.f and in the Wetland Water Budget that the increase in
stormwater volume within Wetland A will increase the quality of habitat for breeding
amphibians should be revisited. The current proposal will decrease the groundwater
contribution and increase the contribution by surface water that flows over
impervious surfaces into Wetland A. It is unclear that the associated potential changes
in the vernal pools water quality from surface runoff that are not addressed by the
stormwater basin (such as increased hydrocarbons, increased salinity due to road salt
etc) would, in fact, benefit amphibian species, especially when coupled with the
adjacent development.

Response III.F 19:

Proposed Action, in order to maintain the groundwater recharge for Wetland A, A
summary of the FEIS modifications are described in FEIS Section III.G Introductory
Summary Response. The modifications include reduced impact to vegetated portion
of the Wetland A buffer, reduction of runoff volume, increased groundwater recharge,
improved water quality treatment, and avoidance of thermal impact. In combination,
these measures will mitigate potential impacts to downstream wetlands and water
bodies. Refer to FEIS Responses III.F 6 and III.F 14. , as well as the Pollutant
Loading Analysis and Thermal Impact Analysis in FEIS III.G Introductory Response
and FEIS Appendix E item 2



_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-20

reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A.


Impacts of regional stormwater basin on nearby wetlands must be evaluated.

Response III.F 20:

The Regional Stormwater Basin has been abandoned. Refer to Response FEIS III.G
Introductory Response item 7 and III.G 20.

Comment III.F 21 - (Letter 119.6, Olivia Bell Buehl), (PH2, Olivia Buehl), (Letter 178.11h,
Henry Steeneck):


The following is the result of a review of the DEIS for the above named project
published on the Towns website. I ask that these comments, questions, and requests
be entered into this proposed developments DEIS public hearing record so that they
might be properly addressed in the projects Final Environmental Impact Statement
and incorporated into the final site plan design.

ITS ALL ABOUT BALANCE
New York State law says that to approve any development project Yorktown must
weigh the negative impacts against the possible gains. To this end the applicant (in
this case, Costcos developer) prepares an EIS to try to demonstrate to the permitting
agency that the gains outweigh the negatives. It does this by first talking about the
possible negatives; secondly, it lists all the positives. As to be expected, an applicant
downplays the negatives and highlights the positives. Thats its job.

The job of concerned citizens like myself, as well as of the Planning Board, is to
ensure that what the developer is telling us in the DEIS is correct. More importantly,
we need to shine a clear light on what it is not telling us. So lets take a close look at
these negatives and positives.

Environment
The developer says that Costco would have no significant impact on the wetlands and
the Hunter Brook.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-21

The real facts are that the developer wants a special exception to encroach the
wetlands. Plus, its stormwater management approach will result in significant
temperature changes to the Hunter Brook. Further, if our water supply is damaged,
the cost of the penalty if it is not in compliance with standards will be borne by the
town. As you know, these issues are raised in detail in the study presented by David
Clouser & Associates.

Response III.F 21:

Wetland A is the only surface water outflow from the property that reaches another
water body. Most of the site drains west to the small stream located within Wetland
A. The stream flows off site under Old Crompond Road to a wetland system that is
between Old Crompond Road and Crompond Road. This wetland drains into a
culvert that ultimately discharges to Hunter Brook, located approximately 2,400 feet
to the west of the site.

The Proposed Action does not propose encroachment (soil disturbance) to the onsite
wetlands. The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management design to
provide a more environmentally protective project. The FEIS stormwater
management design will reduce impact to the Wetland A buffer (refer to Introductory
Response in this section), increase recharge of the groundwater table, improve water
quality treatment, reduce surface stormwater runoff and mitigate thermal impacts,
thereby providing improved water quality to downstream water bodies, including
Hunter Brook and the NYC watershed. Refer to FEIS III.F Introductory Response.
reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A. Since impacts will be
reduced at the Site, the analyses confirm that no adverse impacts to downstream water
bodies will result.

Approximately ten acres of the existing site was previously developed from which the
stormwater runoff discharges from the site without the benefit of water quality
treatment. Runoff from the existing site could include pollutants associated with the
prior soil spill and historic operations of the site. However, the Project proposes the
additional benefit of remediating existing soil and hazardous conditions as described
in DEIS Section III.D.3.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-22

Although there were no reported environmental conditions of concern in the area of
the proposed infiltration facility, as part of the Projects implementation, the subsoils
in the area of the infiltration facility will be exposed and reviewed and if any
indication of contamination is observed or identified, any such soils will be
remediated prior to installation of the infiltration chambers. A review of Phase I and
II Environmental Reports, upon which the statement is based, is set forth in DEIS
Section III.D and DEIS Appendix VII.B.

Responses to the David Clouser & Associates (DCA) have been responded to in
various sections of the FEIS. For a complete listing of responses to each of the DCA
comments refer to Index Sorted by Document. With regard to stormwater
comments from the David Clouser & Associates, refer to FEIS Responses III.G 39a
thru III.G 39g.

Comment III.F 22 - (Letter 130.1, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust):

The Yorktown Land Trust offers the following additional comments to those made at
the November 19th public hearing on the Costco DEIS.

The Land Trust recognizes the need for a screening plan along the Taconic State
Parkway which is designated as a historic scenic byway. The choices of eastern white
pine, douglas fir, fraser fir, eastern red cedar and American arborvitae are know [sic]
to be readily consumed by white tail deer. While their worth as a screening plant
species is well known, their location along a major highway needs to be carefully
reviewed. Attracting deer to the sides of the highway with these tree species may lead
to accidents. Deer-car collisions at high speeds can be disastrous. The plantings need
to be located in such a way as to be useful as a screen, but also so that safe lines of
sight are necessary to provide a margin of safety for drivers on the parkway.

Response III.F 22:
When hungry, deer will consume almost any species of plant. Eastern Red Cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Eastern White Pine
(Pinus strobus) are widely-known, deer-resistant species, and the Applicant asserts
should not be prone to deer browse, except under severe winter conditions. American
arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis) has been removed from the plan. Deer fencing may be
required around some of the proposed plantings as a temporary measure to allow the
plants to become established. A plant guarantee period will be established by the
Planning Board. It should be noted that the plant list has not been finalized, and not
all species listed will be used in the final plant selection. As for the locations of the
screen trees, they will be installed no closer to the Taconic Parkway than the existing


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-23

line of Eastern White Pines already planted along the off-ramp, thereby maintaining
existing lines of sight.

Comment III.F 23 - (Letter 40.2, Jean Pietrusiak, NYS DEC):

The following rare plants, rare animals, and significant natural communities
have been documented at your project site, or in its vicinity.

We recommend that potential onsite and offsite impacts of the proposed project on
these species or communities be addressed as part of any environmental assessment
or review conducted as part of the planning, permitting and approval process, such as
reviews conducted under SEQR. Field surveys of the project site may be necessary to
determine the status of a species at the site, particularly for sites that are currently
undeveloped and may still contain suitable habitat. Final requirements of the project
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts are determined by the lead
permitting agency or the government body approving the project.

The following significant natural communities are considered significant from a
statewide perspective by the NY Natural Heritage Program. They are either
occurrences of a community type that is rare In the state, or a high quality example of
a more common community type. By meeting specific, documented significance
criteria, the NY Natural Heritage Program considers these community occurrences to
have high ecological and conservation value.

Common Name Scientific Name NY State Listing Heritage Conservation Status

Wetland/Aquatic Communities

Red Maple-Hardwood Swamp

Mohansic Swamp: This is a moderate size, diverse, mostly mature swamp with a
relatively narrow buffer of natural communities surrounded by a fragmented
landscape.

This report only includes records from the NY Natural Heritage databases. For most
sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted, and we cannot provide a
definitive statement as to the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species.
This information should not be substituted for on-site surveys that may be required
for environmental impact assessment.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-24

If any rare plants or animals are documented during site visits, we request that
information on the observations be provided to the New York Natural Heritage
Program so that we may update our database.

Information about many of the rare animals and plants in New York. including
habitat, biology, identification, conservation, and management, are available online in
Natural Heritages Conservation Guides at wvw.gwdes.nynhp.org, from NatureServe
Explorer at http:llwww.natureserve.orglexplorer, and from USDAs Plants Database
at http:Ilplants.usda,gov/index.html (for plants).

Information about many of the natural community types In New York, including
identification, dominant and characteristic vegetation. distribution, conservation, and
management, is available online in Natural Heritages Conservation Guides at
www.guides.nynhp.org.

For descriptions of all community types, go to
http:/Iwww.dec.ny.gov/animals/29384.html and dick on Draft Ecological
Communities of New York State.

Response III.F 23:

The NYNHP information indicates that in the vicinity of the subject property there is
a natural community that is considered by the NYNHP to have high ecological and
conservation value. The community is a Red Maple-Hardwood Swamp that is
located in Franklin D. Roosevelt State Park (also called the Mohansic Swamp).
While red maple-hardwood swamps are not rare or protected, the NYNHP considers
this a High Quality Occurrence and recommends conservation of this community.

The subject property is located to the northwest of Roosevelt State Park, on the
opposite sides of both Route 202/35 and the Taconic State Parkway. The site is not
connected in any way to this natural community. Drainage from the wetlands on the
subject property exits the property to the north and to the south. The intermittent
stream that flows off the property drains to the south, under Old Crompond Road, and
eventually to Sherry Brook and Hunter Brook (see DEIS section III. F.1.d for a
detailed description of the flow path from the property). Flow from the property is
part of a watershed that does not contribute to the Mohansic Swamp. Because of the
location of the property in relation to the Mohansic Swamp, proposed activities on the
property will have no impact on this natural community of concern.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-25

Comment III.F 24 (Letter 172.20, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society) (PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):


III.F. Existing Conditions, Impact, Mitigation: Wetlands, Groundwater, &
Surface Water Resources

Did the applicant refer to the Environmental Design Consultings 2007 Freshwater
Wetland Functional Assessment Study for the Town of Yorktown?

Response III.F 24:

The Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study for the Town of Yorktown New
York was a report in which The scope of work included literature research to find a
wetland function evaluation technique that could readily be applied to several wetland
study areas within the Town. The results of the literature and study area research were
to be incorporated into recommendations for revisions to the existing wetlands
regulations. The functional evaluation procedure that was recommended and
approved by the Town for the functional assessment study was the A Rapid
Procedure for Assessing Wetland Functional Capacity based on Hydrogeomorphic
(HGM) Classification (Magee and Hollands, 1998).

The Study addressed specific wetlands within several watersheds throughout
Yorktown, including the Hunter Brook watershed. Four wetlands were evaluated
within the Hunter Brook Watershed; however, none of these wetlands are near the
subject property. Three are located to the west of Hunter Brook (the site is located to
the east), and one is located far upstream at the headwaters of Hunter Brook.
Therefore, this study does not address site-specific wetland evaluations and specific
information from this study was not adequate for inclusion in the DEIS.

However, the two wetlands on the subject property were functionally evaluated using
methodology from the Magee and Hollands procedure 1998 (see DEIS Section III F).
Wetland A is best classified as a forested slope wetland with no inlet and an
intermittent outlet. The functions provided by Wetland A include hydrologic support,
flood water storage, water quality maintenance, and provision of wetland dependent
vegetation and wildlife habitat. Wetland A plays a role in hydrologic support, or
drainage continuity within the watershed. Specifically, the small intermittent stream
that flows through the wetland serves to convey surface water from precipitation and


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-26

groundwater discharge from the seeps on the property to areas off site to the south.
The forested wetland corridor also plays a role in the storage of flood waters, but the
wetland is relatively narrow and only has a limited capacity for flood water storage.
The vegetation in the wetland, along with the microtopographic features on the
ground surface, allows the wetland to perform water quality maintenance functions
when the wetland contains flowing or ponded water. Flowing water is slowed and
sediment, particulates, and nutrients can settle out or be taken up by the wetland
vegetation. In addition to the hydrologic functions, Wetland A also provides
biological functions, including the provision of habitat for wetland plant species and
several wetland dependent wildlife species.

Using the Magee and Hollands methodology, Wetland B is best classified as a
forested slope wetland with no inlet and an intermittent outlet, although the wetland is
not hydrologically connected to another wetland. Wetland B provides few functions
and values that are typically associated with wetlands. This wetland is hydrologically
isolated and does not provide drainage continuity within the watershed. Wetland B is
not capable of providing long-term flood water storage (ponded water), nor can it
provide water quality improvements due to its slope and small size. However, the
stone wall that forms the north wetland boundary and property boundary does serve
as a barrier for sediment deposits that were noted in this portion of the wetland during
the field investigations. Wetland B also provides little in terms of biological function
due to its small size and limited wetland vegetation.

Comment III.F 25 (Letter 172.21, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)


Page 3 of this section states that the field delineation of the wetlands was conducted
on J une 8, 2010 by a field biologist and soil scientist from Evans Associates
Environmental Consulting. However, as noted previously in these comments, Evans
Associates does not have a field biologist on staff. What field biologist assisted in this
wetlands delineation? Was this same field biologist responsible for the biological
survey?

Response III.F 25:

Ronald Gautreau was the field biologist who performed the wetland delineation in
2010. Mr. Gautreau is no longer with Evans Associates, but Beth Evans, the


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-27

Principal of Evans Associates, is also a field biologist and a Certified Professional
Wetland Scientist with over 25 years of experience in wetland delineation and
evaluation. Ms. Evans has participated in all aspects of the biological assessment and
evaluation of the property. In addition, wetlands on the property were reviewed and
verified by professionals other than the personnel from Evans Associates. These
people include Ms. Mary Galasso of the NYCDEP, and Town Environmental
Consultant Bruce Barber.



Pages 5 and 6 of this section state that Wetland B is not hydologically connected, but
the DEIS does not provide sufficient hydrologic evidence of this claim. Given the
high water table of the site. what evidence does the applicant have to show true
hydrologic isolation?

Response III.F 26:

Wetland B does not have a defined outflow connecting to another wetland or
watercourse, and surface connection is the key to determining whether a wetland is
isolated hydroligically from other wetlands. The lack of a defined outflow from
Wetland B has been confirmed by both the Town Wetland Consultant and the NYC
DEP.



Has the Army Corps of Engineers responded to the inquiry regarding wetland
permitting? If so, what is their response?

Response III.F 27:

ACOE has not responded to the inquiries by the Applicants consultant (last inquiry,
dated 12-5-2013, received a telephone response from Amanda Switzer on 4-22-2014,


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-28

but no written response)to date. It is the Applicants consultants opinion that no
impacts are proposed to either wetland, and the ACOE does not have a regulated
buffer or adjacent area, so no review or permit will be required from that Agency.
However, the Applicant will continue to attempt to obtain a response from the ACOE.



On page 12 of this section the DEIS states that the site is within the New York City
Watershed as part of the Hunter Brook Basin. The same page states that Hunter
Brook is considered a Protected Stream by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation Protection of Waters Program. Hunter Brook is
classified by New York State to be a C(TS), meaning it can support trout spawning.
And, according to the Freshwater Wetland Function Assessment Study, the Hunter
Brook watershed, specifically its headwaters wetlands, provide for the maintenance of
downstream base flow and the maintenance of perennial streams.

What impacts on Wetland A can be expected from altering the topography of the
wetland buffer?

Response III.F 28:

The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management design to reduce
impact to the Wetland A buffer and improve water quality treatment of stormwater
runoff. The FEIS design will reduce impact to the Wetland A buffer, increase
recharge of the groundwater table, improve water quality treatment, reduce surface
stormwater runoff and mitigate thermal impacts, thereby providing improved water
quality to downstream water bodies including Hunter Brook and the NYC watershed.
Also refer to Responses III.F1, III.F 6 and III.F 14.) FEIS Appendix E includes a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact analysis, pollutant loading
analysis and water balance analysis to Wetland A. Summary descriptions are
provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The results of the analyses indicate
that post-development stormwater related impacts will be reduced below existing
thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A. Since impacts will be reduced at the Site, the
analyses confirm that no adverse impacts to downstream water bodies including
Hunter Brook and New Croton Reservoir will result.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-29

No impervious area is proposed within the Wetland A buffer. The area that will be
disturbed will be revegetated. Surface runoff from the site will be infiltrated, thereby
maintaining the groundwater fed characteristics of Wetland A. Therefore, no
significant impact to Wetland A is anticipated.



How is construction of a permanent embankment within the watershed of the wetland
not going to have a permanent impact on the wetland?

Response III.F 29:

Refer to FEIS Response III.F 28. The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater
management design, in part, to reduce the impact to the Wetland A buffer. The
Applicant proposes a retaining wall that will reduce the extent of the westerly
embankment adjacent to Wetland A, thus preserving 93% of the forested buffer.
(Refer to FEIS Section III.G Introductory Summary Response.) The disturbed portion
of the buffer below the retaining wall will be revegetated with a Conservation seed
mix and allowed to naturalize following construction.

The stormwater FEIS modifications will include enlarging the infiltration system and
reduction of surface water runoff. Wetland A will, therefore, continue to be
maintained as a primarily groundwater fed wetland, receiving recharge from the
infiltrators behind the wall through the soil and shallow ground water. Peak discharge
rates will be reduced, surface runoff volumes will be reduced, and infiltration will be
increased. Therefore, base flow will be maintained through a combination of surface
runoff from the undisturbed portion of the buffer and groundwater recharge from
seeps at the edge of the wetland.




_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-30

What impacts on Wetland B can be expected from constructing impervious surfaces
within the wetland buffer?

Response III.F 30:

No impervious surfaces are proposed within the Wetland A buffer. The portion of the
Wetland B buffer that will be disturbed by the Costco development was previously
disturbed by construction and maintenance of the existing motel, lawn area and pool
(since filled in). Portions of the existing buffer around Wetland B are maintained as
lawn and, therefore, these areas are less capable of providing the protections that
could normally be offered by an unaltered wetland buffer. This area is also not a
wildlife corridor. Potential wildlife corridors are present to the north of the property
and along the western property boundary, including within Wetland A. Vegetation in
the forested (non-lawn) portion of the Wetland B buffer includes non-native invasive
species such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Tartarian honeysuckle
(Lonicera tatarica) shrubs, Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculata) vines and
garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata); therefore, the buffer will not protect the wetland
from encroachment from undesirable species. Following development Wetland B
will continue to discharge groundwater moving in a northerly direction along the
Taconic corridor.

Also refer to III.G 31, III.G 35, and III.G 36a.



What quantitative impacts due to stormwater (pH. nutrient loading, sediment
temperature, dissolved oxygen. heavy metals. PAHs. etc.) on the Hunter Brook. and
New Croton Reservoir can be expected?

Response III.F 31:

The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management design to reduce
impacts from stormwater on Hunter Brook and New Croton Reservoir. .FEIS
Appendix E includes a, quantitative pollutant loading analysis. A summary
description is provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 2. The results of
the analyses indicate that post-development stormwater related pollutants will be


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-31

reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A. Since impacts will be
reduced at the Site, the analysis confirms that no adverse impacts to downstream
water bodies including Hunter Brook and the New Croton Reservoir will result. The
pollutant loading analysis addresses the pollutants referenced in the Comment.

In addition to providing a stormwater management plan that will improve water
quality of stormwater runoff from the Project Site. the Proposed Action also includes
cleanup of existing environmental conditions, such as the debris dumped behind the
motel buildings (likely to contain pollutants), which would eliminate the potential of
untreated runoff from reaching downstream waters of the New Croton watershed.
Refer to DEIS Section III.D.3.



By extension, what will these impacts have on the Hunter Brook ecosystem and the
drinking water supply for New York City?

Response III.F 32:

Refer to FEIS Response III.F 21 and III.F 31, as well as the Pollutant Loading
Analysis and Thermal Impact Analysis in FEIS III.G Introductory Response and FEIS
Appendix E

Comment III.F 33 (Letter 180.2, Gia Diamond):

Sensitive nature of wetlands on the proposed site does not allow for much
interference, and is usually turned into reservation parkland, while Costco proposes a
mega warehouse with a gasoline facility!!

Response III.F 33:

The wetlands on the subject property will not be directly impacted through soil
disturbance by the proposed development. Stormwater management facilities and
erosion and sediment control plans will protect the wetlands during and after
construction of the proposed facility. Refer to FEIS Responses III.F. 6 and 21. The
proposed site plan has been designed in order to present a plan that minimizes


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-32

impacts to the areas of sensitive habitat on the property. Refer to FEIS Response
III.F 28. The relatively undisturbed wetland and associated upland habitat along the
western property boundary will not be altered and will remain part of the wildlife
corridor to the north.

Comment III.F 34 (Letter 142.5, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed Chapter-Trout Unlimited),
(Letter 149.2, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed Chapter-Trout Unlimited):

I am the Conservation Chair of the Croton Watershed Trout Unlimited Chapter and
submit these comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
proposed Costco retail center located at the headwaters of an unnamed tributary
feeding Sherry Brook northwest of the intersection of Routes 202/35 and the Taconic
Parkway. As a trout fisherman and concerned citizen I have studied virtually every
trout spawning tributary in the Croton Watershed including the Hunter Brook and
Sherry Brook. In fact, I submitted a letter to the Yorktown Planning Board on J anuary
10, 2000 on the Yorktown Retail Center FEIS discussing the trout spawning and
degraded conditions in the area of the confluence of the Hunter Brook and Sherry
Brook.

As recognized by Trout Unlimited:

Brook trout have declined across the eastern range as the result of land use decisions
made over the past several hundred years that increased sedimentation, nutrient runoff
and water temperatures, and from more recent impacts as our population, road
network and water needs continue to grow. From Maine to Georgia to Ohio, brook
trout have declined in many areas and have completely vanished from others.
1

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are part of the trout and salmon (Salmonid) family
and is New Yorks official State fish. Once widespread throughout the state... many
populations have been lost due to habitat destruction and introduction of competing
fish species..., brook trout generally live in small- to moderate-sized streams, lakes,
and ponds, wherever cool (below 72 Fahrenheit) clean water is available.
2

Brook trout have evolved the capacity to take advantage of a variety of aquatic
environments such as river and stream systems, tiny first order tributaries, small
ponds, large lakes and estuaries.
3

1
http://www.tu.org/conservationleastern-conservationlbrook-trout/about.
2
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/70 1 6.html.
3
httpl/www.tu.org/conservation/eastem-conservationibrook-troutfeducationJbiology-habitat-needs.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-33

Response III.F 34:

Comment noted. Refer to item 5 of the FEIS Section III.G Introductory Summary
Response which indicates a reduction of pollutant loading contributing to the Hunter
Brook from the Costco site. (see the Pollutant Loading Analysis and Thermal Impact
Analysis in FEIS III.G Introductory Response and FEIS Appendix E)

Comment III.F 34a (Letter 142.5a, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed Chapter-Trout
Unlimited), (Letter 149.2a, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed Chapter-Trout
Unlimited):

Thermal requirements for brook trout are well-documented. [O]ptimal growth occurs
between 11C [51.8F.] and 16C [60.8F.]. At 20C [68 F.], brook trout activity
rates are lowest (Fisher and Sullivan 1958) and metabolism is maximized (Hartman
and Cox 2008). The upper incipient lethal temperature for yearling brook trout was
identified as 25.3C [77.54F.].
8

The DEIS states that the maximum temperature for sensitive fish species ranges to
about 78 degrees F. DEIS III-F-24 (78.224 F.) Beyond this overly broad statement
there is no discussion. The DEIS does not report that water temperatures exceeding
68 degrees result in brook trout stress and mortality.
9

First, the DEIS contains no evidence demonstrating that the projects thermal
pollution (from runoff with surfaces as high as 110 F.) is mitigated by the length of a
streams segment. I am unaware of any thermal study or graph showing a point
source discharge decreasing in temperature solely based upon the length of the
stream. In fact, DECs regulations contain specific mixing zone criteria for thermal
discharges. 6 NYCRR 704.3. That criteria requires that [c]onditions in the mixing
zone shall not be lethal in contravention of water quality standards to aquatic biota
which may enter the zone and [t]he location of mixing zones for thermal discharges
shall not interfere with spawning areas, nursery areas and fish migration routes. Id.
at (b) and (c).

Response III.F 34a:

In light of the sensitive ecosystem of Hunter Brook, and its function in supporting
Brook Trout, the water quality and temperature of contributing stormwater runoff
from the Project site were carefully considered. ) The modifications include reduced


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-34

impact to Wetland A buffer, reduction of runoff volume, increased groundwater
recharge, improved water quality treatment, and mitigation of thermal impact, thereby
benefiting downstream water bodies. A thermal impact analysis was performed by the
Applicant. The analysis is included in FEIS Appendix E and summarized in FEIS
II.G Introductory Response. Refer FEIS III.F Introductory Response and Responses
III.F 6 and III.F 14. Regarding

Comment III.F 35 (Letter 170.4, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Wetland A

The DEIS and flora and fauna study is accurate in designating Wetland A a Red
Maple-Hardwood Swamp, under NHP definition a more loosely specified
community, simply a swamp dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) and other
hardwoods (various species) with few coniferous species.

When I saw this wetland its center (described accurately as a vernal poo1 in the
DEIS) had 1-8 inches of standing water. The standing water center was 30-70 feet in
diameter. The area of saturated soil and low vegetation (mosses. Graminoid plants
and low forbs) stretched 8-40 feet from the edge of standing water, the greatest length
at the south end of the wetland. A raised area, apparently mostly rocks of glacial till,
the soil eroded away by floodwaters, marked the path of water naturally draining
south from Wetland A probably year-round underground, inactive only in drought
conditions.

The DEIS falsely characterizes Wetland A, underestimating its habitat potential for
vernal pool dependent animals and failing to follow its hydrologic connections
beyond the site boundaries. In this report impacts and implications regarding wildlife
values for Wetland A are presented in greater detail in sections on wetlands and
streams, biodiversity and a detailed critical analysis of the Costco DEIS.

Response III.F 35:

species that prefer reproduction within vernal pools) have been documented, most
recently in April of 2013 (see ResponseIII.F 18). Wetland A contains an intermittent
watercourse that flows off-site to the southwest. Wetland A and the upland area to
the west of the wetland are potential wildlife corridors and contain wildlife habitat.
The wildlife corridors along the western edge of the property, and to the north of the


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-35

site will not be altered or impacted by the proposed Project. The proposed Project has
been reconfigured several times in order to best protect the natural resources on and
near the property, and to maintain the quality of the wildlife habitat in and near
Wetland A, including the vernal pool.

Concerns about the quality and quantity of ground and surface water entering
Wetland A and ultimately leaving the site have also been evaluated in this FEIS.
Refer to FEIS III.F Introductory Response, FEIS III.G Introductory Response, FEIS
Appendix E and FEIS Responses III.F 1 and 6 for more details.


Wetland B

Wetland B is an overgrown mostly weedy shallow basin receiving runoff from the
Taconic Parkway ??? right-of-way. The northern portion is wetter, with shrubs and
small trees, mostly willows. Although Wetland B is not very significant on its own
biologically, the placement of fill and pavement over the wetland B drainage would
be the filling of the wet lands hydrological connection to other Federal Wetlands. The
apparent dredging and fillage [sic] of the drainage of Wetlands B may trigger federal
jurisdiction, which the project sponsors have not addressed. There is only a request to
ACOE for determination of non-jurisdiction. Additionally, stormwater from the
parkway through wetland B contributes significantly to erosion and flooding in the
north end of the Costco site, and the state land north of the site, all of this drainage
goes to Hunter Brook. The project site plan proposes to fill and pave over the
hydraulic connection of on-site Wetland B to Hunter Brook, a clear violation of
federal wetland regulations should ACOE make a positive determination of
jurisdiction for Wetland B.

Response III.F 36:

Wetland B does not receive runoff from the Taconic Parkway, though historically,
prior to the off-site drainage improvements, flow and sediment from off-site likely
entered Wetland B. The Taconic Parkway runoff currently travels through a large rip
rap swale that flows to an off-site stormwater basin to the north. Wetland B is mainly
sustained by groundwater.

Wetland B does not have a surface water connection to any other water bodies. The
NYCDEP visited the site several times at various seasons and determined that


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-36

Wetland B did not qualify as a watercourse (neither perennial nor intermittent). In a
letter dated August 12, 2010, NYCDEP acknowledged that the Project site is located
within the Crompound Designated Main Stream Area(DMSA), which allows
construction of new impervious surfaces within the limiting distances to wetlands and
watercourses provided that the SWPPP (FEIS Appendix E) is reviewed and approved
by NYCDEP. As part of this FEIS and site plan review process, the NYCDEP, as an
involved agency, is provided the FEIS and SWPPP for review.

ACOE was contacted in November and December of 2013 regarding the
jurisdictional status of Wetland B, but other agencies have reviewed Wetland B and
have found that there is no surface connection to other wetlands or watercourses,
including Hunter Brook, which is almost half a mile from the property. Thus,
Wetland B is an isolated wetland with no nexus to a downstream waterway.

It is the Applicants consultants opinion that no impacts are proposed to either
wetland, and the ACOE does not have a regulated buffer or adjacent area, so no
review or permit will be required from that Agency.


Wetlands west of the BME-Crompond Road Intersection

On 29 November I inspected the area north of Rt. 202-35 and west of the Bear
Mountain Parkway Extension ramp. The stormwater basin bordering the intersection
west of the BME is part of this drainage complex, and appears to overflow west into
herbaceous and forested wetlands stretching farther west along the north side of
Crompond Road. These wetlands extend north and a considerable distance and
elevation up the steep south-facing slope conducting runoff to the wetlands through
intermittent streams. The wet lower slopes had robust stands of J apanese stilt grass
(Microstegium vimineum) defining and essentially delineating the wetlands. The
level wetland at the slope base is a red maple swamp that had several inches of
standing water when we observed it. I estimated this wetland to be at least as large as
Wetland A on the Costco site. I did not walk west along the slope or Crompond Road
more than 300 feet, and so did not observe the full extent of this wetland. I do not
believe it to qualify by area (12.5 acres) as a state wetland, but it is a federal
jurisdictional wetland (draining into Hunter Brook, and so not isolated) and a town
jurisdictional wetland.

The DEIS does not mention this wetland, which includes the stormwater basin, as the
DEIS is (intentionally, it appears) limited geographically to the Costco site, and


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-37

minimally to the state land to its immediate north, as described above. However, this
wetland is crucial to stormwater analysis and control, and to the matter of highway
improvements contemplated by NYSDOT. These projected road improvements,
which the DEIS ties to the feasibility of the Costco development project, are
questionable as to their own feasibility.

Response III.F 37:

Off-site habitats to the north and west of the site contain a variety of wildlife habitats.
These areas, and other areas within Yorktown have been reviewed in other
documents, including Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study for the Town
of Yorktown New York (Environmental Design Consulting, 2007), Biodiversity
Conservation Study Town of Yorktown Westchester County, New York (STERNS &
WHEELER, LLC, 2010), and Ecological Survey of the Costco Development Site,
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, NY (Barbour, 2012). However, the majority
of the comments in these documents do not specifically address the portions of the
site that are proposed for development; therefore, the DEIS was prepared to address
more site-specific information and immediate offsite areas which where potentially
impacted by the Proposed Action.

The referenced offsite wetland and its relation to the referenced NYSDOT roadway
improvements are independent of the Proposed Action. Thus, the Project has no
effect on those offsite areas. Any impact to existing wetlands associated with those
improvements would have been addressed in the NYSDOTs project approval
documents.


The DEIS fails to meet the fundamental requirements of the Final Scoping Document,
which required the DEIS to:

- Description and mapping of onsite wetlands, watercourses and buffers including
delineation methodology as appropriate for federal, state or local regulatory agencies
with jurisdiction. The description of the wetlands/watercourses/buffers will include
the vegetation, soils, hydrology and functions provided. All onsite wetlands should be
identified and mapped regardless of size. Indicate for each wetland its location;
acreage; type (including soils, vegetation, and hydrology); functionality; and
government agency or agencies with jurisdiction.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-38

- Describe and map wetland buffers onsite, including vegetation, acreage,
functionality, and any existing disturbance.

- Describe the NYC watershed and streams to which the site is tributary.

- Assess the potential presence of any vernal pools on the site.

- Include in the description any offsite wetlands that are functionally related and
which might reasonably be expected to be affected by the Proposed Action.

- Identify surface waters with significant accumulations of silt or sediment.

- Identify and discuss the applicable wetland/watercourse regulations (Federal, State
and local, including watershed regulations).

- State whether any wetlands, wetland buffers, vernal pools, or surface waters will be
directly disturbed, e.g., by filling, dredging, removal of vegetation, etc.

- Identify location of any proposed buildings, impermeable surfaces, major artificial
landforms (e.g., retaining walls, berms) or utility lines/connections in relation to
surface waters, wetlands, and wetland buffers.

- Identify any potential secondary disturbance to wetlands or wetland buffers relating
to activities or construction outside wetlands or wetland buffer areas, such as, erosion
during site construction, runoff from proposed impermeable surfaces, use of
fertilizers, etc.

- Discuss and quantify potential impacts of each type of disturbance, including any
secondary disturbance, relative to onsite and, as applicable, offste wetlands and
surface waters. Describe impacts on functional values of wetlands, vegetative
composition, wildlife habitat, pollution abatement, hydrology, etc.

- Discuss construction and post-construction impacts to ground water and surface
water as a result of sedimentation, potential pollutant loading and thermal pollution.

Response III.F 38:

The following items address each of the points listed in the comment above:

- For a description and mapping of onsite wetlands, watercourses and buffers, etc.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-39

refer to DEIS Section III.F.1.a.

- For a description and map of wetland buffers onsite, including vegetation, acreage,
functionality, and any existing disturbance, refer to DEIS Section III.F.1.b.

- For a description of the NYC watershed and streams to which the site is tributary,
refer to DEIS Section III.F.1.c.

- For an assessment of the presence of any vernal pools on the site, refer to DEIS
Section III.F.1.c.

- For a description of any offsite wetlands that are functionally related and which
might reasonably be expected to be affected by the Proposed Action, refer to DEIS
Section III.F.1.d.

- For an identification of any surface waters with significant accumulations of silt or
sediment, refer to DEIS Section III.F.1.e.

- For identification and discussion of applicable wetland/watercourse regulations
(Federal, State and local, including watershed regulations), refer to DEIS Section
III.F.1.f.

- For a discussion on whether any wetlands, wetland buffers, vernal pools, or surface
waters will be directly disturbed, e.g., by filling, dredging, removal of vegetation,
etc., refer to DEIS Section III.F.2.a.

- For identification of the locations of any proposed buildings, impermeable
surfaces, major artificial landforms (e.g., retaining walls, berms) or utility
lines/connections in relation to surface waters, wetlands, and wetland buffers, refer
to DEIS Section III.F.2.b. Also, refer to FEIS Part A Introduction to FEIS and Site
Plan Introductory Response, along with Site Plan Introductory Response Exhibits 1
and 2.

- For identification of any secondary disturbance to wetlands or wetland buffers
relation to activities or construction outside wetlands or wetland buffer areas, such
as, erosion during site construction, runoff from proposed impermeable surfaces,
use of fertilizers, etc., refer to DEIS Section III.F.2.c. Also refer to FEIS III.G
Introductory Summary Response.

- For a discussion and quantification of potential impacts of each type of


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-40

disturbance, including any secondary disturbance, relative to onsite and, as
applicable, offsite wetlands and surface waters, and a discussion of impacts on
functional values of wetlands, vegetative composition, wildlife habitat, pollution
abatement, hydrology, etc., refer to DEIS Section III.F.2.d. Also refer to FEIS
III.G Introductory Summary Response.

- For a discussion of construction and post-construction impacts to ground water and
surface water as a result of sedimentation, potential pollutant loading and thermal
pollution, refer to DEIS Section III.F.2.e. Also refer to FEIS III.G Introductory
Summary Response.


The WETLAND WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS by Evans Associates (Appendix C)
repeats this assertion: Based on observations made by Evans Associates staff of the
upper portion of Wetland A over a number of years, it is apparent that Wetland A
does not consistently provide suitable breeding habitat for amphibians.

But longer surveys (2-3 or more years) such as those I have participated in at West
Point and the Northern Shawangunks demonstrate that you cant judge a pool s
output by 1 or 2 year observations. Staff biologists at West Point and at Mohonk
have continued these annual surveys begun in the mid-1990s, and found that breeding
comparative breeding [sic] success varies greatly from one pool to another not only
year to year, but pool to pool, and less predictably than assumed influences of
weather, rainfall and other factors might suggest.

Response III.F 39:

species that prefer reproduction within vernal pools) have been documented, most
recently in April of 2013 (see ResponseIII.F 18). This pool has been monitored by
the Applicants consultants over a number of years, spanning a variety of
climatological conditions (very dry years as well as very wet years). Protection of
sensitive habitats, including the vernal pool in Wetland A, has been a priority during
the planning process. Approximately 93% of the wooded buffer surrounding the
vernal pool in Wetland A will remain in an undisturbed state, which exceeds the
minimum 75% recommended development guidelines contained in the Metropolitan
Conservation Alliance Technical Paper No. 5, Best Development Practices:
Conserving Pool-Breeding Amphibians in residential and Commercial Developments
in the Northeastern United States(2002). The existing buffer around the vernal pool


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-41

is 2.86 acre-feet. The post-development undisturbed buffer will be 2.65 acre-feet.
The proposed temporary disturbance to the wetalnd buffer will be revegetated.

The proposed Project has been designed in order to best protect the natural resources
on and near the property, and to maintain the quality of the wildlife habitat in and
near Wetland A, including the vernal pool. Concerns about the quality and quantity
of water entering the vernal pool, with respect to stormwater runoff have also been
redesigned to protect the vernal pool, and no direct runoff from the Project site will
enter the pool under the present design.

Refer to FEIS III.F Introductory Response, FEIS III.G Introductory Response and
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response. Also refer to FEIS Responses III.F 1, 6, 7,
14, 18, 35.

The Applicants consultants agree with the commenters observation that breeding
success for species using vernal pool wetlands is highly variable and is influenced by
many factors.


The water budget analysis continues

This is partly due to climatic variation from year to year which affects the regional
groundwater, but is also due to the highly variable surface water inputs which results
from a limited surface drainage area.

I assume this means weather variations. Climate is measured in long-term trends, not
annual variations. Annual weather variations dont affect groundwater much, but they
do affect surface water. Thus the second clause of the sentence is at least
appropriately stated, though the reasoning (as I am able to follow it) is circular.
However, the gist and intent of the argument is revealed in the next passage.

(For next passage, see Comment III.F 41)

Response III.F 40:

Annual weather patterns impact surface water flows most directly, but can also affect
groundwater levels, particularly during drought periods and periods of above average
precipitation.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-42


The proposed development will result in a significant alteration of the surface water
drainage area, which in turn will result in increases in both the volume of surface
water input as well as the duration of flow through the wetland. As discussed in detail
below, the net result is predicted to be extended periods of surface ponding within the
wetland basin, and extended periods of flow within the stream channel, without
alteration of the overall morphology within the stream channel below the wetland.
This design will avoid impacts such as erosion and degradation of water quality to
wetlands and watercourses offsite.

Clousers analysis (summarized below) and my observations of the existing
hydrology of Wetland A lead me to the opposite conclusion that the design will
alter the morphology of the stream channel below the wetland increasing erosion of
the mounded stone field at the outlet of the wetland, as well as the southern portion of
the outlet channel draining southwest and offsite. This conclusion is supported by
Clousers analysis demonstrating greater quantities of runoff-derived stormwater
(openly acknowledged in the Water Budget Analysis, continued below!) as well as
greater flow rates and consequently greater transport of sediments and pollutants into
and out of Wetland A and then offsite, increasing flooding in the town, and further
degradation of Hunter Brook.

Response III.F 41:

The Applicant has modified the DEIS Sstormwater management design for the
Proposed Action, to reduce potential impact to Wetland A and offsite water bodies.
A summary of the FEIS modifications are described in FEIS III.G Introductory
Summary Response. The modifications include reduced impact to Wetland A buffer,
reduction of runoff volume, increased groundwater recharge, reduced peak discharge
rates, improved water quality treatment, and mitigation of thermal impact, thereby,
benefiting Wetland A and downstream water bodies. Refer to FEIS Responses III.F
6, 14, 21 and 34. The FEIS stormwater management designis described in FEIS III.G

The net result of the proposed modifications will maintain Wetland A and its
intermittent watercourse as a groundwater fed water system.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-43


Clouser stormwater comments summary:

On the matter of stormwater controls on the Costco site. Clouser found that the DEIS
1) contains inaccurate watershed modeling, 2) severely underestimates the projects
impacts. 3) advances a system design that clearly does not comply with basic state
and federal stormwater requirements, and 3) ignores significant and far- reaching
environmental impacts from pollutant loading and transport.

Addressing this matter was specifically identified as a requirement in the projects
Scoping Document, yet the DEIS lacks any analysis of these adverse impacts from
pollutant discharge to downstream water bodies and the New York City reservoir
system.

Response III.F 42:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.G 39a to III.G 39g.

Comment III.F 43 (Letter 170.27a, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

The WBA continues:

Post development, Wetland A will have a larger watershed area (19.66 acres)
contributing surface water runoff (SWI) to it, but there will be a reduction in the area
available for groundwater recharge, as an additional 4.40 acres of the original
watershed will become impervious after development. A total of 6.18 acres of the
watershed will either be wooded (undisturbed) or part of the vegetated embankment
below the parking lot following development, and will continue to provide sheet flow
to the wetland.
The argument being initiated and presented by the DEIS drafters here and continuing
below is that 4.4 more acres of pavement will be good for the wetland.

The remainder of the watershed (13.48 acres) for Wetland A will consist of the
proposed impervious portions of the development. More impervious surface 13.5
acres of it is even better for the wetland!

Response III.F 43:


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-44

The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management designfor the
Proposed Action, to reduce potential impact to Wetland A and offsite water bodies.
As referenced by the Comment: the post development contributing drainage area to
Wetland A will increase and the impervious cover within the drainage area will
increase. However, these changes in the runoff characteristics will be mitigated
through runoff reduction and infiltration which will maintain Wetland A as a
groundwater fed wetland system. Refer to FEIS III.F Introductory Response. The
Applicants hydrologic analyses are discussed in FEIS III.G Introductory Response
and FEIS Appendix E.


Of the 6.18 acres of vegetated area contributing surface water runoff (S WI), 3.66
acres (subarea P2c) will contribute to the upper basin, while 2.64 acres (subarea P2a)
will contribute runoff to the stream and streamside wetland. Runoff from the
developed portion of the project site (subarea P2b) will flow into the stormwater
detention basin prior to entering Wetland A. But it still enters Wetland A.

This design preserves the hydrology of the wetland and therefore avoids changes in
the hydroperiod on a seasonal basis [undemonstrated, and in fact a salient feature of
vernal pools], while improving the quality of the habitat for breeding amphibians
(vernal pool species in the upper basin and other species that may be associated with
the stream) by extending the length of time that water will be present within the
wetland following each precipitation event.

Water input can be too much of a good thing. An example I encountered was that
of vernal pools in a stream floodplain at Mohonk Preserve. In March amphibians
deposited numerous egg masses in floodplain pools, but nearly all of the egg masses
were washed out of the pools in a large storm in April.

In addition, the detention of the runoff from the impervious portions of the site within
the stormwater basin will reduce the potential for adverse thermal impacts to the
wetland or watercourse by allowing the water to cool prior to discharge.

There is no analysis with real measurements of temperature or demonstration of the
basin design to support this argument for cooling pavement-heated runoff water. This
claim of mitigating thermal impacts is just so much hot water. See the comment
about the Wetland A vernal pool below.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-45

In my view an equally critical impact of pavement-generated runoff is transport of
chemical pollutants into streams and wetlands from the developed site. Assessment of
pollution impacts are generally avoided in the DEIS, or at best dismissed as
mitigated, with no supporting data. One big source of pollution never mentioned in
the DEIS, typically delivered in one big dose annually, would be snow accumulation
from repealed winter clearing of the Costco Parking lot. The variety of pollutants
would be staggering notably fluids from vehicles, and other chemicals sold in the
store and spilled around the fueling station and also trash from customers cars,
delivery vehicles, and disposal of packaging and empty containers, etc.

Response III.F 44:

Stormwater from the existing site presently drains to Wetland A and related
downstream waters in the New Croton watershed. The existing site presently
includes no stormwater treatment practices. Therefore, at present, untreated
stormwater discharges to Wetland A and downstream water systems. (Refer to DEIS
III.D.2)

The FEIS stormwater management design provides improved water quality treatment
as compared to the DEIS by providing, in part, an enlarged infiltration system. The
Sites water quality treatment will improve stormwater quality treatment resulting in
reduced pollutant loads contributing to Hunter Brook and the New Croton Reservoir.
(Refer to FEIS Section III.G Introductory Summary Response.) In addition to
providing a stormwater quality treatment of stormwater runoff from the Project Site,
the Proposed Action will include cleanup of existing environmental conditions which
would prevent the potential of untreated runoff from reaching downstream waters.
(Refer to DEIS Section III.D.3.)

Potential thermal impacts will be avoided by the treatment of the water quality storm
through infiltration. Stormwater runoff of the water quality storm contributing from
the impervious site area will be pre-treated and conveyed to a subsurface infiltration
system for treatment. This will prevent the heated runoff from entering the surface
water system, thereby avoiding thermal impacts. (Refer to FEIS Section III.G
Introductory Summary Response item 2 and FEIS Appendix E.)

Surface water treatment from the fueling station area will be captured and treated
separately where pollutants will be removed prior to discharging it to the site
stormwater system. (Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 2d, Response
III.G 37h.) With regard to snow removal and related pollutants refer to FEIS
Response III.G 52 and FEIS Response III.D 8, and see the Pollutant Loading Analysis


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-46

and Thermal Impact Analysis in FEIS III.G Introductory Response and FEIS
Appendix E.

Comment III.F 45 - (Document 84.4, Martha Patterson):


Response III.F 45:


Comment III.F 46 - (Document 145.2, No Costco Petitions (8)):

A PETITION TO THE PLANNING BOARD OF YORKTOWN, NY

As concerned citizens and taxpayers who live in the White Hill/ Mill Pond area,
the undersigned wish to state our opposition to the proposed the Costco warehouse
store for many reasons.

Pollutants in the runoff, including petroleum byproducts from the gas station,
will contaminate the Hunter Brook, which is a trout-spawning stream.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-47

Please do not approve this ill-advised project.


Response III.F 46:

Refer to DEIS Section III.F Wetlands and III.G Stormwater Management. Responses to
specific comments are addressed in the corresponding section of this FEIS.

Comment III.F 47 (Document 172.41, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)

In conclusion, is the Planning Board satisfied with the match between the proposed
development and the site in question? With the technology available today, and
progress in scientific discoveries, we know that the proposed development would
have an unnecessary and irreversible impact on the quality of our natural resources.
Yorktown deserves smart development that protects and conserves our natural and
community resources for generations to come, development that improves our
community and makes it safer, and ingenious development that leads and inspires our
neighbors.

Response III.F 47:

Refer to DEIS Sections III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology, III.E Flora and
Fauna, and III.F Wetlands, Groundwater and Surface Water Resources regarding
impacts on natural resources. Responses to specific comments are addressed in the
corresponding section of this FEIS.


_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-48

Comment III.F 48 - (Letter 39a.01, The Concerned Residents of Yorktown), (42.1f, The


(Please refer to Letter 42 of the Appendix the for the 103 signatures)

Response III.F 48:

The comment expresses opposition to the project based, in part, because of impact to
water resources. Refer to DEIS and FEIS Sections III.G regarding water resources
and stormwater management. Refer to DEIS Sections III.M, K, C, D, J and N
regarding air, traffic, soil, hazardous and solid wastes and noise respectively.

Comment III.F 49 - (Document 45.13, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and
Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola), (Document 93.7, Ben Falk), (PH2, Ben Falk):

Opponents are concerned about the impact of this development on the woodlands and
wetlands surrounding the building site. As residents, we are pleased to see there is no
wetlands incursion, and that changes to the parking layout (due to the relocation of
the filling station) mean even minimal incursion into buffer is for the most part
avoided.

Response III.F 49:

The comment expresses support for the Proposed Action and commends the
Applicant for minimizing impact to woodlands, wetlands and wetland buffer.

Comment III.F 50 (Document 178.8b, Henry Steeneck):




_______________________________________________________________________________________
III.F-49

the belief that Costco should not be allowed in our town or else
pollutedwater will cause enormous irreparable damage to the environment
and us.

Response III.F 50:

identified in the Index, also included in FEIS Appendix A.

Article 8 expresses general opposition to the Proposed Action. Document 178 in
its entirety, including referenced articles, can be found in FEIS Appendix A.
References to this document in other sections of this FEIS are identified in the
Index, also included in FEIS Appendix A. The DEIS subject referenced in this
comment was addressed in the DEIS Section III.F Wetlands, Groundwater and
Surface Water Resources. Responses to specific comments are addressed in
Section this FEIS section as well as FEIS III.G.

III.G STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-1
Section III.G Stormwater Management


In response to comments received from the general public and public agencies, the
Applicant modified the DEIS Site Plans and stormwater management design for the
Proposed Action, resulting in a more environmentally protective project. For a
description of Site Plan changes refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response. For
revised Site Plans refer to FEIS Appendix J . The stormwater management design is
detailed in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which complies with the
NYSDEC, NYCDEP and Town of Yorktown stormwater regulations and is included in
FEIS Appendix E. Since many of the public comments were repeated, nine
comprehensive responses are included in this Introduction that address many of the
repetitive comments. Within the Comment/Response section that follows the
Introduction, cross references to this Introduction are provided. Drawing exhibits that
supplement and support these discussions are included at the end of this Introductory
Response.

1. Wetland A Buffer
In response to DEIS comments to reduce potential impact to the Wetland A buffer,
the FEIS Site Plans include a retaining wall along the westerly edge of the parking
area that will replace much of the earth embankment shown on the DEIS Site Plan,
thereby reducing disturbance to the Wetland A buffer and increasing the natural
existing woded buffer area by 0.76 acres. No impervious area is proposed within the
wetland buffer. Refer to FEIS III.F Introductory Response, Exhibit III.G-A1 and
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8c.

2. FEIS Stormwater Management Design Water Quality Treatment

The Applicant, at the direction of the Lead Agency, incorporated comments on the
stormwater management design and water quality treatment into an updated
stormwater management design. The modified design enhances the previously
proposed stormwater management measures, and thus results in fewer impacts than
those reported in the DEIS.

A. Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv):
The DEIS stormwater management design provided the minimum required
Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv) for redevelopment projects (Chapter 9 of the
New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (Design Manual)).
The Projects FEIS post-construction stormwater management practices (SMPs)
are designed in accordance with the technical standards as described in Chapters


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-2
3, 4, and 5 of the Design Manual for new construction, which entails an even a
higher degree of stormwater treatment than Chapter 9. These standards require
the total (100%) reduction of the water quality volume (WQv) through the
application of, to the extent practicable, green infrastructure (GI) techniques
and/or standard stormwater management practices (SMPs) having runoff
reduction volume (RRv) capacity.

Section 3.3 of the SWPPP (FEIS Appendix E) details the evaluations done to
determine either the applicability and/or feasibility of each of the GI techniques
listed in the Design Manual. The only GI technique that could be applied to the
Proposed Action was the Conseravtion of Natural Areas. Approximately 8.92
acres, which contains Wetland A, a stream and wooded buffer (both offsite and
onsite), of the total post-development contributing drainage area of 24.28 acres
within the limits of study have been preserved in their natural state. As such, the
contributing drainage area can be reduced by the portions being preserved,
thereby reducing the runoff volume that is required to be reduced and/or treated.
As required by the Design Manual, the SWPPP identifies the specific site
limitations that make the application of the other GI techniques infeasible (see
also FEIS Responses III.G 26, 33, 34, and 37c).

As explained further in Section C below and Section 3.3 of the SWPPP, the FEIS
design also incorporates an infiltration practice, which is listed in Table 3.5 of
the Design Manual as one of the acceptable standard SMPs with RRv capacity.
In doing so, the FEIS design will capture and treat 100% of the runoff from the
water quality storm (i.e. WQv) from contributing area regardless of previous
development a using a subsurface infiltration system. Therefore, the FEIS
stormwater management design exceeds the minimum requirement by treating
the redevelopment area (existing impervious area) to the level of new
construction (and therefore more stringent) standards.

Stormwater runoff from the entire Sites proposed impervious surfaces plus
runoff from most offsite roadway improvement impervious surfaces (new and
existing) will be captured and conveyed to the onsite subsurface infiltration
system. Other treamtment practices have been identified for the westerly and
easterly segments of the offsite roadway improvements. Stormwater
management for offsite roadway improvements is further discussed in items 1E
and 3B of this Introduction.) The proposed onsite subsurface infiltration facility
will provide treatment at the source (beneath the parking area), and thus will
meet the regulatory water quality treatment and runoff reduction criteria. Further
information regarding water quality treatment in runoff volume reduction is
provided in items 2C and 3B of this Introductory Response.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-3

B. Pretreatment:
Prior to entering the infiltration system, runoff will receive pretreatment at each
of the three entries to the infiltration chamber. Pretreatment will be provided in
flow-based, New York State verified, proprietary hydrodynamic structures.
These pretreatment structures, which conform to the Design Manual standards,
will capture floatable litter and pollutant laden sediment, thereby maintaining the
efficiency of the infiltration practice.

C. Infiltration:
Infiltration will be provided in a GI stormwater management practice (Table 3.5
of the Design Manual), acceptable for providing runoff reduction and water
quality treatment. Stormwater runoff from the entire Sites proposed impervious
surfaces plus offsite impervious surfaces (new and existing) will be captured and
conveyed to the onsite infiltration system (FEIS Exhibit III.G-2). The infiltration
system will consist of three pretreatment hydrodynamic structures, three
subsurface storage chambers, and a subsurface storage/infiltration chamber
interconnected with the other three storage chambers. Low flows will be treated
for water quality, infiltrated to the subsoil and, therefore, removed from the
surface water discharge. Excess flows from larger storm events will bypass the
infiltration system and be directed to a surface detention basin, where runoff will
be stored and released slowly at or below pre-development rates. Further
discussion regarding offsite stormwater management is provided in item 2E and
4 of this Introductory Response.

Site-specific field testing to determine soil characteristics and percolation rates
was performed at multiple locations throughout the Site to determine the best
location for the infiltration chamber. The location selected for the proposed
infiltration chamber is within an area mapped by the Westchester County Soil
Survey as Charlton-Chatfield Complex, 2-15% slopes, which is typically
characterized as very well draining (see DEIS page III.C-5). Field testing
confirmed the suitability of the soil at this location for infiltration. The field
testing was performed by Tectonic Engineering and witnessed by NYC DEP
staff, in accordance with the Design Manual, Appendix D: Infiltration Testing
Requirements. Results of the investigation confirmed favorable percolation rates
ranging from 14.5 to 19 inches per hour. (Refer to FEIS Appendix E for the
infiltration investigation report prepared by Tectonic Engineering and Surveying
Consultants, P.C.) Existing soil in the location of the infiltration system was
determined to consist of coarse to fine sands and gravels ranging from 0.5 feet
below existing grade to ten feet deep with no bedrock or groundwater present.
The bottom of the proposed infiltration vault will be constructed below existing


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-4
grade at elevation 419.0, which is a minimum of two feet below existing grade,
which will, therefore, promote infiltration into the subsoil.

Although providing RRv is only required for the water quality storm, the FEIS
stormwater management design will reduce stormwater runoff volume and
provide water quality treatment of stormwater runoff for the Project for all
storms through the 100-year frequency. A comparison summary of pre- and
post-development runoff volumes is provided in Table III.G A1. The runoff
volumes in the table are the cumulative volumes calculated at all of the site
discharge design points. Detailed calculations and summaries are included in
FEIS Appendix E. In addition to providing reduction of stormwater runoff
volume, the infiltration will moderate thermal impacts and provide water quality
treatment resulting in reduction of pollutant loads (refer to item 3 of this
Introductory Response).

The volume analysis is being provided project wide on a quantitative basis rather
than at individual design points. Qualitatively, the Applicant finds that post-
development volume for individual design points will be equal to or lower than
the pre-development condition for the following reasons:
For some design points (DP-3, DP-4, DP-5 contributing area has been
greatly reduced;
For design points DP-1 to DP-6 and DP-8, the runoff from the water
quality storm has been redirected to the sites infiltration practice;
For design point DP-7 the CN remains unchanged and therefore the
runoff volume remains unchanged.

Table III.G-A1
Peak Discharge Volume Comparison Table for Project (1)
Design Storm
Frequency
Runoff Volume (ac-ft) % Change
(+Increase, - Decrease)
Existing Proposed
1-Year
1.184 0.230 -81
2-Year
1.705 0.440 -74
10-Year
3.567 2.718 -24
25-Year
4.983 4.401 -12
50- Year
6.494 6.147 -5
100-Year
7.280 7.040 -3
(1) Runoff from Costco site (DP-1 to DP-5), plus runoff from offsite roadway
improvements from DA 6 and DA 8 from which the 1-year storm drains to the onsite
infiltration system (FEIS Exhibits III.G-A3, A4, A5, A6 and A8.)
.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-5
D. Fueling Facility:
For the purposes of stormwater management, the proposed fueling facility is
classified a stormwater hotspot, which is defined in Section 4.11 of the DEC
Design Manual as a land use or activity that generates higher concentrations of
hydrocarbons, trace metals and toxicants than are found in typical stormwater
runoff. As such, runoff from hotspot areas cannot infiltrate untreated into
groundwater, and pre-infiltration treatment is required. Section 4.11 requires
that SWPPPs for stormwater hotspots include a series of operational practices at
the site that reduce the generation of pollutants. Therefore, runoff from the
fueling facility will receive separate water quality treatment prior to discharging
to the site storm drainage and the underground infiltration system. Water quality
treatment for the fueling facility drainage areas will be provided in two perimeter
sand filters with catch basin inserts as described further below. Refer to SWPPP
(Appendix E) and Site Plans (Appendix J ).

The fueling facility areas are graded in a manner that will isolate its stormwater
runoff. This isolated runoff from the tank filling area and the fuel dispensing
area will be captured and conveyed to separate perimeter sand filter systems.
Each system is sized to capture and treat the water quality storm runoff volume
from their respective contributing drainage areas. In addition, the drain inlet
grates for each perimeter sand filter will be fitted with inserts containing filters
with a special sorb type media specifically designed to trap hydrocarbons,
metals and silts carried in the runoff. After treatment, the runoff will be
conveyed to the underground infiltration system. For illustration, refer to FEIS
Site Plan Exhibit 37h. Detailed calculations are included in FEIS Appendix E.

E. Offsite:
As part of the Proposed Action, the Applicant will construct offsite roadway
improvements within the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor extending
between Old Crompond Road and Strang Boulevard. The improvements will
also include widening of Mohansic Avenue near its intersection with NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202.

The referenced areas of offsite construction consist of five sub-drainage areas
(DA-4 through DA-8) (FEIS Exhibits III.G-A5 to A8). As part of the
supplemental subsurface soils investigation, Tectonic Engineering performed
additional investigation (FEIS Appendix E) to determine the feasibility of
providing localized SMPs with RRv capacity for the Route 202/35 improvements
within the right-of-way. The subsurface soils investigation determined that
providing localized SMPs with RRv capacity within the Route 202/35right-of-
way of drainage areas (DA-4, DA-5, DA-6 and DA-8) was not feasible, and


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-6
therefore an alternate means of meeting RRv requirements for the Route 202/35
improvements was necessary.

Stormwater runoff from the water quality storm for the majority of drainage area
DA-4 (0.94 acres) as well as DA-5, Sub-DA-6 and Sub-DA-8 will be captured in
proposed roadway storm drain systems and diverted to the subsurface infiltration
system on the Costco Site, thereby achieving 100% runoff reduction and
providing water quality treatment. Runoff from storm events greater than the 1-
year frequency will continue to be conveyed to their current points of discharge.
Since runoff from the water quality storm will be diverted to the Site for
infiltration, rates and volumes of runoff from Route 202/35 drainage areas to
their current points of discharge during larger storms will be reduced to below
the pre-development condition (see also Item 4B below for further discussion).
New impervious pavement in these drainage areas will be 0.64 acres and the total
impervious area contributing runoff to be treated in the onsite infiltration practice
will be 2.92 acres. FEIS Table III.G A2 shows the proposed RRv/WQv
treatment of each drainage area from the improved portions of Route 202/35.

Table III.G A2
Offsite (Rte 202/35) Improvement Stormwater RRv/WQv Treatment
Drainage
Area
Impervious Area (acres)
RRv/WQv
Treatment
Pre-development
(without
treatment)
Post-development
New (1)
Conveyed to
Site RRv/WQv
Treatment
Practice
Draining to
Offsite RRv/WQv
Treatment
Practice
Remaining
Existing Area
(without
treatment) (3)
(a) (b) (c) (d) (a)+(b)-(c)-(d)=(e)
4 1.02 (2) 0.06 0.94 0.06 0.08
Onsite Infiltration
Offsite
Bioretention
5 0.56 0.20 0.77 - 0.00 Onsite Infiltration
7 0.48 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.48 Offsite Dry Swale
Total 3.91 0.77 2.92 0.13 1.64 -
Notes:
(1) New offsite impervious pavement associated with Route 202/35 improvements
(2) Impervious area includes gravel (0.29 acres) and paved/building (0.73 acres) surfaces.
(3) Existing pavements from which runoff will not mix with runoff from new pavement and therefore does not require
treatment as part of this Project. RunoffR will continue to drain to its originalits destination without water quality
treatment as it presently does.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-7
Areas at the west (portion of DA-4) and east (Sub DA-7) fringes of the proposed
roadway improvements will be captured and conveyed to separate localized
water quality treatment practices. Runoff volumes equal to the minimum
required RRv from the remaining fringe portions of drainage areas DA-4 (0.06
acres of new pavement) and Sub-DA-7 (0.07 acres of new pavement) are unable
to be diverted to the onsite infiltration practice. Runoff from these areas will
therefore be conveyed to a separate bioretention basin (DA-4) and dry swale
(DA-7) for reduction and treatment. See FEIS Exhibits III.G-A5 and III.G-A7
for the locations of these proposed practices. Bioretention basins and dry swales
are listed as acceptable SMPs with RRv capacity. Design details conform to the
NYSDEC and NYCDEP technical standards.

The bioretention basin for area DA-4, located adjacent to Old Crompond Road,
consists of a shallow storm water facility that utilizes engineered soils and
vegetation (turf) to capture and treat the water quality runoff volume, via
biological uptake and filtration, (see Appendix E for the calculation of the
volume to be treated). The facility has both pretreatment and treatment elements
and is a standard practice conforming to the DEC Stormwater Design Manual.
Pretreatment of runoff from the drainage area occurs by passing flow through a
separate cell called a forebay. A two to three-inch layer of mulch on the top of
the filter bed provides additional pretreatment. After passing through the
pretreatment cell, runoff temporarily ponds to a maximum depth of six inches,
then passes through the filter media of the bioretention basin, which consists of a
24-inch deep planting soil bed (bioretention soil). The filtered runoff is
collected in a perforated under drain collection system wrapped in a gravel layer.
An overflow catch basin and drain pipe connected to the existing drainage
system handles runoff in excess of the target volume to be treated. See highway
improvement HD-Series drawings in FEIS Appendix J for details.

The dry swale for area DA-7, located off the shoulder of Route 202/35 eastbound
west of Strang Boulevard, is a subtlely sloped (less than 4%) trapezoidal channel
that possesses the same treatment and discharge features of a bioretention basin,
essentially making it a linear bioretention system. Water will pond to an
average of twelve inches, with pretreatment occurring by passing overland flow
through a grass filter strip and a stone diaphragm. See highway improvement
HD-Series drawings in FEIS Appendix J for details.

In summary, as shown in Table III.G A2, column (a) indicates that under existing
conditions, there is untreated runoff from 3.91 acres draining to the roadway
right-of-way. Column (e) indicates that under post-development conditions
untreated runoff from existing impervious area draining to the roadway right-of-


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-8
way will be reduced to 1.64 acres. Under post-development conditions,
therefore, runoff from all the new offsite impervious area (0.77 acres) and offsite
contributing existing impervious area (2.27 acres) (currently untreated) will be
captured and treated in a standard practice, thereby improving water quality
draining to downstream water bodies including Sherry and Hunter Brooks.
(Although there is regulatory obligation to treat runoff from the existing paved
surfaces, when runoff from existing surfaces cannot be separated from runoff
from new impervious surfaces, runoff from both new and the accompanying
existing pavements will be captured and conveyed to the Site for water quality
treatment.)

Detailed description and calculations of stormwater management for areas of
offsite highway improvements are included in the SWPPP (FEIS Appendix E).

3. Pollutant Analyses

The Applicant, at the direction of the Lead Agency, incorporated comments on the
stormwater management design and water quality treatment into an updated
stormwater management design. The modified design enhances the previously
proposed stormwater management measures, and thus results in fewer impacts than
those reported in the DEIS.

A. Thermal Impact Analysis:
The DEIS stormwater management design implemented a micropool extended
detention pond and infiltration facility to treat the runoff from the water quality
storm. Both facilities are recommended to moderate thermal impacts; however
infiltration is more effective than the micropool extended detention pond. The
FEIS stormwater management design enlarged the infiltration system to treat
100% of the water quality storm runoff volume and converted the micropool to a
dry stormwater detention basin for use in peak flow abatement only. The
Applicant performed a Thermal Impact Analysis, which is included in FEIS
Appendix E. The analysis confirms that thermal impacts to Wetland A will be
avoided by treating the water quality stormwater runoff from the impervious
surfaces of the Site in an infiltration facility. Since no stormwater runoff from
impervious surfaces will be discharged to the vernal pool, no thermal impacts to
the vernal pool will result.

The onsite Wetland A watercourse is tributary to Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook
and the New Croton Reservoir. Therefore, since thermal impacts to Wetland A
are avoided, then potential thermal impacts to downstream water bodies will also
be avoided. The thermal impact analysis was prepared to demonstrate


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-9
compliance with NYSDEC Regulations Chapter X, 6 NYCRR Part 704 Criteria
Governing Thermal Discharges. Since the unnamed stream within Wetland A is
not a trout supporting stream, the thermal impact criteria described in NYSDEC
Regulations Chapter X, Part 704.2 (b)(1) apply. Detailed discussion and
calculations supporting this conclusion are provided in a separate Thermal
Impact Analysis, included in FEIS Appendix E.

The analysis includes a quantitative thermal impact analysis on the post-
development stormwater discharge that will drain to the existing Wetland A
stream corridor. Results of the analysis confirm the effectiveness of the FEIS
infiltration practice to moderate temperature of the stormwater runoff from the
proposed development, as summarized in Table III.G A3.

Table III.G A3
Daily Average Stream Temperature (Summer Period)
Case
Daily Avg. Temperature (F)
Downstream End
of Reach - Design
Point (DP) 2
Reach Average
1-yr Storm
Existing 78.5 78.1
Proposed 74.3 73.5
Change -4.2 -4.6
2-yr Storm
Existing 78.0 78.1
Proposed 73.9 74.3
Change -4.1 -3.8

Since the post-development temperature changes are calculated to be less than
the allowed 5F temperature change as compared to the existing conditions and
are also less than 86F (per the referenced NYSDEC non-trout thermal
regulations), there will be no thermal impacts to the onsite wetland stream due to
the post-development runoff conditions. Since there will be no Project related
impacts to the onsite wetland stream, no Project related thermal impacts will
occur in watercourses and water bodies downstream of the wetlands during the
summer period. Similar results were computed for the winter period. Refer to
the Thermal Impact Study in FEIS Appendix E for details.

B. Pollutant Loading Analysis:
Section III.G.2.e of the DEIS Final Scope of Work required the DEIS to Include
a pre- and post-development analysis of pollutant loading due to increase in


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-10
impervious surface. The DEIS did provide a primarily qualitative pollutant
loading analysis (with quantification regarding coliform bacteria), but did not
provide an entirely quantitative analysis because neither the current NYC DEP
Rules and Regulations nor the NYS DEC Design Manual require such an
analysis (except for analysis of coliform bacteria).
Nevertheless, in response to public comments on the DEIS, the FEIS provides a
quantitative pollutant loading analysis for the full range of stormwater pollutants,
including BOD, TP, TN, TSS, oil & grease (O&G), copper, zinc, and lead. This
analysis can be found in FEIS Appendix E. (Assessment of Coliform was
performed for the DEIS and was included in the DEIS SWPPP, DEIS Appendix
D.)
The FEIS pollutant loading analysis was prepared in accordance with NYSDEC
standards found in the Stormwater Management Design Manual, (NYSDEC,
August 2010) and in Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New
Development (NYSDEC, April 1992). The analysis was performed at each
relevant design point from where stormwater discharges from the Site. In
addition, two intermediate points along the watercourse within Wetland A were
analyzed. Contributing drainage areas include runoff from the entire Sites
impervious area as well as runoff from offsite highway improvement areas (as
discussed in Response 2E and FEIS Exhibits III.G-A4 to A8). Since stormwater
runoff from all of these impervious surfaces that will contribute to Wetland A
will be treated in a NYSDEC standard stormwater management practice, there
will be no untreated stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces discharged to
Wetland A.
The onsite Wetland A watercourse is tributary to Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook
and the New Croton Reservoir. Therefore, if impacts to Wetland A are avoided,
then potential impacts to downstream water bodies will also be avoided. Results
of the analysis confirm that under post-development conditions, all of the
referenced pollutants will be reduced to below pre-development concentrations
contributing to Wetland A and from the cumulative discharge leaving the Site. A
summary of the analytical results are included in FEIS Tables III.G A4 and 5.
Reduction in pollutant loads under post-development conditions can be attributed
to treatment of the water quality storm through the infiltration practice.
Additional pollutant removals will occur as infiltrate moves through the existing
soil strata. Existing soils beneath the infiltration chamber and laterally within the
Wetland A buffer area are characterized as coarse to fine sands and gravels,
which essentially will perform as a sand filter providing further pollutant
removals. For purposes of this analysis, the model assumes only 12 to 18 feet of
soil media providing lateral treatment beyond the infiltration chamber. In fact the


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-11
actual lateral distance to Wetland A is approximately 150 feet, and therefore, the
Applicant asserts that the 12 to 18 feet of media used in the model is very
conservative.)
The results of the model, as shown in Table III.G A4, indicate reduction of post-
development pollutants below pre-development levels prior to reaching Wetland
A. Results summarized in Table III.G A5, indicate that post-development
pollutant loads will be reduced to below pre-development levels when
considering runoff from the entire Project Site.
Within the referenced summary tables, low and high ranges of pollutant
removals are accounted for. The high rates of pollutant removals can be
achieved in the long term through implementation of pretreatment and a diligent
maintenance program. Pretreatment is included in the design and a maintenance
program is provided in the SWPPP. Annual post-development loadings from the
entire Site will decrease for all parameters (BOD, TN, TP, TSS, lead, copper,
zinc and O&G) under both low and high on-site treatment levels. Therefore, the
FEIS stormwater management design, as described, will provide overall
improvement to off-site stormwater quality as a result of the Project. Pollutant
loads will be reduced over the entire Project Site as well as at each site design
point (DP-1 to DP-5).


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-12

Table III.G A4
Pollutant Loading Comparison Table
To Wetland A
Pollutants
Annual Load (lb/yr) % Change from Existing
Condition
Existing
Post-Development
Low Range High Range Low Range High Range
BOD 156 42.9 40.0 -72% -74%
TN 36.5 35.6 25.7 -3% -30%
TP 2.2 1.1 0.9 -48% -58%
TSS 1543 615.1 615.0 -60% -60%
Lead 0.62 0.10 0.10 -84% -84%
Copper 0.64 0.20 0.17 -68% -73%
Zinc 0.71 0.17 0.17 -76% -76%
O&G 24.0 20.8 11.5 -13% -52%
Note:
1. All loading values, are expressed in lbs/yr. Refer to Pollutant Loading Analysis for the Proposed Costco
Yorktown Site, prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. in FEIS Appendix E for detailed analysis.
2. Low and high range refer to low and high pollutant removal rates, which have been assigned based on Table 15
of the DEC publication: Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development (NYSDEC, April
1992). The high range of removal can be expected when supported by a diligent maintenance program.
3. Pollutant removals are based on removal from the infiltration practice and migration through the equivalent of 12
to 18 feet of soil strata. Refer to Pollutant Loading Analysis prepared by HDR in FEIS Appendix E for detailed
analysis.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-13

The following discussion summarizes additional information set forth in the
pollutant loading report provided in FEIS Appendix E.

PH - Land use specific ranges of pH in storm water runoff of 7.3 to 7.7 fall within
the NYSDEC pH surface water quality standard range of 6.5 to 8.5 and are
comparable under both the existing and post-development site scenarios.
Therefore, post development pH will remain consistent with NYSDEC surface
water quality standards.

BOD and nutrient (TN and TP) loads to Wetlands A and from the entire site are
calculated to be reduced under the post-development site conditions. These
reductions represent an overall improvement to off-site water quality as a result of
the project and, therefore, offsite impacts resulting from the Project will be
reduced. With the reduction of BOD and nutrient loads, there will also be
reduced stress to the onsite and offsite DO concentrations. .

Table III.G A5
Pollutant Loading Comparison Table
Entire Costco Site
Pollutants
Annual Load (lb/yr) % Change From Existing
Condition
Existing
Post-Development
Low Range High Range Low Range High Range
BOD 844.8 119.2 116.3 -86% -86%
TN 133.2 49.4 39.5 -63% -70%
TP 11.34 2.2 2.0 -81% -83%
TSS 6396 1311 1311 -80% -80%
Lead 4.01 0.45 0.45 -89% -89%
Copper 3.35 0.53 0.47 -84% -86%
Zinc 4.04 0.54 0.54 -87% -87%
O&G 145.49 40.6 27.0 -72% -81%
Note:
1. All loading values, are expressed in lbs/yr. Refer to Pollutant Loading Analysis prepared by HDR in FEIS
Appendix E for detailed analysis.
2. Low and high range refer to low and high pollutant removal rates, which have been assigned based on Table 15
of the NYSDEC publication: Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff From New Development, (NYSDEC,
April 1992). As set forth in the referenced manual, the high range of removal can be expected when supported
by a diligent maintenance program.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-14
DO - Potential DO reduction in the soil and groundwater as flow travels from the
infiltration system to Wetland A may occur. However, the infiltrated stormwater
entering the wetland will travel through the same soil stratum with the same soil
characteristics and temperature levels, and will undergo the same mechanisms in
the soil such as oxygen consumption due to BOD decay or ammonia nitrification,
as currently occurs for the existing groundwater. Therefore, although DO
reductions may occur in the soil and groundwater, the infiltrated DO entering
Wetland A will not be significantly different from existing groundwater DO
levels. The reduced sources of oxygen consumption (via reduced BOD and
nutrient levels) entering Wetland A under the proposed project, will further
mitigate any potential groundwater DO impacts in the wetlands since there will be
less oxygen demand in the water column under the proposed project. In summary,
DO levels in groundwater contributing to Wetland A under post-development
conditions will be consistent with existing conditions.

Deicing Agents - Management of deicing agents will follow Chapter 18-45 of the
NYCDEP Rules and Regulations for the Protection from Contamination,
Degradation and Pollution of The New York City Water Supply and its Sources
(Rules and Regulations) and the Westchester County Best Management Practices
Manual on Highway Deicing Storage and Application Methods. Limited amount
of deicing agent will be stored on site (inside the building) for localized
applications at building entrances and walks surrounding the building. Deicing
agents will be applied on the site roadways, parking areas, and sidewalks as
needed to protect the public and employees. Applications to roadways and
parking areas will be performed by an outside contractor/ maintenance company
to avoid storing large quantities of agents on-site; that company will be licensed,
as required, by Westchester County. In determining the minimum amount of
deicing agents needed for public safety, best management practices developed by
the NYSDOT will be considered, as stated in Chapter 18-45(c) of the Rules and
Regulations. Compliance with Chapter 18-45 of the Rules and Regulations
and the Best Management Practices Manual, will minimize potential impacts
from the storage and application of such agents to the maximum extent
practicable. The potential for reduced salt/deicing areas will be considered during
site plan review.

4. Stormwater Quantity Abatement:

A. Onsite:
As with the DEIS stormwater management design, the FEIS design will also
provide stormwater abatement of peak discharge rates for the range of storms
required in Chapter 4 of the NYSDEC Design Manual. The FEIS design will:


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-15
Provide stream channel protection by infiltrating the channel protection
volume (CPv) for the 1-year, 24-hour storm,
Provide overbank flood control by controlling (attenuating) the peak
discharge from the 10-year, 24-hour storm to pre-development runoff
rates,
Provide extreme flood control by controlling (attenuating) the peak
discharge from the 100-year, 24-hour storm to pre-development runoff
rates.
The design will reduce discharge volume to surface waters through infiltration as
well as provide detention of runoff in a separate surface extended detention basin.
The abatement practices will result in reduced peak discharge rates to below
existing flow rates from the Project Site for all studied storms as summarized in
FEIS Table III.G A6.

Stormwater runoff from all of the impervious surfaces on the Project Site and the
majority of the offsite area of highway improvements will be captured and
conveyed to the stormwater detention system. The water quality storm will be
directed to the infiltration system, For larger storm events, the runoff in excess of
the water quality volume will bypass the infiltration system and be directed to a
surface detention basin, where runoff will be stored and released slowly at or
below pre-development rates.

The detention system will be equipped with two outlet control structures provided
with weirs and/or orifices that will limit the outflow to low discharge rates. The
primary outlet control structure will discharge stormwater to the west through an
outlet pipe that will discharge to a spreader ditch located south and west of the
detention basin. The spreader ditch will serve to reduce exit velocities as well as
spread the discharge equally over a long level area (85 linear feet) which will
slow the outflow and reduce the risk of potential erosion. The outflow from the
spreader ditch will flow overland through the wooded buffer to Wetland A at a
point downstream from the upstream ponding area.

The basins second outlet control structure will be equipped with an outlet that
will discharge to the north. Under pre-development conditions, stormwater runoff
from drainage area DA-E3 drains overland from the Site, across State lands to the
north. Runoff flows some 2600 feet, mainly through existing woodlands prior to
entering an existing NYSDOT stormwater management facility. Under post-
development conditions, approximately 3.9 acres of DA-E3 will be developed.
Stormwater runoff from this developed area will be captured and conveyed to the
stormwater management system for treatment in the infiltration system and
abatement in the extended detention basin. From the detention basin, stormwater


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-16
will be discharged to the north to flow overland across wooded State lands, as
pre-development runoff did.

The Projects FEIS stormwater management design as described will reduce
discharge rates and volumes leaving the Project Site. The Applicants analyses
(III.G A6) conclude that with implementation of the referenced design, the Project
will cause no adverse impact to offsite downstream water bodies with regard to
potential flooding. Detailed calculations are included in FEIS Appendix E.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-17

Table III.G A6
Peak Discharge Rate Comparison Table
Design Storm
Frequency
Rainfall
(inches)
Design
Point
(Notes 1-6,
8)
Runoff Rate (cfs)
Existing Proposed
% Change
(+Increase,
- Decrease)
1-Year Design
Storm
3.0
1 1.78 1.23 -31
2 1.24 0.73 -41
2c 0.02 0.00 -100
3 2.00 0.03 -99
4 2.94 0.63 --79
5 2.50 0.00 (Note 7) -100
2-Year Design
Storm
3.5
1 3.22 2.28 -29
2 2.27 1.40 -38
2c 0.17 0.09 -47
3 3.04 0.08 -97
4 4.15 0.82 -80
5 2.96 0.20 (Note 7) -93
10-Year Design
Storm
5.0
1 9.10 6.42 -29
2 6.43 3.96 -38
2c 1.58 0.89 -44
3 6.73 4.31 -36
4 8.20 1.44 -82
5 4.31 0.80 (Note 7) -81
25-Year Design
Storm
6.0
1 14.16 9.69 -32
2 11.41 6.77 -41
2c 4.36 2.95 -32
3 9.48 7.35 -22
4 11.17 1.86 -83
5 5.21 1.20 (Note 7) -77
50-Year Design
Storm
7.0
1 23.74 16.54 -30
2 19.37 15.31 -21
2c 7.55 5.67 -25
3 12.37 11.04 -11
4 14.20 2.29 -84
5 6.11 1.60 (Note 7) -74
100-Year Design
Storm
7.5
1 28.71 25.73 -10
2 23.51 23.22 -1
2c 9.52 6.97 -27
3 13.85 12.96 -6
4 15.73 2.51 -84
5 6.55 1.80 (Note 7) -73


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-18
Notes:
(1) Design Point 1: Offsite location where watercourse discharges to existing culvert under Old
Crompond Road.
(2) Design Point 2: Location where watercourse discharges from the Site.
(3) Design Point 2c: Point of discharge from Wetland A pond/vernal pool.
(4) Design Point 3: Location where site runoff discharges from site at north property line.
(5) Design Point 4: Location where site runoff discharges to existing culvert at Old Crompond Road.
(6) Design Point 5: Location where existing site runoff discharges to existing storm drain in Route
202/35.
(7) Under proposed condition, DA-5 is incorporated into DA-2b1, which drains to DP-2.
(8) Refer to FEIS Exhibits III.G-A3 and III.G-A4. (Full size drainage area maps, showing the design
points are provided in the SWPPP, FEIS Appendix E.)

B. Offsite:
The Proposed Action includes offsite highway improvements to Route 202/35
extending along the Site frontage and east from Old Crompond Road to Strang
Boulevard. The areas of proposed offsite work are identified within five drainage
areas (DA-4 through DA-8). The offsite drainage areas are shown on FEIS
Exhibits III.G-A5 through III.G-A8, with summary discussions provided below.
A summary of the quantitative analysis for the five (5) offsite drainage areas is
included in FEIS Table III.G A7. Detailed calculations and discussion are
included in FEIS Appendix E.

Stormwater runoff from the majority of DA-4 (3.63 acres), which currently drains
to the public right-of-way, will be captured and conveyed into the Site drainage
system for water quality treatment and detention. After development, only 0.45
acres of the original 4.08 acre drainage area will remain. As a result, runoff from
DA-4 will be significantly reduced.

Stormwater runoff from all of DA-5, which currently drains to the public right-of-
way, will be captured and conveyed into the Site drainage system for water
quality treatment and detention. After development, runoff from DA-5 will be
significantly reduced. Runoff from DA-4 and DA-5 currently drains to open
channels that lead to Sherry Brook. After development, runoff that had been
diverted from these areas will be discharged from the Site to Design Point 1,
which also will drain to Sherry Brook, thereby discharging to the same drainage
basin.

Improvements within DA 6 and DA-8 will result in relatively minor increases in
impervious areas. Each of these drainage areas is large and the relative minor
increases in impervious area are not substantial enough to change the existing
drainage characteristics. In addition, the water quality storm will be directed to
the onsite drainage system. Thus, the net result would yield no increase in peak
stormwater runoff rates.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-19

Improvements within DA-7 will result in relatively minor increases in impervious
areas. The drainage area is large and the relative minor increase in impervious
area is not substantial enough to change the existing drainage characteristics.
Thus, the net result would yield no increase in peak stormwater runoff rates.

Table III.G A7
Summary of Offsite Drainage Conditions
(Contributing to Route 202/35 & Old Crompond Road Right-of-Way)
Drainage Area
Designation
Existing
Drainage
Area (ac)
Proposed
Drainage Area
(ac)
New
Impervious
Area (ac)
Existing CN Proposed CN
DA-4 (1) 4.08 0.45 0.06 74 81
DA-5 (2) 0.62 0.00 0.20 95 na
DA-6 (3)(4) 38.93 38.93 0.14 78 78
DA-7 (3) 55.79 55.79 0.07 81 81
DA-8 (3) (4) 37.17 37.17 0.30 84 84
TOTAL 136.59 132.35 0.77
na na
Notes:
(1) Since the drainage area is significantly reduced there will be a decrease in stormwater discharge,
and stormwater abatement is not required. (3.63 acres becomes part of DA-P2b-1)
(2) DA-5 is rerouted to, and treated by the Onsite Stormwater Management System. (0.62 Acres
becomes part of DA-P2b-1)
(3) The addition of the proposed impervious area results in no increase to the CN. Therefore there is
no appreciable increase in peak runoff rates, and stormwater abatement is not required.
(4) The Applicant asserts that the analysis is conservative as runoff from the 1-year storm will be
captured and conveyed to the onsite infiltration system.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-20

5. Water Balance Analysis to Wetland A:

A water balance analysis to determine the potential hydrologic impact to Wetland A
had been performed for the DEIS as described in DEIS pages III.G-17 to G-23. The
hydrologic analysis includes modeling the surface water runoff draining to the
wetland and vernal pool resulting from the 1-year and 2-year storms. The analysis
was updated for the FEIS to account for the modifications to the site plan and
stormwater management design, which includes greater runoff reduction through
infiltration.

Runoff was calculated, analyzed and compared for the pre and post-development
conditions. Pre- and post-development conditions are shown on FEIS Exhibits III.G
A3 and A4. The water balance analysis was calculated for the upstream ponding
area, two downstream reaches and at design point 2. Hydraulic characteristics
calculated for the referenced storms include peak flow rates, volume, flow depth,
velocities, and duration. The analysis provides a comparison for pre- and post-
development conditions at the noted design points. A detailed summary of results is
included in the water balance analysis provided in FEIS Appendix E . However,
when assessing the results, the key characteristic used for comparison is the depth of
water in the wetland, which is the primary determinant of hydrology. FEIS Table
III.G A8 includes the comparative analysis of water depth within the wetlands.

FEIS Table III.G A8
Wetland A Drainage Analysis
Depth of Water
Design Storm Rainfall
(inches)
Depth of Water (feet)
Pre-
Development
Post-
Development
Change
Upstream Ponding Area (Vernal Pool)
1-Year 3.0 0.65 0.61 -0.04
2-Year 3.5 0.67 0.66 -0.01

Stream Corridor Reach #1
1-Year 3.0 0.04 0.02 -0.02
2-Year 3.5 0.06 0.06 0.00

Stream Corridor Reach #2 to Design Point 2
1-Year 3.0 0.05 0.03 -0.02
2-Year 3.5 0.07 0.05 -.0.02


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-21

In all instances the change in water depth from pre-to post-development conditions
results in a minimal decrease in water levels (one-half inch or less), which the
Applicant asserts is not significant.

Proposed Infiltration Flow Pattern
Wetland A is located approximately 150 feet from the proposed infiltration facility.
The elevation of the bottom of the infiltration facility is 419, which will require
excavation below existing grade. (This will ensure that infiltrate will discharge into
the existing soil rather than travel along the fill line.) The adjacent wetland is at
elevation 390, which is approximately 29 feet below the bottom of the infiltration
chamber. The soils to which runoff will discharge beneath and downgradient of the
infiltration chamber to Wetland A are described in DEIS III.C (pages III.C-4 to 9).
Based upon site-specific field investigation by the Applicants geotechnical
engineer, the soil to which the infiltration chamber discharges to is a well-drained
sandy soil. Rock is located from 8 to 18 feet below the existing ground surface, and
groundwater was not encountered (Test Pits BINF-6, BINF-12, Borings B-14 and B-
115). (Refer to the SWPPP in FEIS Appendix E.)

As shown in FEIS Exhibit III.G-A9, the infiltration runoff will pass through well
drained soils to and run along the confining rock layer toward Wetland A. Along the
route toward Wetland A, at a point some 65 feet along the flow path, it will pass
under the proposed retaining wall with about 10 feet of clearance.

Refer to FEIS Appendix E for the Water Balance Study.

6. Wetland B

Wetland B is an isolated wetland with limited contributing drainage area. Under
existing conditions, based on the surveyed contour elevations and through field
verification, the contributing area is 0.5 acres. Surface runoff generally drains
overland from south to north as well as from east to west. West of the wetland,
surface runoff drains west, away from the wetland and discharges offsite to a
NYSDOT stormwater management basin located approximately 650 north of the
Project Site. To the east is an existing drainage swale that flows from south to north
past Wetland B along the TSP right-of-way, capturing and conveying runoff from
the TSP and Route 202 rights-of-way. The Applicants wetland consultant asserts
that infiltrate from this ditch may be a hydrologic source that contributes to Wetland
B. Under post-development conditions, the TSP ditch and the contributing drainage
area to Wetland B remain unchanged from existing conditions or that previously
proposed in the DEIS.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-22

The Proposed Action proposes no paved impervious areas within the contributing
drainage area to Wetland B. Existing vegetation within the contributing drainage
area will remain unchanged. Therefore, no increase to thermal or pollutant loads
will result from the Proposed Action. As part of the landscape mitigation plan (FEIS
Appendix J , Landscape Plan), however, supplemental planting is proposed to
enhance the wetlands adjacent easterly buffer.

Wetland B is located within a larger drainage area, identified as Drainage Area 3
(DA-3). Under existing conditions, the area drains generally north and west, where
the majority of runoff from this area discharges to the north at the Sites northerly
boundary (FEIS III.G Exhibit III.G-A10 and A11). Under post-development
conditions the portion of DA-3 that presently drains away (west) from Wetland B
will be developed. Unchanged from the DEIS, the post-development DA-3 will be
reduced from 4.46 to 0.55 acres and its runoff to the existing design point (DP-3)
will be maintained.

Under the FEIS stormwater management plan, the proposed detention basin, located
at the north end of the Site will have two discharge points. The majority of the
ponds outflow will be directed to the south where, the outflow will be discharged to
a spreader ditch that will return surface water to Wetland A. A minor portion of the
ponds outflow will discharge to a spreader ditch at DP-3, thereby maintaining
hydrology to the north as under existing conditions.

7. Regional Stormwater Management Facility

As noted by FEIS Comment III.G 20, Section III.G. 3a, page III.G-32 of the DEIS
discussed, in response to the Towns request, the potential of developing a regional
stormwater management facility that could be constructed adjacent to the Project
Site on State owned land. Further investigation on the part of the Applicants
engineer shows that it is not possible to provide a significant regional improvement
at this location that would meet the Towns goal of reduced downstream flooding
because, among other reasons: the Sites relative location within the larger Hunter
Brook drainage basin; the small contributing drainage area in relation to the larger
Hunter Brook drainage basin; and the resultant small flow in comparison with the
overall flow contributing to Hunter Brook. Stormwater runoff from the Project Site
drains to the Hunter Brook, generally at the intersection of Old Crompond Road with
Stony Street. The contributing area from the Site (18.75 acres) is a small part (1%)
of the overall contributing drainage area (1,600 acres) to the referenced confluence.
Thus, appreciable benefit could be obtained through further management of
stormwater from the Site. Therefore, the concept of providing a stormwater


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-23
management facility on adjacent State lands, which would reduce downstream
flooding, is not being pursued.

8. Downstream Water Bodies

The Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan, which includes an onsite
subsurface infiltration system and a detention basin, will meet the regulatory
requirements of the NYSDEC, NYCDEP and Town of Yorktown for runoff volume
reduction, water quality treatment and peak discharge attenuation. FEIS Appendix E
includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, a Thermal Ithermal mpact analysis,
a Pollutant Lpollutant oading analysis and water balance analysis to Wetland A, and
summary descriptions are provided in this FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The
analyses conclude that post-development stormwater related impacts will be reduced
below pre-development thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A and/or at the design
points of discharge where leaving the Site. Since stormwater related impacts are
reduced to or below pre-development levels prior to leaving the Site, no significant
adverse impacts to downstream water bodies including Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook,
Mill Pond and the New Croton Reservoir will result.

9. Alternate Sewage Disposal System

In the event that extension of the offsite sanitary sewer system (DEIS and FEIS
III.H) is not permitted, an alternate onsite sewage treatment and disposal system
(FEIS Exhibit III.G A12) would be located underground within the western side of
the main parking area. The Applicant prepared a Preliminary Alternate Sewage
Disposal System Report to confirm the feasibility of this sytem. Based on the
referenced analysis, it was determined by the Applicant that onsite wastewater
treatment and disposal is feasible. See FEIS Appendix I for more detailed
discussion and exhibit. Should construction of the alternate sewage treatment and
disposal facility be necessitated, final design in accordance with NYSDEC,
NYCDEP and Westchester County DOH design standards would be prepared and
application would be made. During the final design process, site-specific soil
percolation tests would be performed and witnessed by the DOH.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-36

Comment III.G 1 - (Document 67.2, Richard E. Stanton, Law Offices of Richard E.
Stanton):

The failure to identify and adequately quantify the impacts of the proposed
surface water diversions and storm water management;

Similarly, preliminary review of likely storm water impacts also identifies:
gross deficiencies in identification of sensitive habitat at neighboring offsite
receptors: apparent false submissions and assumptions of what percentage of
the Project is a Main Street redevelopment project not subject to strict
compliance with onsite storm water management and treatment requirements:
the failure to quantitatively assess impacts caused by thermal and chemical
pollutants on sensitive receptors and potential cumulative impacts on critical
water bodies.

Response III.G 1:

As stated in the Comment, the assertion that the DEIS has deficiencies and
false assumptions with regard to the stormwater management design is based
on a preliminary review. As indicated in the subsequent document (refer to
document #136 in Appendix A and Comment III.G 25), the assertions in this
regard are mainly based on a report prepared by David Clouser and Associates
(refer to documents #136, 142 and 148 in Appendix A and Comment III.G
39). For this reason, the Applicant has responded to specific technical
comments raised in the referenced context (Response III.G-39, Clouser
Report, document #148). The Commenters entire document (document #67)
is included in Appendix A of this DEIS. Also refer to FEIS III.G Introductory
Response regarding redevelopment, runoff volume reduction, peak flow
abatement, thermal and pollutant loading analyses.

Comment III.G 2 - (PH1, Vincent Scotto):
It has been my experience and the residents that live in the Millpond area, that
well [sic] development through the years, we've experienced severe flooding,
and it started in 1968 with Whites.
Two weeks after Whites got in there, there was severe flooding. The town
came in, and they were responsible people. Mr. Spadacia and Mr. Popovic,
the highway superintendent. They eventually dredged that stream, for years
we had no flooding. Very good, but then along came BJ s. Five acres of trees
taken down. We had severe flooding after that.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-37
Then we had the Deer Hollow Estates. We've had so much flooding that the
centers -- the silt came down, and then we had the widening of the Taconic
State Parkway. Now, that community was built in 1956 when there were no
wetland laws and is it full of underground streams.
You got not just the Hunterbrook, but you got the stream coming down from
Lexington, sneaks its way along Route 202 and then comes between
Hunterbrook and Battle Brook. At the end of Hunterbrook, five houses before
the Hunterbrook Park, five of those residents were forced by FEMA to get
guess what, flood insurance.
Now, the whole place is a flood area. Now, you got Costco on top of the hill
and on top of it, I don't think the DEIS approached this, but you got
Crompond Crossings. What is the effect on that stream gonna be. By the
way, if you are gonna have a lot of real estate people showing prospective
owners houses in the Millpond area, are they gonna to say good luck, this is a
flood area. Good for business, huh.
But, my proposal is that Costco is spending so much money for the corridor,
for the sewers and now the J ewish center. Why don't they spend money on
flooding, why don't they dredge that stream. That's it. [PH1, page 172, lines
12- 25], [PH1, page 173, lines 1-25], [PH1, page 174, lines 1-9]

Response III.G 2:

The Comment expresses concern over potential future flooding of Hunter
Brook. The Commenter previously provided a written document, dated
November 10, 2010 to the Planning Board in which he included a copy of an
article from the March 28, 1968 publication of the Yorktowner (FEIS
Appendix E). The article described a proposed regional improvement planned
(and subsequently implemented) to improve a stretch of Hunter Brook in the
flood prone area primarily between Old Crompond Road and the end of Mill
Pond Street. The improvement included dredging silt, deepening and
realigning the Hunter Brook to alleviate an existing flooding and siltation
problem.

The historic flooding of Hunter Brook is well documented and the Comment
expresses concern that the Project may exacerbate future flooding. The
Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan includes a subsurface
infiltration system and a detention basin that will meet the regulatory
requirements for runoff volume reduction, water quality treatment and peak
discharge attenuation for new construction. FEIS Appendix E includes in a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact analysis, quantitative


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-38
pollutant loading analysis and water balance analysis to Wetland A. Summary
descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The results of
the analyses demonstrate that post-development stormwater related impacts
will be reduced below existing pre-development thresholds prior to reaching
Wetland A and/or at the point of discharge where leaving the Site. Since the
analyses show that impacts will be reduced at the Site, no adverse impacts to
downstream water bodies will result from the Project. With specific regard to
downstream flooding, the analysis shows (FEIS Tables III.G A1 and III.G A6)
that stormwater runoff volume and peak discharge rates from the Project Site
will be reduced below existing conditions, therefore, the Project will not
exacerbate downstream flooding to Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook and the Mill
Pond.

Comment III.G 3 - (Document 59.1, Steven B. Kaplan), (PH1, Steven B. Kaplan):


Moreover, the amount of impervious surface in our area is already too small to
prevent phosphorus overload in our water.

The town should being doing everything possible to develop in such a way to
avoid adverse effects on our environment. The value of our houses depends on
people wanting to live here.

Response III.G 3:

The Comment expresses concern regarding proposed impervious area and
resultant phosphorous loading. In preparation of the stormwater management
design, the NYSDEC requires that the Applicant follow a five step process for
stormwater green infrastructure planning (NYSDEC Stormwater Design
Manual, Section 3.6). Detailed discussion of the five-step process and the
application of the steps to the proposed Project are provided in Section 3 of
the revised Preliminary SWPPP (FEIS Appendix E). Step 1 of the process
recommends implementing site planning measures to preserve natural features
and reduce impervious area. Chapter 5, Green Infrastructure Practices, of the
DEC Stormwater Design Manual (Section 5.2.6) recommends reducing
proposed parking areas to minimize impervious surfaces.

The Applicant proposes to reduce the amount of impervious surface required
for the parking area by first reducing the parking stall dimensions normally
required by Costco. In addition, Costco has demonstrated that fewer parking


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-39
spaces can be provided than is currently required by the Town of Yorktown
Zoning Code for typical retail use. (Refer to DEIS Section III.L, FEIS
Responses III.L 2d and Parking Demand Study in FEIS Appendix H.) By
implementing these two planning strategies the Applicant will reduce the
impervious area by approximately one acre when compared to constructing a
parking area using Costco standard parking stall dimensions and the number
of spaces based on the parking index required for retail use by the Town of
Yorktown Zoning Code.

Since the Project is located in the New York City east of Hudson watershed,
the additional stormwater management requirement of enhanced phosphorous
removal is mandated. The Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan
includes a subsurface infiltration system and a detention basin that will meet
the regulatory requirements for runoff volume reduction, water quality
treatment and peak discharge attenuation for new construction. FEIS
Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and pollutant
(including phosphorous) loading analysis. Summary descriptions are provided
in FEIS III.G Introductory Response (in particular item 3). The analyses show
that post-development stormwater related impacts, including phosphorous
loads, will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to leaving the Site.
Since impacts will be reduced at the Site, there will be no Project related
adverse impacts to downstream water bodies (or what the Comment asserts
could have been associated residential property value impacts).

Comment III.G 4 Form Letter E (Document 42.3, Residents of Yorktown),
(Document 39.2, Gia Diamond):

Short Summary of Facts that everybody should know:

220,000 gallons of run-off from blacktop parking lot and the roof of Costco
wholesale store will leak into streams and aqua systems of New York in
addition to all other environmental problems that may arise; There will be a
Special Hydrology Report published before October 15th that would show the
environmental damage of COSTCO project to NY water systems.

Response III.G 4:

The Special Hydrology Report mentioned by the Comment is a
hydrogeologic and hydrologic evaluation prepared by HydroEnvironmental
Solutions, Inc. (HES). The cover letter (Document #s 70 and 90) and report


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-40
(Document #98) were submitted and are part of the Record of Public
Comment (FEIS Appendix A).

Refer to FEIS Responses III.D 5a 5c, which respond to the assertions in the
HES report.

Comment III.G 5 - (Document 42.11, Yorktown Smart Growth):


Toxic Runoff and Water Quality

Eight acres of impervious blacktop in the Costco parking lot, along with
more than 150,000 additional square feet of nonporous surface on the
roof would generate approximately 220,000 gallons of runoff with every
inch of rain.

Even remediation efforts on such a large site cant guarantee there
wont be uncontrollable runoff and flooding due to extraordinary
weather conditions.

And extraordinary storms have become the norm in recent years. Last
year was the wettest in Yorktown in 150 years, at almost 75 inches!

Unlike rainwater, which the ground absorbs, a parking lot and fueling
station create a toxic stew of petrochemicals and other poisons left by
cars and other human activity.

When it winds up in the watershed, runoff degrades the quality of the
drinking water supplied by the New Croton Reservoir.

Toxic runoff could also impact the Department of the Environment trout
spawning adjacent to the site.

Seriousand CostlyFlooding

Runoff and loss of erosion control from the conversion of the land from
woodland to impervious surface would also increase the likelihood of
severe flooding along streets south of Old Crompond Road and on White
Hill Road, which has been flooded several times in the last year,
inflicting damage to homes as well as roads and bridges.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-41

Taxpayers would have to pay for necessary repairs and replacement costs
for flooded and damaged roads and bridges.

Response III.G 5:

The Applicant disagrees with many of the presumed facts upon which the
Commenter bases the above assertions (for example, whether a single year of
rainfall (even if the assertion that it was the wettest ever is right) is a sufficient
data set upon which to make design decisions). Nevertheless, the Applicant
responds as follows:

The Applicant proposes to minimize impervious surfaces by providing
sufficient parking based on the Applicants Parking Utilization Study,
which is below that which would be required by Town Code for a typical
retail use. (Refer to FEIS Response III.G 3, DEIS Section III.L, FEIS
Section III.L Introductory Response and FEIS Appendix H for support of
this proposal.)

Regarding flooding, refer to FEIS Response III.G 2. Reduced impact to
potential downstream flooding will be addressed for the Project through
onsite reduction of stormwater runoff volume and reduction in peak
discharge rates. Refer to FEIS Introductory Responses 2 and 4.

Regarding design for extreme storms, refer to FEIS Response III. 37d.

Regarding stormwater runoff from the fueling facility, refer to FEIS III.G
Introductory Response 2d and FEIS Response III.G 37h.

For protection of downstream water bodies including the New Croton
Reservoir and Hunter Brook, the Applicants FEIS stormwater
management plan includes a subsurface infiltration system and a
detention basin that will meet the regulatory requirements for runoff
volume reduction, water quality treatment and peak discharge attenuation
for new construction. FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact analysis, quantitative pollutant
loading analysis and water balance analysis to Wetland A. Summary
descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The
results of the analyses conclude that post-development stormwater related
impacts will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching
Wetland A and/or at the point of discharge where leaving the Site. Since


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-42
the analyses show that impacts will be reduced at the Site, no adverse
impacts to downstream water bodies will result.

Regarding protection against erosion, the Applicant includes erosion
control plans, included in FEIS Appendix J . Also refer to DEIS III.O and
FEIS III.O. The FEIS Site Plan reduced impact to onsite woodlands as
discussed in FEIS III.G Introductory Response 1.

Since the FEIS stormwater management design will reduce the peak
discharge rates and runoff volumes for all storms through the 100-year
storm, no increase in burden to the taxpayer for flood related impacts
would result from the Proposed Action.

Comment III.G 6a - (Document 101.2, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust),
(PH2, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust):

The Yorktown Land Trust has the following comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding the proposed Costco
wholesale store and fueling facility. We partner with the WLT on projects that
enhance water quality and educate the public about the Hunter Brooks
importance to the Croton Reservoir as a source of public drinking water.

The discharge of storm water into wetland A will be through a constructed
channel. There is no mention in the DEIS of a maintenance plan for that
channel. The DEIS notes that the maintenance plan for a drainage channel off
the Taconic State Parkway, (TSP) could not be found and may not exist. The
project should not be adding to this omission by not including a maintenance
plan.

Response III.G 6a:

The FEIS stormwater management design eliminates the point discharge from
the pond into a channel. Surface water discharge from the detention basin will
be dispersed from a level spreader that will drain overland by sheet flow
through the existing woodlands to Wetland A to a point downstream of the
upstream ponding area. Discharge through a spreader will discharge pond
outflow over a greater area, will reduce concentrated flow and will reduce
outflow velocities, thereby providing greater protection from potential
erosion. The spreader will be maintained to retain its originally design
condition. Maintenance shall include periodic inspections, sediment removal


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-43
and repairs as necessary. The inspection and maintenance schedules for the
level spreader and the other post-construction stormwater management
practices are provided in Section 4 of the revised Preliminary SWPPP, which
is included in FEIS Appendix E.

Comment III.G 6b - (Document 101.7, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust),
(PH2, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust):


Wetland A is situated not only on the applicants property but a significant
portion of it, including the vernal pool, is found on New York State parkland.
The alteration of the use of parkland may be cause for an alienation situation.
At the very least a review of the laws of New York State Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation as well as New York State Environmental
Conservation law and New York State public lands law should be addressed
by the DEIS.

Response III.G 6b:

Wetland A is primarily located within the site boundary while a portion
extends north onto State property. No disturbance to the wetland is proposed
onsite or offsite, and there will be no impact to the wetland on State parkland.
As interested agencies, the New York State Department of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation and New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation were provided copies of the DEIS for review. No comments
objecting to discharging stormwater to Wetland A were received.

The Project will discharge no untreated stormwater runoff from the Projects
impervious area to Wetland A, and thus will be in compliance with the Town
of Yorktown wetlands ordinance. All stormwater discharging from the Site
will be treated in accordance with NYSDEC design criteria prior to discharge,
thereby avoiding impact to wetlands. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory
Response for additional discussion of the proposed stormwater management
design.

Comment III.G 7a - (Document 104.1, Howard Frank):

We take exception to the following statements in the DEIS we [sic] request
the following be addressed with a solution that will be part of any


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-44
environmental site plan approvals.

1. Address: The requirement to form a Special Drainage District. Due to the
flooding. Even though the present plan is only site specific. We suggest
this new District be within the same out fall and along the water entering
the area from the Parkway Drainage System, with all water courses that
input the Hunterbrook drainage basin.

Response III.G 7a:

Establishment of a special drainage district is not directly related to this
Proposed Action and EIS and is not necessary for the Project to appropriately
manage stormwater from the Site. Accordingly, the Comments concerns and
request should be brought before the Town Board for review and appropriate
action. It is noted that there are currently no existing special drainage districts
in the Town of Yorktown.

Comment III.G 7b - (Document 104.2, Howard Frank):

2. Address: To justify the Special Drainage District temporary water flow
measurements should be taken at various culverts starting at the Chase
Bank and downstream.

Response III.G 7b:

Establishment of a special drainage district and analysis of the referenced
Town drainage infrastructure is beyond the scope of the EIS. Refer to FEIS
Response III.G 7a.

Comment III.G 7c - (Document 104.3, Howard Frank):

Address: We request the Yorktown Highway Superintendent address the
history of the Roadway step [sic] hill. DOT has failed to keep the road safe.
Past failure of the Department of Transportation has caused the Town to take
over snow removal during storms. The Town needs a special plow and truck
to push off snow up hill. This should be part of the Special Drainage District.
This road over the past years has caused highway trucks to break down and
use up Yorktowns labor and materials and equipment. We request the
Planning Board ask the Town to Amend Snow Removal Local Law #15 2011
to include the 202 Roadway at Costco


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-45
Response III.G 7c:

The Comments request for highway maintenance, snow removal and
establishment of a special drainage district appear to be unrelated to this
project and is beyond the scope of the DEIS. Also refer to FEIS Response
III.G 7a.

Comment III.G 7d - (Document 88.1, Howard Frank):

Howard wrote: I am # 51 waiting to speak. The most important
environmental point NOT in the Draft EIS is the Impact protection of the
downstream Hunterbrook properties. If the Planning Board is serious they
will mandate separate Storm water Drainage Distinct. Separate from the
Sewer District extensions. The water going through and under this site
from the NYS TSP says only that the piping crossing 202 is bad and dirty.
This is why the Costco future parking lot was left only 1/2 paved with no
place to put the run off.

Response III.G 7d:

Regarding establishment of a Special Drainage District, refer to FEIS
Response III.G 7a.

The Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan includes a subsurface
discharge attenuation for new construction. FEIS Appendix E includes a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and pollutant loading analysis.
Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response
items 2 and 3. The results of the analyses indicate that post-development
stormwater related impacts, including pollutant loads, will be reduced below
existing thresholds prior to leaving the Site. Since the analyses show that
impacts will be reduced at the Site, no adverse impacts to downstream water
bodies will result.

With regard to stormwater runoff from the Taconic Parkway right-of-way
east of the Project Site, runoff is currently captured in a drainage swale
located adjacent to the Projects easterly property line. The stormwater does
not pass through the Project Site but is conveyed north to a NYSDOT
stormwater detention facility for treatment/abatement.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-46

Comment III.G 8 - (Document 107.1, Vincent Scotto):

Knowing the history of flooding in the Mill Pond area due to large
developments such as Whites, BJ s, Deer Hollow Estates and the widening of
the Taconic Pky, shouldnt the Planning Board and the Town Board tell
Costco to dredge the Hunterbrook Stream from Old Crompond Rd to the end
of Millpond St which is the opening to the Old Millpond area!!!

Costco is pledging 3 million dollars to correct the traffic conditions on Rt 202.
Costco is also giving a million dollars to the residents surrounding the Costco
area for sewer pipes. They are also going to aid the Temple people in the area
of 202 and Mohansic Ave. So why shouldnt they dredge the Hunter Brook?

If Costco should refuse to dredge the stream, then the Planning Board should
deny there application. Detention ponds alone will not stop flooding.

Response III.G 8:

With regard to flooding of the Mill Pond area, refer to FEIS Response III.G 2.
requirements for runoff volume reduction and peak discharge attenuation for
new construction. FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan and a summary description is provided in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response. The results of the analyses conclude that post-
development stormwater related impacts, including runoff volume reduction
and peak discharge rates will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to
leaving the Site. Since the analyses show that impacts will be reduced at the
Site, no adverse impacts to downstream water bodies will result. Refer to
FEIS III.G Introductory Response items 2 and 4.

The existing sedimentation of Hunter Brook, with resultant flooding in the
Mill Pond area, is an existing condition for which the Proposed Action has
had no contribution. As explained in FEIS Response III.G 2, studies show that
the Project will not affect downstream flooding. Thus, the Proposed Action
does not propose dredging of Hunter Brook to remediate an existing condition

Comment III.G 9 - (Document 107.2, Vincent Scotto):

About 110 ft behind my home flows the Hunter Brook or Mill Pond Stream.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-47
From Crompond Rd to an area behind the new sewer pump house on Mill
Pond St, the Stream is polluted with silt. I can see 2 islands of silt, 4 ft high,
10 yards long and 8 ft wide. Dense vegetation lines the banks of this Stream,
all caused by past building construction. First there was Whites Shopping
Plaza, then BJ s where 5 acres of trees were taken down. The Deer Run
housing development along Stoney St also removed acres of trees. Now we
have the luxury ball fields next to the stream which comes into the Hunter
Brook. The storm water run off from all these projects caused this stream to
be polluted and is causing basement flooding and backyard soil erosion for the
homes along the Stream, from Crompond Rd to the end of Mill Pond St, about
500 ft. This April, I wrote to Supervisor Siegel about these conditions.
Enclosed is a newspaper article from 1968 from the Yorktowner. It tells
how the Town dredged the Stream after trees were removed to build Whites
Shopping Plaza along Rt 202.

If this application should be approved, the Town should propose as a
condition that Costco should dredge the Stream from Old Crompond Rd to the
end of Mill Pond St. The Environmental Inspector of Yorktown can tell you
the condition of this Stream. Also Mr. Barber the former Inspector and now I
believe the Environmental Consultant of Yorktown.

Response III.G 9:

Refer to FEIS Response III.G 2 regarding potential flooding of Hunter Brook.

Comment III.G 10 - (Document 108.1, Cynthia Garcia, Department of
Environmental Protection):

To begin with, the project sponsor has not adequately quantified impacts to
water quality by failing to include a pollutant loading analysis. A pollutant
loading analysis was specifically listed in the scope and is necessary to
reasonably estimate the impacts to water quality. Consequently, the
effectiveness of the stormwater management design in avoiding or mitigating
any impacts cannot be assessed. Pollutant Loading associated with expansive
areas of impervious surfaces, such as those proposed, are generally understood
to be significantly large and may not be fully mitigated by measures proposed
even when these measures meet regulatory design criteria. This information
must be provided and ample review time allotted so that an informed decision
can be made.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-48
esponse III.G 10:

FEIS Appendix E includes a pollutant loading analysis and FEIS III.G
Introductory Response item 3B provides a description and summary of results.
The results of the analysis indicates that post-development stormwater related
impacts will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland
A and/or at the point of discharge where leaving the Site.


1. This section states treatment of srunoffs [sic] after the proposed
development will result in water quality benefits. Again a discussion of
impacts from pollutant loading and the ability of the proposed practices to
adequately mitigate these impacts should be demonstrated.

Response III.G 11:

FEIS Appendix E includes a pollutant loading analysis and FEIS III.G
Introductory Response item 3B provides a description and summary of results.
The results of the analysis indicates that post-development stormwater related
A and/or at the point of discharge where leaving the Site.


2. Increases in stormwater volume are briefly discussed in this section; yet
the impacts associated with significant increases in volume and flow
duration are not adequately analyzed. Increase in flow duration may alter
the hydrology of the watercourse, result in saturated conditions that may
cause erosion during runoff events, and may cause changes to wetland and
watercourse vegetation and habitat.

Response III.G 12:

requirements for runoff volume reduction and peak discharge attenuation for
new construction. Through infiltration, stormwater runoff volume will be


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-49
reduced for the full range of storms studied (FEIS Table III.G-A1). FEIS
Appendix E includes a water balance analysis to Wetland A. Refer to FEIS
III.G Introductory Response items 2 and 5 for discussion regarding reduction
of runoff volume and the water balance analyses.

The water balance analysis indicates that when compared to the pre-
development condition, post-development hydraulic characteristics remain
similar. Since the depth of flow in the Wetland A regulated watercourse
under post-development conditions will vary from the pre-development
condition by less than an inch of depth, and the duration of ponding will vary
from the pre-development condition by less than an hour at any elevation, no
significant impact will result.


3. The discussion on thermal impacts is misleading. The trees that are
proposed in parking lot islands are minimal and will not significantly
reduce the temperature of runoff from the pavement. Furthermore,
underground piping is designed to convey flow to the stormwater practices
as quickly as possible, not to mitigate thermal impacts. Documentation of
the benefits of a cool roof as well as the project sponsors commitment
to use this type of roof should be provided.

Response III.G 13:

infiltration system that will moderate thermal impacts. FEIS Appendix E
includes a, thermal impact analysis and a summary of its findings are provided
in FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 3A. The results of the analyses
indicate that post-development stormwater discharge temperatures will be
moderated resulting in no adverse impacts to downstream water.

Providing additional landscape islands within the parking lots would require
enlargement of the parking area to compensate for displaced spaces, resulting
in further reduction of existing woodlands (refer to FEIS Responses Site Plan
16 and II.7).

As also noted in DEIS Section III.I, pages III.I-16, 17, Costco indicates their
standard building construction includes a cool roof (solar reflectant white
metal roof), which will reduce the temperature of rooftop stormwater runoff.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-50
Costco will employ this roof in the Proposed Action.

Regarding the effectiveness of cool roofs, the EPA indicates that:

A high solar reflectanceor albedois the most important
characteristic of a cool roof as it helps to reflect sunlight and
heat away from a building, reducing roof temperatures. A
high thermal emittance also plays a role, particularly in
climates that are warm and sunny. Together, these properties
help roofs to absorb less heat and stay up to 5060F (28
33C) cooler than conventional materials during peak summer
weather.
http://www.epa.gov/hiri/mitigation/coolroofs.htm


4. It is uncertain that the drainage areas are reasonably delineated. A portion
of DP 3 may flow toward the vernal pool. Additional offsite topography
must be provided to confirm that the hydrologic analysis is reasonable.

Response III.G 14:

Topographic contours were added in the northern area of Wetland A. The
overland flow pattern was field verified by the Applicants engineer
confirming the drainage divide for drainage area DP-3 as shown on FEIS
Exhibit III.G-A4.


5. Calculations of water quality volume and minimum required runoff
reduction volumes are generally done for each drainage sub-basin, not for
the entire project area if it drains in several directions. As such, it cannot
be determined that the analysis as presented meets the regulatory
requirements of either DEP or DEC. In addition, without quantifying the
impacts of runoff and associated mitigation for each sub-basin, a
reasonable assessment of the impacts to each receiving water body cannot
be made. It is recommended that the project sponsor revise the analysis so
that the involved agencies can assess impacts and mitigation for each local


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-51
receiving water body.

Response III.G 15:

The Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan includes an expanded
subsurface infiltration system that will meet the DEC and DEP regulatory
requirements for runoff volume reduction and water quality treatment. FEIS
Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact
analysis, pollutant loading analysis and peak discharge attenuation for new
construction. Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory
Response items 2, 3 and 4. Analyses were performed for each sub-basin. The
A and/or at the point of discharge where leaving the Site. Since the analyses
show that impacts will be reduced at the Site, no adverse impacts to
downstream water bodies will result.

The improvements along the Route 202/35 corridor are divided into several
drainage sub-areas. Discussion of analyses is provided in III.G Introductory
Response items 2E and 4B and detailed calculations are included in FEIS
Appendix E.

Based on proposed stormwater management design that will reduce peak
runoff rate and volume to below existing conditions, there will be no adverse
downstream impact to existing flooding conditions resulting from the
Proposed Action.


6. It appears that additional opportunities exist for runoff reduction
throughout the proposed action that have not been considered. It is highly
recommended that the project sponsor consider measures in all offsite
development areas as well as in the portion of the site tributary to the
micropool extended detention basin so that impacts from increase in
runoff volumes and temperature can be minimized.

Response III.G 16:

Runoff Reduction will be met for the FEIS stormwater management design
through implementation of a subsurface infiltration system that will treat


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-52
100% of the stormwater runoff from the water quality storm . Refer to FEIS
III.G Introductory Response item 2. Refer to FEIS Response III.G 34, which
address consideration of other green infrastructure practices.


7. Soil testing for the proposed stormwater practices has not been witnessed
by DEP. It has not been substantiated from the geotechnical report
whether or not the proposed practices will function as intended,
particularly the infiltration practice.

Response III.G 17:

Site-specific soil testing to determine infiltration rates at potential and proposed
locations for stormwater management practices was performed in J anuary 2013.
(Winter conditions did not preclude testing nor did it affect accurate soil testing
since the percolation tests were excavated and performed below the frost level.)
Per the Applicant, NYC DEP (Mary Galasso, Assistant Project Manager)
witnessed the testing and has confirmed an acceptable percolation rate at the
location of the proposed onsite infiltration practice. DEP also confirmed
percolation rates from testing of three out of the four test pits (BINF-5, 6 and
12) dug within the proposed bottom area of the onsite infiltration practice to
range from 14.5 to 19 inches per hour. Refer to FEIS Appendix E for the
complete report with table of infiltration test results prepared by Tectonic
Engineering and Surveying Consultants, P.C. A rate of 14.5 inches per hour
was conservatively used for the design of the onsite infiltration practice.

In addition, soil testing and percolation rates in potential locations for offsite
practices associated with the roadway improvements have also been tested and,
the Applicant asserts that this testing has been coordinated with DEP staff.
Refer to FEIS Appendix E.


8. Although a detailed review of the SWPPP has not been completed at this
time, several issues were noted that will require revision prior to
regulatory approval. For example, the infiltration practice does not appear
to fully comply with the requirements of the New York State Stormwater
Management Design Manual and, one year rainfall amounts should be on


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-53
the order of 3.1 inches and not 2.8 inches as indicated in the DEIS.

Response III.G 18:

According to the Applicant, the engineer has met and coordinated with the
DEP regarding the Projects stormwater management design and its
compliance with the required technical standards in the New York State
Stormwater Management Design Manual. As a result, the capacity of the
DEIS proposed infiltration practice has been enlarged in the FEIS to capture
and detain the entire runoff volume (i.e. water quality volume) from the 1-year
storm without accounting for any infiltration. In addition, pretreatment will be
achieved by using flow-based, New York State verified proprietary
(hydrodynamic) structures. Percolation rates used for design have been
confirmed through field testing, which, according to the Applicant, was
witnessed by DEP staff. As a result, the Applicant asserts the proposed
infiltration facility design meets the requirements of the DEC Design Manual.

In the DEIS stormwater analysis, the Applicants engineer used the 1-year 24-
hour rainfall value of 2.8 inches, which was the published value for
Westchester County in Exhibit 10.1 of the New York Guidelines for Urban
Erosion & Sediment Control Manual. The previous version of the New York
State Stormwater Management Design Manual (April 2008 revision in effect
through February 2011) also used the same value, which is based on
Technical Paper No. 40 Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States
(TP-40).

The August 2010 revision (in effect March 1, 2011) of the New York State
Stormwater Management Design Manual includes an updated isohyetal map
for the 1 year, 24-hour rainfall based on data ending 2003 from the Northeast
Regional Climate Center (NRCC). According to the Applicant, DEP
consented to the use of 3.0 inches of rainfall for the referenced storm event.
(Refer to DEP meeting notes, which are included in the SWPPP in FEIS
Appendix E.)

Comment III.G 19 - (Document 109.4, Julian Charnis):

We already have a BJ s, which had an existing parking lot. The Cortlandt
town center was built on an area that had formerly been a mall. The proposed
Costco will change a large area that is green to an impervious surface that will
cause flooding and increased air and water pollution.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-54
Response III.G 19:

The Applicant asserts it has acted responsibly to minimize impervious area by
providing no more parking than necessary. Refer to DEIS Section III.L, FEIS
Responses III.L and Response III.G 3 regarding minimization of impervious
pavement; refer to FEIS Response III.G 2 regarding potential flooding; refer
to DEIS III.M regarding air pollution; and refer to FEIS III.G Introductory
Response item 3 regarding the pollutant loading analysis.


1. The brief discussion on page G-32 of the DEIS states that the applicant is
investigating the feasibility of locating a regional stormwater management
facility (SMF) immediately north of the project site on state land. The
purpose of the SWF would be to reduce flooding within the Hunter Brook
drainage basin. Currently, stormwater runoff from the Taconic Parkway is
directed to an existing stormwater management practice located further
north of the proposed practice on the same parcel and stormwater
management practices are proposed for the proposed Costco development.
Based on the general topography of the vicinity, the tributary area to the
regional facility appears very small. It is unclear what additional area
would be diverted into such a basin, or how a regional practice in this
location would significantly reduce flooding to the Hunter Brook basin.
Additional information should be provided indicating which areas would
become tributary to the practice and how this would mitigate flooding in
the Hunter Brook drainage basin.

2. The discussion of areas to be tributary to the proposed regional stormwater
management facility should also discuss opportunities for treating runoff
captured by the practice if it is feasible to improve water quality from
existing development in this facility. However, if the area to be captured
by a regional practice consists of forested or otherwise undeveloped areas,
placement of the practice in this location may not warrant the required
disturbance and loss of forested area.

4. The DEIS does not indicate what type of stormwater management facility
would be proposed in the location. Borings in the vicinity of the proposed
micro pool extended detention basin nearby indicate near-surface bedrock,
which will limit the types of stormwater facilities that can be located here
and significantly increase the cost. Additional information should be


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-55
provided regarding the type of facility proposed and field testing that has
been conducted. Furthermore, it is unclear where a stormwater
management facility in this location would discharge. Safe, non-erosive
conveyance is essential to avoid impacts.

Response III.G 20:

As noted by the Comment, Section III.G. 3a, page III.G-32 of the DEIS
discussed, in response to the Towns request, the potential of developing a
regional stormwater management facility that could be constructed adjacent to
the Project Site on State owned land. Further investigation on the part of the
Applicants engineer shows that it is not possible to provide a significant
regional improvement at this location that would meet the Towns goal of
reduced downstream flooding because of, among other reasons: the Sites
relative location within the larger Hunter Brook drainage basin; the small
contributing drainage area in relation to the larger Hunter Brook drainage
basin; and the resultant small flow in comparison with the overall flow
contributing to Hunter Brook. Therefore, the concept of providing this
stormwater management facility on adjacent State lands, which would reduce
downstream flooding, is not being pursued.

Comment III.G 21 - NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.G 22 - NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.G 23 - (Document 119.7, Olivia Bell Buehl), (Document 178.11i, Henry
Steeneck):

Environment
The developer says that Costco would have no significant impact on the
wetlands and the Hunter Brook.
The real facts are that the developer wants a special exception to encroach the
wetlands. Plus, its stormwater management approach will result in significant
temperature changes to the Hunter Brook. Further, if our water supply is
damaged, the cost of the penalty if it is not in compliance with standards will
be borne by the town. As you know, these issues are raised in detail in the
study presented by David Clouser & Associates.

Response III.G 23:

The Applicant proposes no encroachment into the existing wetlands. The


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-56
Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan includes a subsurface
discharge attenuation for new construction. FEIS Appendix E includes a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact analysis, pollutant
the analyses indicate that post-development stormwater related impacts will
be reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A and/or at
the point of discharge where leaving the Site. Since the analyses show that
bodies will result.

Refer to FEIS Responses III.G 39 regarding responses to the David Clouser &
Associates report.

Comment III.G 24- NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.G 25 (Document 136.2, Richard E. Stanton, Law Offices of Richard
E. Stanton):

[Addressed to]
Mr. William Gorton, P.R
Acting Regional Director
Region 8
New York State Department of Transportation
Eleanor Roosevelt State Office Building
4 Burnett Boulevard
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603

I have been representing a substantial number of stakeholders in Yorktown
NY. They are concerned about certain assumptions, and omissions,

Local stakeholder concerns about traffic, flooding, property damage,
environmental impacts to wetlands, and the impairment of the regional water
supply, have led them to retain two professional engineers, and a wetlands
expert, to evaluate the technical assumptions in the DEIS documents. The
third party retained professionals are identifying that the Project includes
potential significant adverse environmental impacts:


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-57
Local stakeholders also retained the professional engineers at Dave Clouser
and Associates to review the ability of the proposed Storm Water
Management Plan for the Project to adequately handle on site storm water
effluent created by the imposition of approximately eleven acres of
impermeable cover material over the site, which is currently comprised
predominantly of vegetated hydric soils over steep slopes. The Project site is
up-land of sensitive habitat, federally protected wetlands, and areas prone to
flooding, all of which ultimately discharge into the New Croton Reservoir.

What the Clouser Report (which is also attached) found, is Developers are
supposed to contain runoff from ten-year storms and to design
drainageways to accommodate 100-year storms) the local stakeholders
retained an ecological consultant to identify potential significant adverse off-
site impacts threatened by the Projects discharges into federally protected
waters. Although the report on off-site impacts is not yet complete,
preliminary conclusions are [described in Clouser Report, Comments III.G
39a to 39g]

Response III.G 25:

The Comment indicates that he represents a number of stakeholders in
Yorktown NY. The context of this comment is a letter submitted to the
NYSDOT stating their opposition to the Project for reasons regarding negative
impacts resulting from the Project. The local stakeholders, represented in the
Comment, have retained third party professionals (David Clouser &
Associates, Tim Miller & Associates) and an ecological consultant (J ames
Barbour) to review the DEIS. The Comments document contains assertions
based on the findings from these third party reports; and rather than
responding in duplicate, the Applicant has responded to these assertions in the
direct context of the referenced third party reports.

Each of the reports as well as the Comment document (Document 136) is
included in their entirety in Appendix A of this FEIS. The David Clouser
report was submitted to the Town three times; first as an attachment to
Document 136; second as an attachment to Document 142; and third,
independently as Document 148. The Tim Miller report was submitted twice;
first, independently as Document 60; second as an attachment to Document
136. The J ames Barbour report was submitted independently as Document
170. Each report comments on several sections of the DEIS and, therefore,
responses are located in corresponding sections of the FEIS.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-58
For a complete listing of responses to each of these referenced documents,
refer to FEIS Index Sorted by Document. With regard to stormwater
comments from the David Clouser & Associates, refer to FEIS Responses
III.G 39a thru III.G 39g; with regard to stormwater comments by J ames
Barbour, refer to FEIS Responses III.G 41 thru III.G 55. For the entire
Commenters (Richard E. Stanton) report refer to document #136 in Appendix
A of this FEIS.

The Applicant asserts that the Comments statement that Developers are
supposed to contain runoff from ten-year storms and to design
drainageways to accommodate 100-year storm is not completely accurate.
The DEP Design Manual requires the developer to provide storage attenuation
of the 1-, 10- and 100-year 24-hour peak discharge rates to the pre-
development rates. This goal was achieved for the DEIS stormwater
management design as well as for the FEIS stormwater management design.
The onsite storm drainage system is designed to convey runoff from the 100-
storm to the stormwater detention pond.

Comment III.G 26 (Document 172.18, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford
Audubon Society):

The DEIS states that pervious pavements are not suitable for cold climates,
where sanding and deicing materials are used. Pervious pavement has been
used successfully in colder, harsher climates such as Montanas Glacier
National Park. Did the applicant conduct a thorough literature review of the
use of pervious pavements? Did the applicant consider alternative deicing
materials that could preserve the functionality of pervious pavement?

Response III.G 26:

The Applicant recognizes that the use of permeable/porous pavement for
parking areas in cold weather climates has been successfully done with such
projects as the St. Marys Visitor Center in Montanas Glacier National Park
and at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center (UNHSC). The
field experience at the UNHSC porous asphalt parking lot located in Durham,
New Hampshire led to the development of the UNHSC Design Specification
for Porous Pavement and Infiltration Beds in 2007 and further revised in
October 2009. As stated in Part 1.1A of the Specification:

This specification is intended for a cold climate application based
upon the field experience at the UNHSC porous asphalt parking lot


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-59
located in Durham, New Hampshire, however the specification can
be adapted to projects elsewhere provided that selection of
materials and system design reflects local conditions, constraints,
and objectives.

Based on the above, the use of permeable/porous pavement for the proposed
Costco Site was considered based on feasibility and limitations set forth in the
DEC Design Manual. For instance, Section 5.3.11 of the DEC Design Manual
(page 5-116) states that permeable/porous pavement should not be used
where sand or other materials are applied for winter traction since they
quickly clog the pavement.

Section 18-45(c) of the NYCDEP Rules & Regulations states that
Commercial, industrial, governmental, or institutional entities shall be
restricted to the use of the substances defined in these rules and regulations as
winter highway maintenance materials and to the use of the minimum amount
needed of such substances in order to protect the public safety.

Winter highway maintenance materials are defined in the NYCDEP Rules
& Regulations (Section 18-16) as the solid compounds or the solutions that
are commonly used for traction on, or for the abatement of, winter road ice,
including, but not limited to, chloride compounds, mixtures of sand and
chloride compounds, sand and coal combustion bottom ash and ash from
solid waste incinerators that meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR 360-
3.5(h). (Emphasis added)

Therefore, while NYCDEP regulations would allow the use of abrasives such
as sand or cinders for cold weather maintenance, they could only be used on
standard pavements. Application of these materials on or adjacent to the
permeable/porous pavement areas would lead to clogging of the pavement,
reduction and eventual loss of effectiveness, thereby negating their feasibility.

There are also other, more significant, site limitations that either negate or
severely limit the use of permeable/porous pavement for runoff reduction.
Pavement systems designed for runoff reduction must be designed to the
capacity of the underlying soil and required elements of infiltration systems
(DEC Design Manual, Page 5-115), so permeable/porous pavements must be
constructed directly bearing on native soils that can support adequate
infiltration and have not been compacted, disturbed or filled.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-60
Since most of the site parking areas will be constructed in proposed
compacted fill the use of permeable/porous pavement for runoff reduction is
not feasible. (By comparison, the proposed bottom of the infiltration vault
will be at elevation 419.0, which is two feet below the lowest existing surface
elevation. Therefore, the infiltration vault will discharge directly to native
soils). In addition, per Page 5-116 of the DEC Design Manual, the use of
permeable/porous pavement is not recommended for high volume parking
lots, particularly drive aisles, such as those for Costco.

For the offsite roadway improvements, the use of permeable/porous pavement
is subject to the design requirements of the NYSDOT. At present, the
NYSDOT does not allow permeable/porous pavement on their roadways. The
DOT is close to completing (or has completed) construction of a one-mile
stretch of Beach Road located adjacent to Lake George in Warren County, NY
using porous pavement specifically designed for heavy traffic and use (see
press release in FEIS Appendix E). While the performance of the Beach Road
porous pavement may affect the DOTs future decision regarding its use in
roadway design, such a decision will not likely come in time for NYSDOT to
allow its use on the Project.

The FEIS addresses RRv through the implementation of an enlarged
infiltration system (enlarged from the DEIS design), which complies with the
Manuals development design standards. The Applicant has modified the
stormwater management design to capture and treat 100% of the runoff from
the parking area pavement for the water quality storm, thereby, meeting the
RRv requirement. The infiltration practice will also prevent thermal impacts
and, therefore, would be more even more beneficial than pervious pavement.
Similar to the maintenance requirements for permeable/porous pavement, care
will be taken in the application of salt or other deicing materials in order to
prevent the migration of excessive concentrations of chlorides into the
groundwater.

The Applicants engineer asserts here and in the revised Preliminary SWPPP
(FEIS Appendix E) that adequate documentation has been provided to
demonstrate that the use of porous pavement/permeable pavers is not feasible
or practicable for the Project. However, the Applicant recognizes that the use
of porous pavement/permeable pavers will be ultimately determined by the
regulatory agencies as part of the review/approval of the stormwater
management design and SWPPP.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-61
Audubon Society):

III.G. Existing Conditions, Impact, Mitigation: Stormwater Management

This is perhaps one of the most important sections of the DEIS with respect to
environmental impacts. The proposed development is in a flood-prone
neighborhood, adds a significant building and parking footprint and associated
impervious surfaces, and is located in the New York City drinking watershed.
Unfortunately, a thorough review of this portion of the DEIS, as well as the
Stormwater Management Plan provided in Appendix D, finds that the
applicant has obscured or omitted to a fatal degree several fundamental
elements of stormwater management.

The DEIS lacks a meaningful pre- and post- development pollutant loading
analysis and mitigation, especially with regard to phosphorus. The New
Croton Reservoir does not meet New York State and New York City
phosphorus guidance values, and the watershed is a Phosphorus Restricted
Area as per the United States Environmental Protection Agencys Total
Maximum Daily Load program. Does the Planning Board intend to require the
applicant to provide a pollutant loading analysis, as required by the SEOR
determination?

Response III.G 27:

infiltration system and a detention basin that the Applicants analyses show
will meet the regulatory requirements for runoff volume reduction, water
quality treatment and peak discharge attenuation for new construction.
FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and
pollutant loading analysis. Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response. The results of the analyses indicate that post-
development stormwater related impacts will be reduced below existing
thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A and/or at the point of discharge where
Site, no adverse impacts to downstream water bodies will result.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-62
Audubon Society):

The DEIS presents an artificially low stormwater volume calculation and
mitigation plan based on the selection of inaccurate curve numbers and pre-
development time of concentrations used in the stormwater model.
Additionally, the DEIS lacks a substantive discussion and quantitative
analysis regarding the stormwater runoff volume for onsite wetlands and
downstream waterbodies. Is the Planning Board sufficiently satisfied with the
stormwater volume analysis and mitigation plan, or will the applicant be
required to revise their Stormwater Management Plan to more accurately
represent pre- and post- development stormwater volumes and associated
stormwater volume impacts and mitigation?

Response III.G 28:

It appears that the Comment is alluding to conclusions raised in the report by
David Clouser & Associates (document #148) regarding accuracy of curve
numbers and times of concentration (leading to an allegedly artificially low
stormwater volume) used in the stormwater model. Refer to FEIS Responses
III. G 39c, 39d and 39e which provide responses to the Clouser report. Also
refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 2 which addresses runoff
volume reduction.

Audubon Society):

The DEIS improperly interprets Chapter 9 (Redevelopment) of the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation Stormwater Design Manual
with respect to the Water Quality Volume (WQv) and Runoff Reduction
Volume (RRv). There is no credit given for either factor for areas that were
not previously developed with impervious surfaces. Will the applicant be
required to generate a new stormwater management design that lawfully
aligns with requirements in Chapters 9 and 10 of the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation Stormwater Design Manual?

Response III.G 29:

infiltration system and a detention basin that the Applicants analyses show


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-63
will meet the regulatory requirements for runoff volume reduction, water
quality treatment and peak discharge attenuation for new construction (no
credit for redevelopment was assumed). FEIS Appendix E includes a
the analyses indicate that post-development stormwater related impacts will
bodies will result.

Audubon Society):

In several locations in the DEIS the applicant claims that they are employing
several green infrastructure practices, a requirement under Chapter 3 of the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Stormwater
Design Manual. This is patently false.

Response III.G 30:

The Applicant clarifies that the DEIS reference was to green infrastructure
planning practices such as preservation of undisturbed areas, buffers,
reduction of impervious areas, etc. (Table 3.1 of the DEC Design Manual).
The planning measures that apply to the Project were discussed in the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan at DEIS Appendix VII.D. The FEIS
stormwater management design proposes an infiltration structural practice
(green infrastructure) to treat 100% of the WQv/RRv, thereby meeting the
regulatory requirements, as described in FEIS III.G Introductory Response,
items 2, 3 and 4.

Audubon Society):

The project site is 18.75 acres, and the applicant intends to disturb a total of
14.55 acres. The remaining undisturbed area is generally located in the
western portion of the site where a federally regulated wetland exists. The
applicant intends to disturb more than half of Wetland As buffer by
constructing an embankment that permanent alters the topography of the


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-64
wetlands buffer; and intends to disturb Wetland Bs buffer by constructing
impervious surfaces within the wetland buffer. Additionally, the applicant
fully intends to discharge stormwater to a vernal pool, which is clearly a
sensitive area. The applicant should not receive green infrastructure credit for
the Conservation of Natural Areas simply because they are not building where
it would be prohibitively costly to build due to increased construction and
permitting costs, where it may be potentially unlawful, and for permanently
altering wetland buffers and sensitive habitat.

Response III.G 31:

The Applicant has modified the DEIS Site Plan to reduce direct impact to the
wooded buffer of Wetland A. For a discussion of the FEIS reduced impact to
Wetland A buffer refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response 1.

DEIS Section III.F, page III.F-6 states that Wetland B is not hydrologically
connected through surface or groundwater to another wetland and due to its
small size and isolated hydrology, this wetlands functions are limited. The
westerly and southerly buffer, in which the Project proposes development,
slopes away (westerly) from the wetland and therefore does not provide
hydrology or filtering benefits to the wetland. Due to these conditions, the
Applicants wetland consultant asserts that there would be no significant
adverse impact. However, as a form of mitigation, landscape enhancement is
proposed within the wetland and its easterly buffer (which at present is mainly
grass turf). (For landscape mitigation refer to Site Landscape Plan in FEIS
Appendix J ).

The Applicants FEIS stormwater management design has revised the location
of the pond discharge to downstream of the upstream ponding area, thereby,
mitigating any potential impact resulting from discharge to the vernal pool.
Refer to FEIS Introductory Response item 4 for discussion regarding the
revised pond outfall.

The Comment objects to applying green infrastructure credit to Conservation
of Natural Areas in relation to conserving the wetland areas and undisturbed
buffer to Wetland A. The Applicant asserts that regardless of the reasoning,
physical disturbance of Wetlands A and B are not proposed and the majority
of the buffer to Wetland A will be preserved. The portion of Wetland A
buffer that will be disturbed will be revegetated.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-65
Audubon Society):

The second green infrastructure practice that the applicant claims is stream
daylighting. But consider that the plan calls for stormwater discharge to an
existing wetland, which is clearly not an enclosed conveyance in need of
daylighting. Does the Planning Board consider this credit to be applicable?

Response III.G 32:

The stormwater runoff from the impervious portion of the Site will be
captured and conveyed to treatment practices in a closed conduit system.
Outflow from the infiltration system will discharge to the existing subsoils.
(Neither groundwater or rock were encountered in this area during the
infiltration testing.)

Discharge from the detention basin, which is limited to all storms greater than
the water quality event, will flow through a closed pipe that will outlet to a
level spreader which will disperse outflow from the detention basin over an
extended area, resulting in reduced concentrated flow and velocities. This
water will reach Wetland A and progress downstream within the existing
stream in Wetland A. Therefore, the stormwater runoff will leave the Site in
open surface flow similar to existing conditions. In any event, even without
the application of any credit, the Design Manuals requirement to use green
infrastructure practices is met by treating all of the WQv in the FEIS
subsurface infiltration system.

Audubon Society):

As referenced earlier in this document, the applicant claims that pervious
pavements are not suitable for cold climates, where sanding and deicing
materials are used. Pervious pavement has been used successfully in colder,
harsher climates such as Montanas Glacier National Park. Pervious
pavement has also successfully been deployed throughout areas of New York
State more northern than Westchester County:
www.dec.ny.gov/lands/58930.html. A resource regarding this matter is the
University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-66
(http://unh.edulunhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/docs/UNH SC_pa_coldclimate.pdf).

Additionally, studies out of the Great Lakes show that pervious pavement can
be more durable than traditional paving materials: pervious pavement allows
water to drain during thaw periods, whereas impervious materials retain the
water in cracks and crevices that fissure and crack under future freeze cycles.

Response III.G 33:

As noted below in an article from the Great Lakes Echo
(http://greatlakesecho.org/2013/04/19/porous-pavement-is-slowly-catching-
on/), porous pavement can be very effective; however, it is dependent upon
rigorous maintenance and specialized equipment.
Stormwater acts more naturally, like it did before so
much of the environment was covered with city streets,
said David Drullinger, environmental quality
professional with the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality.
It sounds great, but it isnt widely used even though its
been around for a long time.
It works about 50 percent of the time, Drullinger said.
It gets clogged and sometimes its made clogged.
Dirt, sand and other debris gets stuck inside the
pavement and for it to be effective again it has to be
cleaned, Drullinger said.
The pavement has to be vacuumed out once its clogged
and there are a few machines able to do that.
If you dont have one of those dont even think about
putting it in because you have no way of keeping it
clean, Drullinger said.
For these reasons, the Applicant has elected to provide RRv and water quality
treatment through employment of an infiltration practice which will provide
100% of the WQv in this standard practice having runoff reduction capacity.
Refer to FEIS Introductory Response items 2 and 3. Also refer to FEIS
Response III.G 26.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-67

Audubon Society):

Furthermore, the applicant is unable to claim green infrastructure credits for
rain gardens, stormwater planters, rooftop runoff disconnection, rain
tanks/cisterns, vegetated swales, tree planting, and a green roof outright due to
corporate preferences. It is not apparent if the applicant seriously considered
any green infrastructure practices, nor any environmental site design or better
site design practices (www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/bsdcomolete.pd f) such
as multi-level construction or the use of a parking structure to reduce the
impervious footprint of the development. Are the applicant and Planning
Board both satisfied with the DEIS with respect to the regulatory requirement
to implement green infrastructure practices?

Response III.G 34:

In Section 3.3 of the revised Preliminary SWPPP (FEIS Appendix E) under
Application of Green Infrastructure (GI) Techniques, explanations are given
to either the applicability and/or feasibility of each technique for the Project as
required by Section 5.3 of the DEC Design Manual. The referenced green
infrastructure practices/techniques (i.e. rain gardens, planters, etc.) would
generally be more applicable to developments with smaller contributing
drainage areas. The FEIS stormwater management design provides a large
infiltration practice at the source to provide water quality treatment and
runoff reduction that meets the regulatory requirements (refer to FEIS III.G
Introductory Response 2). In this single practice, all of the RRv requirement
for the water quality storm will be met.

Multi-level Costco stores and structured parking would be compatible with
urban settings and the Applicant asserts would not be compatible with the
Yorktown suburban setting. Refer to FEIS Response IV.3 for discussion
regarding parking structures. The Applicant asserts that the FEIS Site Plan
meets the intended purpose of green infrastructure without decreasing
building footprint and parking lot size.

Audubon Society):

Did the applicant consider any buffer restoration projects onsite, or other


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-68
restoration projects within Yorktown to offset the detrimental environmental
impacts from their development?

Response III.G 35:

The Site Landscaping Plan (LP-1), included in the DEIS, provides significant
supplemental planting to Wetland B, easterly buffer to Wetland B, along the
Taconic Parkway right-of-way and the southeasterly buffer to Wetland A.
The proposed plantings will provide shade and help to stabilize the soil in the
buffer areas. In addition, the plantings will contribute to the organic matter in
the soil (leaf litter in the fall), which in turn will help to filter surface runoff
moving towards the wetland. Finally, plantings will provide structural
diversity and habitat for wildlife species using the wetland and upland
adjacent areas.

No offsite restoration projects have been proposed.

Comment III.G 36a (Document 179.1a, William Wegner, Riverkeeper):

I. The Costco project will degrade water quality in the two on-site
wetlands and downstream receiving waters.

a. Disturbance of wetlands and buffers

As proposed in the DEIS, the project site will discharge treated stormwater
from a micropool extended detention pond into Wetland A.
12
This wetland is
a headwater wetland that should be afforded heightened protection from such
disturbance. Scientific evidence clearly shows that healthy headwaters are
essential to the health of stream and river ecosystems.
13
In addition, the
National Research Council recognizes that undisturbed wetlands and buffers
positioned at the head of surface waters provide the greatest water quality
benefits because their functions of sediment trapping, nutrient uptake and
adsorption occur prior to stormwater runoff entering any
mainstream surface water channels.
14
Discharging stormwater to wetlands
and buffers at their point of origin, as proposed in the DEIS, impairs their
ability to perform these functions and thereby degrades downstream water
quality.

In addition to discharging stormwater to Wetland A, the DEIS also proposes
disturbance of the buffers of both Wetland A and Wetland B1.05 acres of
grading in Wetland A and 0.77 acres of grading and additional impervious


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-69
surfaces in Wetland B.
15
Grading will permanently alter the natural
topography that formed and has supported both these wetlands. Permanent
impervious cover in Wetland B will impair its ability to infiltrate stormwater
and perform the other aforementioned water quality functions. For these
reasons, the proposed project site plan should be reconfigured to avoid (I)
discharging stormwater to Wetland A and (2) disturbing both on-site wetland
buffers.
_________________________________
12
Id. at 111.0-17.
13
Kaplan, L. A., T. L. Bout. J . K. J ackson. J . D. Newbold, and B. W.
Sweeney (2008); Protecting Headwaters: The Scientific Basis for
Safeguarding Stream and River Ecosystems, available at
http://www.stroudcenter.orc/researchfPD
F/ProtectingHeadwaters_ExcecSummary.pdf
14
Zedler, J . (National Research Council): Compensating for Wetland Losses
under the Clean Water Act 49 (National Academy Press 2001).

Response III.G 36a:
At present approximately 11 acres (includes offsite contributing area) drains
to Wetland A and its buffer. Of that area, approximately 1.9 acres are
presently developed or disturbed and discharge without the benefit of water
quality treatment. Approximately 8.8 acres of previously developed site area,
which drains to the north and west, also discharges stormwater without the
benefit of water quality treatment. In response to comments received
regarding the need to improve water quality discharge to Wetland A, the
Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management design to reduce
impact to the Wetland A buffer and provide more effective nutrient removal
from the stormwater discharge. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response
items 1, 2 and 3 for discussion regarding reduced impact to Wetland A buffer,
water quality treatment and pollutant removals; refer to FEIS Response G.III
31and 35 for discussion regarding impact to wetland buffers; refer to DEIS
III.F and FEIS III.F responses for discussion regarding wetlands.

Comment III.G 36b (Document 179.1b, William Wegner, Riverkeeper):

b. Phosphorus and sediment loading may increase under developed conditions

The DEIS proposes the use of a micropool extended detention pond to capture
and treat stormwater runoff from the project site. This practice alone may be
inadequate to mitigate the total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus
(TP) loadings from the drainage areas of Wetland A and the two stream


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-70
reaches flowing to the Hunter Brook tributary. Not only will those drainage
areas be significantly larger under developed conditions and therefore
contribute more TSS and TP to receiving waters, but in addition, the
micropool extended detention pond fails to capture and treat stormwater from
those drainage areas..

Citing the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, the
DEIS states that detention ponds with permanent pools are designed to
remove 80% TSS and 30% TP in stormwater runoff.
16

Since the project site is located in the East-of-Hudson Watershed, more
stringent water quality treatment is required to provide enhanced Phosphorus
removal. The DEC Manual indicates this will be achieved by treating runoff
from the I-year design storm (2.8 inch rainfall)Therefore, greater removal
of TSS and TP is expected. Since the project will utilize standard SMPs
(Micropool Extended Detention Pond to treat stormwater quality and an
infiltration practice) to treat and remove the runoff reduction volume, the
referenced pollutant removals can be anticipated.
17

The DEIS is silent on pre- and post-development loading of TSS and TP.
Although enhanced phosphorus removal may be achieved through water
quality treatment of the 1-year, 24-hour storm event in the micropool extended
detention pond, the Wetland Ponding Area and Reaches #1 and #2 will
receive additional, untreated stormwater from their respective drainage areas.
18
Therefore, the micropool extended detention pond will not capture and treat
all of the runoff from the 1-year storm. Treating only part of the runoff from
the 1-year design stormwithout providing existing and future pollutant
Loadings from additional, untreated runoffrenders informed review of
stormwater pollutant loadings impossible. The FEIS must include an analysis
of the TSS and TP loadings to DP-2 that will be generated by the untreated
stormwater from the proposed drainage areas.

The DEIS also proposes to increase the size of the drainage areas flowing to
DP-2, from 11.51 acres under existing conditions to 19.66 acres under
developed conditions.
19
In addition, under post-development conditions the
stormwater flow rate, volume and duration (hydroperiod) will increase at the
Wetland A Ponding Area and Reaches #1 and #2.
20
In fact, flow volume for
the 1-year storm increases nearly tenfold (0.104 cfs to l.01l cfs) and
hydroperiod increases by up to 92 hours (nearly four days.)
21
These factors
also must be considered when calculating pollutant loading to the Hunter
Brook tributary as it leaves the project site at DP-2.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-71

Given the above, the DEIS currently fails to provide any basis for DECs
conclusion that the referenced pollutant removals can be anticipated,
particularly when (1) the DEIS provides no baseline data for TSS and TP
loading under pre- and post-development conditions, and (2) the post-
development drainage area to the on-site receiving stream has been increased
by nearly twofold. The FEIS must provide an affirmative demonstration that
the enhanced phosphorus removal required in the East-of-Hudson Watershed
can and will in fact be achieved.
___________________________

15
DEIS at III.F-I 5.
16
Id. at III.G-16.
17
Id
18
id at Exhibit III.G-6, Wetland A Proposed Drainage Area Map.

Response III.G 36b:

discharge attenuation. FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan, quantitative pollutant loading analysis and water balance
analysis to Wetland A. Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response. The analyses conclude that post-development
reaching Wetland A and/or at the point of discharge where leaving the Site.
Since the analyses show that impacts will be reduced at the Site, no adverse
impacts to downstream water bodies will result.

Comment III.G 37a (Document 167.1a, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector
General), (Document 167.1a, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.1a, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

[For the purpose of stream lining the authors comment, original text,
which includes DEIS summaries, is general in nature, provides regulatory
and factual backdrop, with which applicant does not disagree, has been
deleted from this comment. However, the comment in its entirety is
included in FEIS Appendix A.]

The Office of the Watershed Inspector General (WIG or WIG Office)
respectfully submits these comments to the Town of Yorktown Planning


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-72
Board on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) concerning the
proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility (Costco or the
Project). This proposed commercial development would discharge into the
drainage basin of New York Citys New Croton Reservoir, the terminal
reservoir of the Citys Croton Watershed which can provide over one-third of
the Citys drinking water.

I. Summary

II. Environmental and Regulatory Setting

III. The New Croton Reservoir

IV. Stormwater Pollution Associated with
Construction and Development of Land

V. Federal and State Limits on New Pollutant
Discharges to the New Croton Drainage Basin

VI. The Project in its Current Form Risks Increased
Pollution in Violation of Federal and State Law

Important deficiencies in the stormwater pollution prevention practices
proposed in the DEIS are detailed in the Technical Appendix. In addition to
these insufficiencies, the DEIS fails to provide any estimate of expected
increases in phosphorus pollution as a result of the Project, and does not
commit to eliminate such increases. As a new discharger, Costco must make a
legally enforceable commitment to prevent such increases. In fact, in
accordance with its duty to mitigate environmental impacts under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, the Projects sponsor should achieve a net
reduction of phosphorus loadings from the site of 12 percent, the overall
percentage reduction needed under the TMDL throughout the New Croton
drainage basin to achieve water quality standards in the Reservoir. That
reduction can be achieved through onsite pollution reduction measures and
contributions to off-site efforts. The sponsor of the Bridleside development
project (formerly called Salem Hunt) in North Salem implemented such a plan
pursuant to an agreement with the WIG Office.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-73
Response III.G 37a

The Comments asserted deficiencies in the stormwater pollution prevention
practices proposed in the DEIS are in the Comments Technical Appendix,
which follows beginning in Comment III.G 37b. The Comment document
includes general information such as an introductory summary, description of
the Environmental and Regulatory setting, and description of the New Croton
Reservoir. For the purpose of streamlining the comment, these general
descriptions are not included. However, Document 167 is included in its
entirety in Appendix A of this FEIS.

Since the concluding remarks asserting deficiencies in the DEIS are based on
the technical comments, the responses to this document are provided in the
context of the specific comments raised in the referenced Technical Appendix
(Comment III.G 37b thru 37m).

infiltration system that the Applicant asserts will meet the regulatory
Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and pollutant
loading analysis. Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response items 2 and 3B. The analyses show that post-
development phosphorous loads from this Site to the New Croton Reservoir
drainage basin would be reduced below existing conditions by more than the
12% objective (FEIS III.G Introductory Response Tables III.G A4 and III.G
A5) of the 2009 Phosphorus TMDL Implementation Plan.

Comment III.G 37b (Document 167.1b, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector
General), (Document 167.1b, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.1b, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

Technical Appendix
Technical Comments of Donald Lake, P.E.
Concerning Costco Wholesale Store & Fueling Facility
Route 35/202. Town of Yorktown. Westchester County. December 19, 2012

I. Design Standards and Absence of Green Infrastructure

1. Stormwater Management Design Standards for New Development Should
Apply:
While this project includes some redevelopment, it primarily entails new


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-74
construction and new disturbances of land. Reconstruction will occur only for
the 2.9 acres of existing impervious area, with new construction to create an
additional 8.08 acres of new impervious area along with 3.6 acres of
additional graded area. But the DEIS, dated September 10, 2012, page I-17,
incorrectly states that because the Project is a redevelopment project it will
be designed in accordance with Chapter 9 of the New York State Stormwater
Management Design Manual (NY Design Manual), August 2010, Section
9.3.1, page 9-5, rather than in accordance with standards applicable to new
construction. Those new construction standards include Stormwater
Management Planning, stormwater sizing criteria, and practices concerning
green infrastructure described in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the NY Design
Manual.

The redevelopment label does not allow the Project to avoid such standards.
The NY Design Manual provides that [f]or redevelopment projects located in
critical environmental areas and other sensitive or regulated areas, however,
all attempts should be made to seek compliance with the technical standards
set elsewhere in this manual. NY Design Manual, p. 9-2 (emphasis added).
The New York City Watershed is a sensitive or regulated area warranting that
compliance.

The DEIS has not established that the Project is entitled to avoid compliance
with the standards applicable to new construction. It does not clearly identify
and document the design difficulties that prevent such compliance. NY
Design Manual, p. 9-5. There is plenty of available space within the Site but
outside the 2.9 acres of areas to be reconstructed to control stormwater runoff
from the reconstructed area. See NY Design Manual, 9.3.1(2). And the
DEIS does not show that physical constraints of the Site do not allow meeting
the required elements of the standard practices for the portion of the Site to be
reconstructed. Id., 9.3.1. A developer cannot max out the area for new
construction on a site and then claim that there is not enough room to control
stormwater runoff from the Site -- whether that runoff originates from areas of
reconstruction or new construction.

Response III.G 37b

The Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan includes an enlarged
subsurface infiltration system that meets the NYSDEC & NYCDEP
regulatory requirements for runoff volume reduction and water quality
treatment for new construction (rather than for redevelopment, even though
approximately 10.15 acres (54%) of the site was previously disturbed of


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-75
which 2.9 acres (15%)of the Site is already impervious) and adheres to the
green infrastructure standards applicable to new development in Chapters 3, 4
and 5 of the Design Manual. Therefore, even if the Proposed Action were
considered to be entirely new construction, as asserted in the comment, it
would still fully comply with the Design Manual.

Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 2.

Comment III.G 37c (Document 167.1c, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector
General), (Document 167.1c, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.1c, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

2. Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Management: The DEIS has not
demonstrated compliance with the stormwater management planning,
stormwater sizing criteria, and practices concerning green infrastructure
described in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the NY Design Manual. For example, bio-
retention practices in the parking medians and porous pavement in some of the
outlying parking spaces are green infrastructure practices that lend themselves
strongly for use in this project. Porous asphalt and porous concrete have
proven to be successful and long lived in winter climates (University of New
Hampshire, www.unh.edu/unhsc/), but have not been included. Green
infrastructure practices should be integrated throughout the Project.

Response III.G 37c

The Applicant has applied green infrastructure planning techniques as
outlined in Chapters 3 and 5 of the Design Manual. Such planning techniques
include preservation of undisturbed areas, preservation of wetlands and
waterways, preservation of buffers, reduction of clearing and grading,
maintaining sensitive areas, parking reduction and stormwater pollution
prevention, as described in DEIS section III.G 3, pages III.G 29-31.

The Applicant asserts that implementation of small green infrastructure
practices to obtain treatment of the required WQv such as bio-retention
practices, as suggested by the Comment, are not well suited to a project of this
size. Also, because of the significant site limitations that either negate or
severely limit its use (refer to FEIS Response III.G 26 and G 33), the
Applicant asserts that porous pavement would not be practical to meet runoff
reduction requirement. (Refer to FEIS III.G Response 26, 33 and 34.)


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-76
requirements for runoff volume reduction and water quality treatment in a
green infrastructure practice (standard SMP with RRv capacity). Refer to
FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 2.

Comment III.G 37d (Document 167.1d, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector
General), (Document 167.1d, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.1d, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

II. Hydrology

1. Up-to-Date Hydrology Data: The stormwater hydrology calculations for
this site are based on outdated data. Use of that data could result in undersized
or oversized stormwater controls. Undersized stormwater treatment facilities
can be overwhelmed, causing erosion and water quality violations. Oversized
facilities could result in more soil disturbance than is necessary at the site and
associated water quality impacts. A comparison of the 100-year rainfall values
at the project site shows that 7.5 inches of precipitation were projected using
the outdated data verses 9.23 inches using the new data, which is a difference
of 1.73 inches. This example demonstrates the importance of running
stormwater models with current precipitation data and the need to recalculate
the hydrology presented in the DEIS.

To address this DEIS deficiency, the stormwater hydrology at the site should
be recalculated using the J anuary 2011 hydrologic data and rainfall
distributions, published by the Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC) at
www.precip.net. These updated values can be readily imported into computer
programs designed to evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater treatment
practices, such as HydroCAD or the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) Technical Release 20 (TR-20).

Response III.G 37d:

Chapter 248 of the Yorktown Code and the NYC DEP Rules and Regulations
require compliance with the New York State Stormwater Management Design
Manual (Design Manual). At a minimum, Chapter 4 of the Design Manual
requires hydrologic analysis of four storm events: the water quality storm,
based on 90% rainfall event values, the 1-year storm (which is also the water
quality storm in the DEP east of Hudson watershed), the 10- and 100-year, 24-
hour storms. While not required, the Design Manual also recommends


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-77
analysis of the 2-year, 24-hour storm to determine safe, non-erosive
conveyance of runoff. Analysis requires using 24 hour rainfall values for each
storm event from accepted sources adopted as policy.

The most current version (August 2010) of the Design Manual uses isohyetal
maps from Technical Paper No. 40 Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United
States (TP-40) for 24-hour rainfall values for the 2-, 10- and 100- year design
storms, an updated isohyetal map for the 1 year, 24-hour rainfall based on data
ending 2003 from the Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC see also
Response III.G 18), and data published by DEC in 2000 for the 90% storm.

According to the Applicant, it met in March 2013 with representatives of the
NYC DEP and the Applicants engineer requested clarification regarding
which rainfall values should be utilized in the hydrologic calculations. Again,
according to Applicant, although DEP representatives stated during the
meeting that they were aware of and recognized the J anuary 2011 hydrologic
data and rainfall distributions published by NRCC, they verified that the
required use of the NRCC data has not been officially adopted as policy by the
NYSDEC. Therefore, according to Applicants assertion of the guidance
provided by the NYCDEP, rainfall amounts used for the hydrologic analysis
should be those currently specified in the Design Manual, as discussed above.
See FEIS Appendix E for correspondence supporting this position.

However, in order to further address concerns about the potential impacts of
greater precipitation events based on the NRCC data, the hydrologic models
were run using a range of rainfall values greater than the 100-year TP-40
value of 7.5 inches in order to evaluate the effectiveness of storm water
management system. The results of the additional analysis for the FEIS show
that the proposed FEIS storm water management system will provide effective
reduction of post-development peak runoff rates to pre-development rates for
24-hour rainfall events up to 8.25 inches of rainfall at each design point (DP 1
thru DP 5) as summarized in the following table. (Refer to FEIS Exhibit III.G-
A4). If the NRCC changes are adopted prior to final approval, the Applicant
has agreed to amend the design to comply with the amended standards.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-78

Max Peak Discharge Runoff Rate
Comparison Table
(8.25 in Rainfall)
Design
Point
FEIS
Existing
Conditions
(cfs)
FEIS
Proposed
Conditions
(cfs)
% Dec. (-) %
1 38.36 33.55 -13%
2 31.55 30.34 -4%
2c 16.53 9.30 -44%
3 16.16 15.79 -2%
4 18.05 2.83 -84%
5 7.22 2.09 -71%

The hydraulic design model for the infiltration basin was run based on 14.5
inches of infiltration per hour, although soil testing resulted in rates from 14.5
to 19 inches per hour (see also Response III.G 17). With diligent maintenance
of the pretreatment facilities, the higher infiltration rates will be achieved
resulting in greater infiltration and reduced runoff. Therefore, the proposed
storm water management system will reduce stormwater runoff volume and
provide effective control of post-development runoff rates to pre-development
levels for storms of even greater intensity than the water quality storm.

Comment III.G 37e (Document 167.1e, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector
General), (Document 167.1e, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.1e, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

2. Time of Concentration and Curve Numbers: A review of Figure 4 in the
Stormwater Management Plan, Part 2, in Appendix D of the DEIS, shows
Drainage Area DA-El lies on both sides of Design Point I with the Time of
Concentration, T, calculated in the north sector. (Time of concentration [Tc] is
defined as the time it takes water to travel from the hydraulically most distant
point in a sub-catchment to its outlet.) This sub-area should be separated into
two discrete sub-areas, perhaps DA-E la and DA-E lb, and evaluated
separately. In addition, it appears the Tc flow path for sub-area DA-E2c is
incorrect. Based on site conditions and topography, the flow path should begin
at the southeast comer of the sub-area and flow to the northwest to obtain the
hydraulically most distant point to the design point. Further review of
Appendix D indicates the inappropriate use of curve numbers for open space


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-79
vegetation along portions of the drainage areas. In addition, shortened
distances for estimating the sheet flow regime combined with Mannings n
coefficients are too low for the site conditions. Also, the rainfall value for the
2-year 24-hour storm from NRCC data is 3.37 inches. This is less than the 3.5
inches used in calculating the sheet flow component of T and will result in a
longer T and hence lower peak discharge. Taken together the use of these
current values overstates the existing condition discharges, resulting in
undersized stormwater retention practices.

Response III.G 37e:

As suggested by the Comment, Drainage Area DA-E1 was divided into
separate sub areas DA-E1a west and DA-E1b east of the watercourse.
The Applicants engineer reviewed the suggested modification to the
existing Tc path in Drainage Area DA-E2c, but upon examination the
suggested path was shorter in time and therefore not used. The Applicant
asserts that this approach is conservative, as it tends to overstate actual
impacts. However, alternate paths were examined and a longer Tc path
was selected. With the modified Tc path, the Tc was lengthened from 10
to 12.4 minutes, producing more conservative results.
In response to this comment and those made by DCA, the CN and Tc
values were modified to produce more conservative (lower) runoff rates
under existing conditions. Refer to FEIS Responses III.G 39c and III.G
30d.
The Applicants engineer used 3.5 inches of rainfall for the 2-year 24-hour
storm in Westchester County, as published in Appendix 10 of the New
York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Also, refer to
FEIS Response III.G 37d.

Comment III.G 37f (Document 167.1f, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector
General), (Document 167.1f, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.1f, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

3. Hydrology During Construction: A hydrologic analysis of this site during
construction operations is not contained in the DEIS. During construction,
much of the site will be disturbed and the runoff volume and sediment load
potential will be very high. Curve numbers will be higher and Tc values will
be shorter, resulting in very high peak discharges during construction. These
need to be evaluated and managed during the project construction.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-80
Response III.G 37f:

The FEIS erosion control plans (FEIS Appendix J ) are designed to the
requirements of the NYS Standards and Specifications for Erosion and
Sediment Control and provide erosion and sediment control measures to
manage stormwater during construction. Such measures include multiple
methods of temporary soil stabilization, along with BMPs for sediment
control such as: the sediment basin, sediment traps, inlet protection, sediment
fence, stabilized entrance, etc. Construction will be phased in areas of less
than five acre segments, thereby providing manageable size areas, which will
limit soil exposure, reduce erosion and sedimentation potential and manage
stormwater runoff. (Refer to FEIS Responses III.O 4 and4and III.O 5.)

The sediment basin will be constructed early in the project phasing (phase 2)
and runoff from the disturbed site will be directed to the sediment basin for
treatment. The sediment basin is designed for the 10-year storm in
accordance with the requirements of referenced NYS Standards and will be
constructed to account for: increased runoff volume due to conditions during
construction (including winter conditions in which heavy rainfall can occur on
frozen ground); additional storage volume necessary for sediment storage and
settlement; and to account for the fact that the infiltration facility will not be
brought on-line until final stabilization of all contributing areas has
occurred.

Considering these conditions, the sediment basin during construction will be
larger than the post-development detention basin, thereby providing extra
protection for adjacent Wetland A and downstream water bodies, including
Sherry and Hunter Brooks. The sediment storage volume will be sized
conservatively to account for 3,600 cubic feet of sediment storage volume for
each acre of contributing area (approximately 13.6 acres) even though a
maximum of only five acres may be disturbed at any one time, which will
further enhance settlement. Trapped sediment will be regularly removed from
the sediment basin to maintain adequate storage volume and ensure proper
functioning of the basin. The sediment basin is designed with a riser pipe, an
anti-vortex device, trash rack and dewatering orifice that will provide the
minimum 10-hour dewatering duration to allow for adequate settlement. As
another precaution to prevent sediment from reaching Wetland A, the
temporary sediment basin will discharge only to the north where it will
discharge to a level spreader. The outflow will then spread out over the
existing wooded terrain along its existing flow path allowing for further
natural filtration. An added precaution to protect Wetland A and downstream


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-81
water bodies includes a double row of sediment barrier, which will be
installed along the entire westerly limit of work adjacent to Wetland A to trap
sediment and provide a physical barrier separating the wetland from
construction activities.

While under construction, runoff conditions of disturbed areas (bare/frozen
soil) will be similar to impervious conditions with short times of concentration
and high runoff values, as accounted for under post-development conditions.
Since the sediment storage volume within the sediment basin will be designed
conservatively, as described above, additional storage volume in the basin will
be available to account for runoff in these more extreme conditions. Site
runoff will be directed (i.e. temporary drainage ditches and water bars) to
sediment control measures (i.e. sediment basin and sediment traps) for
settlement prior to discharge. Sediment from perimeter areas will be captured
by sediment barriers and sediment traps. Detailed plans (FEIS Appendix J )
and analysis (FEIS SWPPP in Appendix E) are included as part of this FEIS.

Comment III.G 37g (Document 167.1g, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector
General), (Document 167.1g, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.1g, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

III. Stormwater Treatment Deficiencies

1. Need for Two Standard Treatment Practices: Since there is greater than
20% impervious area on the site, New York City Department of
Environmental Protections Watershed Rules and Regulations, Section 18-
39(c)(6), as amended April 4, 2010, require that stormwater runoff be
directed through two different standard treatment practices prior to
discharge unless it is directed to infiltration. This requires an additional
stormwater management practice be placed above the stormwater pond to
treat the remaining runoff from the east side of the complex as well as that
from the west side, that has not been directed to the infiltration system.

Response III.G 37g:

The Project Site is situated within the Designated Main Street Area (DMA),
designated by the Town of Yorktown and approved by the NYCDEP. Since
the Project Site is within a DMA, there are certain exemptions from some
stormwater related requirements of the NYCDEP Rules and Regulations for
the Protection from Contamination, Degradation and Pollution of the New
York City Water Supply and Its Sources (Rules and Regulations). The


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-82
relevant exemption noted in the Rules and Regulations included in Section 18-
39(c)(6) states that two different types of stormwater management practices in
series shall not be required (paragraph (ii)) for activity within a DMA.
Therefore, the Proposed Action is exempt from this requirement.

requirements for runoff volume reduction and water quality. FEIS Appendix
E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and pollutant loading
analysis. Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory
Response items 2 and 3. The analyses conclude that post-development
leaving the Site (without adding a second standard practice). Since the
downstream water bodies will result..

Comment III.G 37h (Document 167.1h, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector
General), (Document 167.1h, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.1h, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

2. Inadequate Treatment of Fueling Station Runoff: Runoff from the
proposed fueling station area, shown on Construction Drawing C-301, is
initially controlled between drainage system designations D-l 1 and D-9.
This fueling station is a Hot Spot as designated by the NY Design
Manual, Table 4.3. As such, 100% of the stormwater runoff water quality
volume must be pretreated prior to its entering a standard stormwater
treatment practice. At the project site, mixing of runoff from the Hot
Spot with site runoff will occur at Manhole D-8. Since three underground
fuel storage tanks are shown between OWS D-9-l and D-9, all the
drainage area above D-9 must be included within the Hot Spot drainage
area for water quality volume calculations. This is a deficiency and a
separate treatment practice is required prior to Manhole D-8 to treat the
Hot Spot stormwater runoff water quality volume before it moves down
the stormwater system to the stormwater pond.

Response III.G 37h:

In accordance with Section 4.11 of the New York State Stormwater
Management Design Manual, runoff from the fueling facility will receive
separate water quality treatment prior to discharging to the site storm drainage
and the underground infiltration systems.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-83

The fueling facility areas are graded in such a manner as to isolate their
stormwater runoff from the remainder of the site. Runoff from the tank filling
and the fuel dispensing areas will be captured and conveyed to separate
perimeter sand filter systems. Each system has been sized to capture, pretreat
and treat the water quality storm runoff volume from their respective
contributing drainage areas. In addition, the drain inlet grates for each
perimeter sand filter will be fitted with inserts containing filters with a special
sorb type media specially designed to trap hydrocarbons, metals and silts in
the runoff.

Pretreated runoff will then be conveyed to the underground infiltration system
that will treat the stormwater runoff from the water quality storm (1-year, 24-
hour). (Refer to Site Plans, FEIS Appendix J and SWPPP in Appendix E and
FEIS Exhibit III.G 37h.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-85

Comment III.G 37i (Document 167.1i, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector
General), (Document 167.1i, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.1i, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

3. Failure to Demonstrate Adequacy of Infiltration: Construction Drawing C-
301, Utility Plan, shows the layout of the storm drainage system, including the
location of the Vortech 9000 pretreatment unit for the infiltration system and
the infiltration field itself. The field is located just east of the storm drain line
between manhole Ml-l B-8A and manhole MH B-6A. The infiltration field
area is detailed as 37 feet wide and 148.5 feet long with a bottom elevation of
421.0. Based on the information provided in the DEIS, there does not appear
to be any documentation to demonstrate that infiltration testing was conducted
in this area of the project site. Infiltration testing is required to demonstrate
that naturally occurring soils at this elevation will meet the minimum criteria
of 0.5 inches per hour, as required by the 2010 New York State
Stormwater Management Design Manual, Chapter 6, page 6-35. An assumed
rate of 2.0 inches per hour was used in the HydroCAD model to design the
system. Validation of this 2.0 inches per hour needs to be provided in the
SWPPP of the DEIS. Based on site topography, there is a strong possibility
that infiltration at this surface location will flow laterally out into the adjacent
wetland without any treatment. This is because the elevation of the bottom of
the northern third of the infiltration chamber lies above the stripped ground
elevation and therefore within the rock fill used to construct the new slope.

Response III.G 37i:

The DEIS assumed an infiltration rate (2 inches per hour) based on general
soils data. FEIS site-specific field testing (per the Applicant was witnessed by
the NYC DEP) revealed a greater infiltration rate (14.5 inches per hour),
thereby validating the DEISs assertion that the existing soils were suitable for
infiltration.

The FEIS stormwater management design includes an infiltration system that
will meet the regulatory requirements for runoff reduction and water quality
treatment. Infiltration tests have been performed in accordance with regulatory
requirements. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response items 2 and 3 for
discussion of the infiltration system, which includes discussion regarding
infiltration rates, soil testing, bottom elevation, etc. The infiltration test reports
are included in FEIS Appendix E. Revised FEIS Site Plans are include in
FEIS Appendix J .


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-86

Comment III.G 37j (Document 167.1j, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector
General), (Document 167.1j, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.1j, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

4. Elevations for the Infiltration System: The DEIS does not provide any
details regarding the infiltration bed system profile elevations. Construction
Drawing C-703, which provides the manufacturers details for the Vortech
9000 pretreatment unit for the infiltration system, does not specify installation
elevations. Site specific data needs to be provided in the DEIS to justify how
the installation elevation was selected.

Response III.G 37j:

Preliminary design of the infiltration practice, was included in the DEIS Site
Plans, including drawings C-703. Updated Site Plans are included in FEIS
Appendix J . Detailed drawings of the infiltration system are included in the
CT series drawings. The bottom of the infiltration system will be at elevation
419 and the inverts to and from the three Vortech pretreatment structures are
identified on the schedule on drawing C-301. The Vortech structures are
identified in the schedule as Special Structures E2, E2 and F2. (Refer to
FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 2 for discussion of the infiltration
system.)

Comment III.G 37k (Document 167.1k, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector
General), (Document 167.1k, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.1k, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

5. Deficiencies in Storm Drain Schedules: The Storm Drain Schedule on
Construction
Drawing C-301 does not include linkage from the main system to the
infiltration bed and then back to the main system. The storm drain schedule
table should include line designations from MR B-8A (Stormgate) to the
Vortech Unit, to the Infiltration Bed, to MR B-6B, then to MR B 6A to
complete the offline water quality loop. It appears that the catch basin surface
rim elevations shown in the table do not match the elevations shown in the
plan view. These inconsistencies need to be corrected.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-87
Response III.G 37k:

The storm drain schedule provided on site plan Drawing C-301 (FEIS
Appendix J ) has been updated to match the FEIS design of the storm drainage
system.

Comment III.G 37l (Document 167.1L, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector
General), (Document 167.1L, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.1L, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

6. Stormwater Pond Inadequacies: The grading plan, Construction Drawing C-
201, and the erosion and sediment control plan, Construction Drawing C-401,
both show the proposed stormwater pond embankment to be beyond the north
boundary property line of the site. They also show that the north downstream
embankment has a slope of 1.5:1, while the west embankment has a slope of
2.0:1. Both of these embankment slopes violate the NY Design Manual
criteria for pond design, which requires that all slopes be 3.0:1 or flatter. In
addition, the design manual does not allow interior vertical wall components
to substitute for an embankment.

The pond details shown on Construction Drawing C-701, are deficient. They
do not provide a service spillway profile showing anti-seep collar locations
and the riser details lack stabilization footers. Pertinent details are also absent,
for stormwater inlet scour protection, clay liners, and the auxiliary spillways.
In addition, the auxiliary spillway should not be located over the top of the
embankment near the outlet pipe. The 2 deep by 4 wide toe trench is
unexplained and a cutoff trench is not shown under the embankment. Also, the
half round pipe hood detail is not used on this pond riser and should be
deleted. In addition, the plantings proposed at the pond outlet pipe should be
eliminated. This entire system should be re-designed to meet the criteria
required by the NY Design Manual.

Response III.G 37l:

Site Plans were included with the DEIS to illustrate the Project and
complement the DEIS review. The DEIS Site Plans have been revised for
the FEIS to show more details of changes made to the various design elements
relative to addressing this and other comments. FEIS Site Plans are included
in FEIS Appendix J .
The FEIS stormwater management design includes modifications to the
detention pond. Since the FEIS plan proposes 100% of the runoff reduction


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-88
and water quality treatment in the infiltration practice (refer to FEIS III.G
Introductory Response item 2), the pond will function solely as a dry
detention pond to regulate peak discharge rates. The details of the FEIS pond
are shown on Drawing C-701. The Comments recommendations are
included on the drawings as follows:
The grading of the pond embankment is entirely within the Site.
Embankment slopes inside and outside the pond will be constructed at
3:1. In addition, the interior embankments below the active storage
and freeboard elevation are earthen.
Spillway profile with locations and details of anti-seep collars are
provided.
Riser stabilization footer details are provided.
Inlet scour protection details are provided.
The DEIS micro-pool extended detention pond required a clay liner to
maintain a permanent pool for water quality treatment. The FEIS
stormwater management design provides water quality treatment for
100% of the water quality storm in an infiltration practice. The FEIS
extended detention pond provides water quantity abatement only for
which a permanent pool and clay liner is not required.
Emergency spillway detail is provided. The spillway is not located
over the outlet pipe.
2x4 toe trench is provided.
Cutoff trench detail under the embankment is provided.
Appropriate outlet protection details are provided.
Plantings at the pond outlet pipe are eliminated. The Outlet pipe
alignment has been revised (refer to FEIS Introductory Response item
4).

Comment III.G 37m (Document 167.1m, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector
General), (Document 167.1m, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.1m, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

IV. Pollutant Loadings: Absence of Water Quality Evaluation: A water quality
evaluation needs to be calculated for the stormwater pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP). This evaluation should estimate the total phosphorous (TP), total
nitrogen (TN), and total suspended solids (TSS) in the existing condition, the
developed condition, and the developed condition with pollutant reduction
practices in place.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-89
Response III.G 37m:

The Applicant disagrees that the governing regulations and guidance
documents require such an analysis. Nevertheless, in response to this and
other such comments, FEIS Appendix E includes a quantitative pollutant
Introductory Response items 2 and 3B. The results of the analyses indicate
that post-development pollutant loads will be reduced below existing
thresholds prior to leaving the Site. Since the analyses show that impacts will
be reduced at the Site, no adverse impacts to downstream water bodies will
result.

Comment III.G 38a (Document 142.1a, James Bryan Bacon, ESQ., P.C.,
Yorktown Smart Growth), (PH2, James Bryan Bacon, ESQ., P.C.,
Yorktown Smart Growth):

which is general in nature, includes DEIS summaries, provides regulatory
and factual backdrop, with which Applicant does not disagree, has been

I represent the Yorktown Smart Growth (YSG) organization, a group of
citizens advocating balanced development.

I submit the following comments along with the stormwater impact analysis
by the engineering firm of David Clouser and Associates, Inc. (DCA) and
comments from the Trout Unlimited (TU) Croton Watershed Chapter to the
Yorktown Planning Board (Board) as lead agency for its review of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Costco retail center
(project)pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
The project is proposed by Retail Store Construction Co, Inc. (Applicant) to
be sited at the northwest intersection of Routes 202/3 5 and the Taconic
Parkway. A wetland, hydrological and habitat impact report will be submitted
under separate cover by Rare Species Specialist J ames (Spider) Barbour.
As demonstrated herein and by the DCA and Barbour reports, the DEISs
inaccurate stormwater modeling, hydrological information and failure to
address phosphorus loadings renders the DEIS incomplete.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-90
However, the DEISs lack of information makes it impossible for
the public, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and
any other involved agency to assess those impacts. The absence of a
phosphorus loading analysis blatantly violates the DEIS Scope which required
the Applicant to assess the projects pre and post development pollutant
loadings. As a result, the DEIS is incomplete. Now, in order to comply with
SEQRAs hard look requirement, the Board must require the Applicant to
prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to remedy
the DEISs lack of analysis. 6 NYCRR61 7.9(a)(7)(i).

Response III.G 38a:

The Final Scope of Work for the DEIS required pre-and post-development
analysis of pollutant loading due to increase in impervious surface. The
DEIS included an analysis of pre and post-development stormwater runoff and
a qualitative discussion of pollutant loading. See DEIS at III.G-15 to III.G-16.
The Final Scope did not require a quantitative loading analysis of phosphorus
or any individual stormwater pollutant, and the New York City Department of
Environmental Protection, which has regulatory oversight over the New
Croton Reservoir Watershed, does not require such an analysis. Id. However,
in response to public comments the Applicant has prepared a pollutant loading
analysis, which confirmed that the Proposed Action would result in an 81-
83% reduction in phosphorus loading from the entire site compared to pre-
development conditions. Refer to Section III.G Introductory Response item
3B for additional information on the pollutant loading analysis.

In response to the Comments request for a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement, refer to FEIS Responses III.G.38g and FEIS Response
General 1.9.

The Commenter submitted this document supported by three accompanying
reports prepared by David Clouser & Associates, Trout Unlimited Croton
Watershed Chapter and an ecological consultant J ames Barbour. The
Comment document contains assertions based on the findings from these third
party reports; and rather than responding in duplicity, the Applicant has
responded to these assertions in the direct context of the referenced third party
reports.

The Comment document also contains generalized information including
project setting and regulatory background (i.e. Clean Water Act and SEQRA)


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-91
pertinent to stormwater management. This information, though pertinent to
the Project background, is not specific to the DEIS and therefore not requiring
a specific response. This information is, therefore, not included in the
Comment/Response portion of the FEIS. The portions of the document
retained in this section include only comments requiring FEIS responses.

Each of the third party reports as well as the Comment document (Document
142) is included in their entirety in Appendix A of this FEIS. The David
Clouser (DCA) report was submitted to the Town three times; first as an
attachment to Document 136; second as an attachment to Document 142; and
third, independently as Document 148. The Trout Unlimited letter report was
submitted twice; first, as an attachment to Document 142; second,
independently as Document 149. The J ames Barbour report was submitted
independently as Document 170. Each report comments on several sections
of the DEIS and therefore, responses are located in corresponding sections of
the FEIS.

For a complete listing of responses to each of these referenced documents,
refer to Index Sorted by Document. With regard to stormwater comments
from the David Clouser & Associates, refer to FEIS Responses III.G 39a thru
III.G 39g; with regard to stormwater comments by J ames Barbour, refer to
FEIS Responses III.G 41 thru III.G 55. For the entire Comment report refers
to document #142 in FEIS Appendix A of this FEIS.

Appendix E includes a quantitative pollutant loading analysis and a summary
description is provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 3B. The
analysis indicates that post-development pollutant (including phosphorous)
levels will be reduced below existing thresholds prior leaving the Site. Since
the analyses show that impacts will be reduced at the Site, no adverse impacts
to downstream water bodies will result.

Comment III.G 38b (Document 142.1b, James Bryan Bacon, ESQ., P.C.,

which includes DEIS summaries, is general in nature, provides regulatory
and factual backdrop, with which applicant does not disagree, has been


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-92

The TMDLs contain specific targeted reductions for non-point source
phosphorus loadings. Yorktowns share of the targeted annual reduction is
1356 kilograms (2989 lbs).
8
Under the 2009 Croton Watershed Phase II
Phosphorus TMDL Implementation Plan, DECs stormwater permit GP-0-
08-002 requires Yorktown to develop, implement and enforce a stormwater
management program (SWMP) to reduce the discharge of pollutants from
their MS4s in accordance with NYS Environmental Conservation Law and the
Clean Water Act.
9

Phosphorus in the New Croton is further targeted by DECs narrative WQS
permitting [n]one in amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds and
slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages.
10
DEPs WR&R were
revised in 2010 to include a numerical WQS requiring that [t]otal phosphorus
concentrations shall be equal to or less than 15 micrograms per liter (g/l).

B. Project Setting

C. The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEORA)

In the NYC watershed, EPA recommends a no net increase in
[phosphorus) loadings over pre-existing construction conditions Specifically,
as part of the SEQRA process, EPA recommends that lead agencies ensure
that stormwater management plans include as much site-specific data as
possible and that the most conservative measures are utilized to reduce
stormwater loadings
18

SEQRA also requires inquiry into whether a project creates a material
conflict with a communitys current plans or goals as officially approved or
adopted
19
such as the TMDL and M54 programs.

18
Assessing New York Citys Watershed Protection Program (May 2000) at pg. 192;
Available at: http://www. epa.gov/region2/water/nycshed/fadmidrev.pdf.
19
6 NYCRR 617.7(c)(l)(iv).

Response III.G 38b:

infiltration system that quantitative analyses demonstrates will meet the


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-93
treatment. FEIS Appendix E includes a pollutant loading analysis and a
summary description is provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response item
3B. The results of the analysis show that post-development pollutant levels
will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to leaving the Site. The
analysis confirmed that the Proposed Action would result in an 81-83%
reduction in phosphorus loading from the entire Site compared to pre-
development conditions. Since the analyses show that impacts will be
reduced at the Site, no adverse impacts to downstream water bodies will
result. Further, there is no conflict with the TMDL and MS4 programs. By
reducing phosphorous loading the project is contributing to the Towns
achievement of the TMDL requirements.

As explained in Response III.G 38g, the DEIS complied with the Scoping
Document and the provision of additional analyses confirming the absence of
a significant impact does not warrant or require a supplemental EIS. Also
refer to FEIS Response General 1.9.

Comment III.G 38c (Document 142.1c, James Bryan Bacon, ESQ., P.C., Yorktown
Smart Growth), (PH2, James Bryan Bacon, ESQ., P.C., Yorktown Smart
Growth):

I. Stormwater Quality

Here, the Boards scoping document required the DEIS to analyze pre- and
post-development pollutant loadings. (See page 14 at G[2][e]). Two reasons
supporting this analysis are that phosphorus is the primary pollutant of the
New Croton and also has a detrimental impact on brook trout. However, the
DEIS merely discloses boilerplate information about projected phosphorus
removal rates, i.e. [sic] the projects stormwater detention pond will result in a
40% TP removal. (Preliminary Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan at 3.4
last revised 8/30/12).

The DEIS fails to address the context of the discharge, the receiving waters
existing nutrient levels, PH, DO or temperatures. Incredibly, rather than assess
phosphorus, the DEIS contends:

Current regulations no longer recognize this [phosphorus loading]
analysis as necessary and the DEP no longer requires it. DEIS at III.G-
15.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-94
The statement is false with regard to state regulations and unsupported
with regard to DEP. As above, DECs SPDES regulations specifically advise
that no permit will be granted that results in a contravention of water quality
standards or an existing TMDL.
21
Without a phosphorus loading analysis
there is no way to assess whether compliance with the SPDES requirements
can be achieved.

Moreover, none of DEPs correspondence with the DEIS indicates it
granted a waiver of a phosphorus loading analysis. In fact, even if DEP
granted such a waiver, DEPs role as an involved agency does not permit it to
unilaterally excuse an applicant from complying with a lead agencys scoping
requirements.

This is especially true here, where pursuant to state and federal laws the
Town of Yorktown must eliminate significant phosphorus loads from entering
the New Croton. Because the TMDL and MS4 programs require Yorktown to
reduce its phosphorus loadings into the New Croton, the Applicant must
assess whether its project is consistent with the New Croton/Yorktown
TMDL.

Further, the DEISs failure to assess phosphorus leaves unanswered how
the trout population in Hunter Brook may be impacted by increased nutrients.
As indicated by TU, brook trout are sensitive to increased nutrient levels. The
fact that Hunter Brook is located several thousand feet downstream does not
mitigate nutrient loadings. Studies conducted on the NYC watershed
(including on the Kisco River) indicate that discharges of soluble phosphorus
readily travel downstream in a process known a [sic] nutrient spiraling.
22

Moreover, according to DCA the projects inadequately sized stormwater
basins will cause the first flush from a 1-year storm to reach Hunter Brook in
a matter of minutes.
23

The DEISs failure to assess phosphorus also conflicts with New Yorks
Antidegradation Policy set forth above. Again, that policy requires that
[e]xisting instream [sic] water uses and the level of water quality necessary
to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected.
24
Adding
several pounds of phosphorus annually from the projects stormwater may
produce thousands of pounds of algae
25
in Hunter Brook and ultimately, the
New Croton.

In sum, the project is within the watershed for the Crotons terminal
reservoir - New Croton reservoir basin and the Hunter Brook sub-drainage


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-95
basinboth of which are impaired by phosphorus. Despite the extensive
network of rules and regulations designed to stem the increase of phosphorus
in these water bodies, the DEIS utterly fails to disclose the quantity of the
projects phosphorus loadings and impacts to those important resources.
.
22
See Uptake of nutrients and organic C in streams in New York City drinking-water-
supply watersheds Stroud Water Research Center (2006)
http://www.stroudcenter.org/nyprojpics/pdfs/newbold2006jnabs_nyprojectspiraling.pd
f.
23
Telephone conference with Andrew Willingham, P.E., of David Clouser and
Associates, Inc. December 17, 2012.
24
h ://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/waterpdiYtogs 13 9.pdf.
25
One pound of TP produces approximately 500 lbs. of algae. (The formula for algae
mass is l2ClO6 1H263 160110 l4Nl5 3lPl with TP being the limiting factor. Source
Dr. J ack Smith and see http://www.cleanwatermn.org/learnlpdfs/Algae.pdf). Maine
studies show 1 lb. of TP producing 10,000 lbs. of algae.
http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/watershedlfert/article.htm.

Response III.G 38c:

The Applicant maintains that its statements in the DEIS were accurate in
regard to the requirements for any quantitative analysis of phosphorus loading
and that the DEIS proposed stormwater management practices comply with
applicable regulations and guidance. Nevertheless, in response to comments,
the Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan includes an expanded
subsurface infiltration system that the Applicant asserts will meet the
treatment. FEIS Appendix E includes thermal and pollutant loading analyses.
A summary description is provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response item
3. The pollutant loading analysis confirmed that the Proposed Action would
result in an 81-83% reduction in phosphorus loading from the entire site
compared to pre-development conditions, thereby exceeding the TMDL
requirement to reduce phosphorous loads to the New Croton Reservoir. The
results of the analyses indicate that post-development stormwater related
impacts will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to leaving the Site.
Since the analyses conclude that impacts will be reduced at the Site, no
adverse impacts to downstream water bodies will result.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-96
Comment III.G 38d (Document 142.1d, James Bryan Bacon, ESQ., P.C.,

ii. Stormwater Quantity

According to DCA, the Pre-Development Time of Concentration for many
of the projects sub-catchments is too short and the Curve Numbers are
inaccurate. (See comments herewith). Therefore, the project sites pre
development runoff rate is overestimated. As a result, post-development
runoff rates would require substantially more retention capacity.

Consequently, if the projects storm water management system is not
redesigned, any rainfall will pass through the wet pond and be discharged
directly into the wetland and tributary of Hunter Brook. The increase in runoff
rates is in violation of DECs regulations.

That is also problem because Hunter Brook is a trout spawning stream and
DEC prohibits thermal discharges which raise the water temperature by more
than 2 degrees. Specifically, 6 NYCRR 704.2(b)(2) provides:

(2) Trout waters (T or TS).

(i) No discharge at a temperature over 70 degrees Fahrenheit shall
be permitted at any time to streams classified for trout.

(ii) From J une through September no discharge shall be permitted
that will raise the temperature of the stream more than two
Fahrenheit degrees over that which existed before the addition of
heat of artificial origin. .

(iii) From October through May no discharge shall be permitted
that will raise the temperature of the stream more than five
Fahrenheit degrees over that which existed before the addition of
heat of artificial origin or to a maximum of 50 degrees Fahrenheit
whichever is less.

(iv) From J une through September no discharge shall be permitted
that will lower the temperature of the stream more than two
Fahrenheit degrees from that which existed immediately prior to
such lowering.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-97

Pursuant to DCAs comments, the DEIS does not demonstrate that the
project can comply with these standards.

Response III.G 38d:

Regarding DCAs comment pertaining to Time of Concentration and CN
values as they affect stormwater runoff rates, refer to FEIS Responses III.G
39c and 39d.

infiltration system and a detention basin that the Applicant asserts will meet
treatment and peak discharge attenuation. FEIS Appendix E includes a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, pollutant loading analysis and thermal
impact analysis. Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response 2 and 3. The results of the analyses conclude that post-
thresholds prior to leaving the Site. Since impacts will be reduced at the Site,
no adverse impacts to downstream water bodies will result.

Comment III.G 38e (Document 142.1e, James Bryan Bacon, ESQ., P.C., Yorktown
Growth):

The DEISs claim that heated stormwater (from surfaces reportedly as high
as 110 F.)
26
will be cooled by mixing zones of Wetland A and Sherry Brook
are unsupported. DECs regulations have specific requirements for mixing
zones (6 NYCRR 704.3) including prohibitions on discharges causing a
violation of water quality standards. The DEIS does not analyze the travel
time of stormwater reaching the Hunter Brook. DCAs Andrew Willingham,
P.E. advises that the first flush from a 1-year storm on the project site will
reach the Hunter Brook in a matter of minutes. Typically, New York
experiences 15 days of 90 heat.
27
Climatologists warn that trend is increasing
and the last three years averaged 26 days with temperatures exceeding 90 F.
Based upon DCAs analysis, an afternoon storm on a hot summer day would
reach the Hunter Brook and cause an increase in ambient water temperatures.

Further, as indicated by the herewith comments of Trout Unlimited (TU),
brook trout are extremely sensitive to thermal discharges as well as changes in
PH, dissolved oxygen (DO), nutrient levels and turbidity. Mr. Keane notes


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-98
that the Sherry Brook is currently beset with siltation problems that would
increase as a result of the project. The document also describes the DEISs
lack of information on mixing zones and baseline water chemistry.

Under SEQRA, the DEISs failure to assess the projects phosphorus
discharges and the baseline WQS, PH, DO and temperatures of the receiving
waters of Sherry Brook and Hunter Brook renders the DEIS incomplete.

Importantly, the Planning Boards analysis of phosphorus cannot be
deferred to DEC (or DEP) as it is the sole obligation of the lead agency during

SEQRA to identify and require mitigation measures to protect WQS and
ensure TMDL compliance. (See Coca Cola Bottling Co. et al.).

26
DEIS III-F-23.
27
hftp://neork.cbslocal. com/20 12/07/1 6/national-weather-service-issues-heat-
advisory-for-nyc/.
28
Environmental Impact Review in New York State, Gerrard, Ruzow, Weinberg 8.05
citing 33 U.S.C. 1288(a)(2), (b).

Response III.G 38e:

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, pollutant loading analysis and thermal
impact analysis. Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response 2 and 3. The results of the analysis indicate that post-
development stormwater related impacts, including phosphorous and thermal)
will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to leaving the Site. Since the

Comment III.G 38f (Document 142.1f, James Bryan Bacon, ESQ., P.C., Yorktown
Growth):

iii. Wetlands Review

On behalf of YSG and other stakeholders, J ames Barbour, reviewed the
projects wetlands and hydrological impacts. Please refer to his comments


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-99
which indicate that the DEISs wetland mapping and habitat analysis is
incomplete.

Response III.G 38f:

For responses to J ames Barbours comments to Wetland see Responses in
FEIS Section III. F. For responses to hydrological impacts see Responses
III.G 41 to G 50.

Comment III.G 38g (Document 142.2, James Bryan Bacon, ESQ., P.C., Yorktown
Growth):

iv. Supplemental Review

SEQRA provides:

The lead agency may require a supplemental EIS, limited to the
specific significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or
inadequately addressed in the EIS that arise from:

(a) changes proposed for the project; or
(b) newly discovered information; or
(e) a change in circumstances related to the project
29

If the lead agency learns of important new issues about significant adverse
environmental effects regarding the proposed action in the course of receiving
public comments or issues that were omitted or not adequately addressed in
the DEIS, the lead agency must require the preparation of the SEIS in order to
solicit additional public comment on the new issues.
30
The cure requires the
lead agency to prepare a new scoping document requesting not only
compliance with all environmental regulations but also a reasonable range of
alternatives that will minimize to the maximum extent practicable impacts
to the environment. ECL 8-01 09(2)(f).

Here, the SEIS should:

Correct the DEISs calculations for pre-development stormwater
runoff rates and volume following EPAs guidance to employ the
most conservative measures to reduce phosphorus loadings.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-100
Increase on-site infiltration to accommodate 100% of the projects
stormwater.

Discuss the baseline and future levels of phosphorus, PH, DO and
temperature in all receiving waters and mixing zones including
Sherry Brook and Hunter Brook.

Address whether the projects phosphorus loadings will increase
the amount of phosphorus Yorktown will need to remove as part of
its TMDL allocation and MS4 requirements. (See GP-0-O10-002
and the J anuary 2009 TMDL Implementation Plan.)
31

Address the assimilative capacity of Sherry Brook and the Hunter
Brook in order to implement New Yorks antidegradation policy
32

Correct DEIS errors in wetlands mapping and hydrological
analysis.

______________________________
29
6 NYCRR. 617.9(a)(7(i)).
30
6 NYCRR 617.9(a)(7); and see discussion of VLG Real Estate Developers v.
Goold,
Index No. 170227 (Sup. Ct. Rensselear County, December 19, 1989) Environmental
Impact Review in New York State, Gerrard, Ruzow, Weinberg at 3.13(1]).

Response III.G 38g:

Preparation of an SEIS is left to the discretion of the lead agency, and is
warranted only where project changes, changed circumstances or newly
discovered information give rise to specific significant adverse
environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS. 6
NYCRR 617.9(7)(i). See also Riverkeeper v. Planning Bd. of the Town of
Southeast, 9 N.Y.3d 219, 231 (2007) (A lead agency's determination whether
to require a SEIS is discretionary.) The discretion to require a SEIS is
distinguished from regulations regarding the preparation of a DEIS or FEIS,
which a lead agency must itself prepare or require the applicant to prepare.
Id.

The lead agency determined that no SEIS relating to stormwater is warranted
because the Proposed Action will not result in any significant adverse
stormwater impacts that were not previously addressed in the DEIS. The


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-101
pollutant loading analyses set forth in the FEIS confirm that stormwater from
the Proposed Project will be reduced to below pre-development
concentrations, improving water quality. The Applicant has also proposed
modifications to the stormwater management design in response to comments
on the DEIS, in order to avoid or further mitigate environmental impacts that
were discussed in the DEIS. Refer to FEIS Response General 1.9.

Introductory Response items 2 and 3. The results of the analyses conclude
that post-development stormwater related impacts will be reduced below
existing thresholds prior to leaving the Site. Since the analyses show that
bodies will result and the preparation of an SEIS is not required.

Specific FEIS changes address the following:

Revised pre- and post-development stormwater calculations of runoff
rates and volumes. Refer to FEIS Responses III.G 39c, III.G 39d, and
III.G 39e. Also see SWPPP and calculations in FEIS Appendix E.
Provided expanded onsite infiltration to capture and remove 100% of
the water quality (1-year, 24-hour) storm runoff volume. Refer to
FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 2.
Provided pollutant (including phosphorus) loading analysis and
calculations as well as a discussion of pH and DO. Refer to FEIS III.G
Introductory Response item 3B and FEIS Appendix E.
Provided thermal impact analysis. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory
Response 3A and FEIS Appendix E.
Provided discussion regarding impact to Sherry and Hunter Brooks.
Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 3
The comment requesting revision to the wetland mapping is non-
specific and the Applicant is not aware of any reasons to revise the
wetland mapping.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-102
Comment III.G 38h (PH2, James Bryan Bacon, ESQ., P.C., Yorktown Smart Growth):

Consequently, the DEIS is incomplete and an inaccurate storm water analysis
would fail, the judicial hurtle test and the DEIS's deficiencies can only be
cured in a supplemental EIS. We would ask that be preceded by a written
scoping comment period. The SEIS should especially address how the Croton
will impact the phosphorous levels in the Hunter Brook and the New Croton.
[PH2, page 122, lines 16-25]

Response III.G 38h:

Refer to FEIS Response III.G 38g above and FEIS Response General 1.9.

Comment III.G 39a (Document 148.1a, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 142.3a, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 136.10a, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates):

Our firm has been retained by Yorktown Smart Growth to review the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of the above referenced proposed
Costco Wholesale Store.

The results of our review indicate that the DEIS documentation:

does not meet your Boards minimum scoping requirements for this
project;
does not demonstrate the minimum compliance with basic stormwater
regulations that are applicable to this type of development;
does not include an accurate stormwater analysis to properly assess
stormwater impacts,
and;
does not mitigate the impacts of the project development with regard
to stormwater quantity or quality.

The following comments are offered on behalf of our client, Yorktown Smart
Growth, for the Boards consideration

I. Pollutant Loading

The Board may note that Section (G)(2)(e) of the Planning Boards Scoping


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-103
Document requires that the DEIS include pre- and post-development analysis
of pollutant loading due to increase in impervious surface. Per our review of
the DEIS materials, no analysis of pollutant loading has been provided, and
therefore the present DEIS submittal does not conform with the minimum
requirements of the projects Scoping Document and is therefore incomplete
in this regard. The Board should note that the proposed project will convert
9.08 acres of wooded and open space areas to impervious parking, roadway
and building surfaces, which will very likely increase the pollutant loading
from these areas as compared to the pre-development condition.

In lieu of providing comprehensive pollutant loading calculations as required
by the Scoping Document, the Applicant has proclaimed that they simply
meet NYSDEC stormwater regulations, concluding therefore that there will be
no impact with regard to pollutant loads. In our experience, a quantitative
analysis of stormwater pollutants (e.g. phosphorus, nitrogen, suspended
solids) for a development proposing this scale of intense development would
prove that there will be a significant increase in these pollutants to
downstream wetlands and water bodies, despite the provisions for standard
practice water quality treatment techniques that comply with minimum
NYSDEC stormwater regulations. A pollutant loading analysis, as required in
the projects Scoping Document will quantify the increase in pollutants
generated by the development of this site and provide a basis for determining
what additional measures must be undertaken to mitigate pollutant discharges
to acceptable levels to will not impair downstream receiving water bodies.
Further, the Board will note from our following comments regarding the
projects stormwater management system design that the systems proposed for
this development fail to comply with the minimum NYSDEC requirements,
resulting in the removal of pollutants below even the minimum pollutant
removal standards.

The substantial potential impact to downstream wetlands, water bodies and
the New York City drinking water reservoir system due to nutrients and
sediment as a result of the development impact simply has not been
considered in the submitted DEIS materials as was specifically required by the
Scoping Document. It should also be noted that per our telephone discussion
with NYCDEP engineering staff, the lack of a pollutant loading analysis to
properly assess the developments impacts with regard to the projects
SEQRA determination was regarded by the NYCDEP review engineer as
simply unacceptable. Comments from the NYCDEP as an involved agency in
this regard should be expected to support this request that a pollutant loading
analysis must be provided.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-104

Response III.G 39a:

The Applicant disagrees that the Scoping Document required comprehensive
pollutant loading calculations. The DEIS Final Scope states the following
text in III.G.2.e:
Include pre- and post-development analysis of pollutant
loading due to increase in impervious surface.

The Applicant asserts the DEIS primarily qualitative analysis of pollutant
loads complied with the Scope. The DEIS stormwater management plan
proposed the use of NYS DECNYSDEC standard stormwater management
practices to treat the stormwater runoff from the proposed impervious
surfaces. The proposed treatment practices, infiltration practice and a micro-
pool extended detention pond, are stated in Section 3.3 of the NYS
DECNYSDEC Design Manual to be acceptable for water quality treatment
and sections 3.3 and Table 7.4 of the Manual states the anticipated pollutant
removals that can be expected with these standard practices. Nevertheless, in
response to this and other similar comments, FEIS Appendix E includes a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, a quantitative thermal impact analysis
and a quantitative pollutant loading analysis. Summary descriptions are
provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The results of the analyses
conclude that post-development stormwater related impacts will be reduced
below existing thresholds prior to leaving the Site. Since the analyses show
that impacts will be reduced at the Site, no adverse impacts to downstream
water bodies will result.

Comment III.G 39b (Document 148.1b, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 142.3b, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 136.10b, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates):

II. Stormwater Quantity

As the Board may be aware, the design parameters incorporated into the
stormwater computer model substantially affect the resulting calculated output
of runoff volume and runoff rate. Per our review of Appendix D
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan within the DEIS, inaccurate parameters
were used that result in an underestimation of the projects impacts with
regard to runoff quantity. Specifically, an over estimation of pre-development
runoff rates results in stormwater ponds that are undersized and cannot be


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-105
expected to attenuate design frequency storm events as have been reported. If
properly analyzed, the difference between the accurately stated pre
development runoff rates as compared with the post development runoff rates
would require substantially more retention capacity and/or infiltration soil
percolation
capacity to achieve the desired no net increase in stormwater discharge from
the site. Accordingly, this modeling calculation deficiency is extremely
important to accurately represent the impacts due to stormwater discharges
from the site.

Additionally, a requirement for an analysis of the proposed developments
runoff volume was listed as a required documentation to be reviewed in
several locations within the Scoping Document; however, this runoff volume
analysis was not provided in the DEIS materials. Runoff volume calculations
will indicate the additional volume of stormwater that will be generated and
discharged from this proposed development to downstream receiving waters.
Based on the proposed intensity of development of this property, this volume
increase merits close consideration by the Board in its deliberation of the
significance that this development will impose on downstream properties.

Response III.G 39b:

The Applicant used HydroCAD stormwater design software based on
Technical Release-55 (TR-55) and Technical Release 20 (TR-20) stormwater
hydrology models to determine stormwater runoff values. Selection of the
many parameters that are required to run the model are often based upon site
specific topographic survey, soil survey, aerial photographs, confirmation by
field observation and last of all professional judgment. Selection of the values
to be used for these many variables is often quite subjective and this is where
differences of professional judgment may occur. In this regard, the Applicant
did modify the variables from the DEIS in the FEIS as suggested in the
comments (see FEIS Responses III.G 37e, III.G 39c, III.G 39d and III.G 39e).
The revised analyses, based on these suggested revisions, provide more
conservative results, (e.g. lower existing runoff values, which require greater
post-development stormwater detention). Therefore, the FEIS design
increased infiltration, provided greater detention and reduced peak discharge
rates.



______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-106
treatment and peak discharge. FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact analysis and pollutant loading
analysis. Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory
Response. The results of the analyses conclude that post-development

Comment III.G 39c (Document 148.1c, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 142.3c, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 136.10c, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates):

The following details the inaccuracies that are incorporated in the
developments stormwater quantity analysis:

1. Pre-Development Time of Concentration (Tc). The time of
concentration paths and methods of flow are critical in determining the
length of time for a specific watershed subcatchment runoff rate to peak
and directly affect the peak flow rate predicted for that subcatchment.

In the case of the pre-development calculations in the DEIS materials, the
time of concentration length of time for many subcatchments is too short,
resulting in an overestimation of flow rate in the pre-development
condition. Additionally, proper utilization of the TR-55 (Technical
Release 55) method requires that the longest time of concentration path
within the watershed be utilized for calculation purposes, which have not
been adhered to in the calculations.

The following details each instance of inaccurate time of concentrations
being utilized:

a. Shallow Concentrated Flow - Unpaved Roughness Coefficient.
For pre development shallow concentrated flow segments, the
analysis assumes Unpaved for the surface roughness coefficient
for all areas that are not classified as pavement. This is not an
accurate method, since the TR-55 method offers several other
roughness coefficient designations such as woodland or short
grass pasture that would be a significantly more accurate
modeling parameter for this site. In many of the areas that
Unpaved designation was used, the existing area has an actual


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-107
woodland or short grass pasture surface, therefore these
designations are an obviously correct choice.

This modeling parameter issue must be considered substantial
because Unpaved has a significantly lower roughness coefficient
than woodland or short grass pasture, thereby resulting in a
substantially shorter time of concentration used in the DEIS. As
mentioned above, a shorter time of concentration results in a
higher predicted flow rate for the pre-development condition. It is
estimated that many of these time of concentration paths would be
approximately 3 times longer in time length if the more accurate
parameters were used. This modification would substantially alter
the time of concentration time lengths and associated runoff rates
for subcatchments DA-El, DA-E2a, DA-2c, DA-E3, and DA-E4,

b. Sheet Flow for DA-2a. The sheet flow path length for
subcatchment DA-2a was chosen as 75 feet, while 150 feet is
allowed and the longer flow path is clearly a more appropriate
choice at this location on the site. Choosing a significantly shorter
length than allowed for sheet flow in this instance has no apparent
basis for such a choice, which results in an inaccurately short time
of concentration path (and a resulting overestimation of pre
development runoff quantity). Additionally, a roughness value of
0.15 was used for grass in this area, where 0.24
was properly used for other similar subcatchments (DR-E3 and DR
E4), also resulting in a time length that is inaccurately short for this
subcatchment (and a resulting subsequent overestimation of pre
development runoff quantity).

c. Sheet Flow for DA-2c. The sheet flow path length was chosen as
33 feet, while 150 feet is allowed and further flow path is clearly
available at the site. Choosing a shorter than allowed for sheet flow
in this instance has no basis, which results an inaccurately short
time of concentration path and a consequent overestimation of pre
development runoff quantity.

d. Sheet Flow for DR-E4. The sheet flow path for Subcatchment
DR-E4 was chosen as one segment of 47 length feet at 2% slope
and a second segment of 21 length feet at 9% slope. This path is
clearly not the longest time of concentration path available within
this watershed.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-108

Specifically, the area east of the existing barn has a 100 foot long
segment at 1% grade that would result in a substantially longer
time of concentration length. Again, the error results in an
overestimation of pre-development runoff. We estimate that the
time of concentration for DR-E4 should be approximately 23
minutes instead of the 13 minutes utilized in the analysis,
substantially altering the predicted runoff rates for this
subcatchment.

Response III.G 39c:

a. Shallow Concentrated Flow: Chapter 3 of TR-55 describes the method to
calculate the Time of Concentration. Figure 3-1 is used to estimate the
average velocity of shallow concentrated flow based on watercourse slope.
Figure 3-1 graphs the average velocity values for unpaved and paved
surfaces within the range of slopes from 0.5% to 50%. The equation used
to develop the values on Figure 3-1 is provided in Appendix F. For slopes
beyond the limit of the graph, (i.e. less than 0.5%), the user is directed to
the equation in Appendix F to calculate the velocity for the paved and
unpaved surfaces. The equation does not require Mannings n values
(roughness coefficient). The Manual provides coefficients for the paved
and unpaved conditions. The Applicants engineers used the equation,
provided in Appendix F, to develop all the times of concentrations, as it is
more accurate than reading off the chart. When comparing the values for
the average velocity by graph or by equation, the results are the same;
however, reading from the chart is more subjective. Therefore, the
Applicant asserts the method used to estimate the time for shallow
concentrated flow is compliant with the TR-55
methodologymethhodology and no changes are necessary.

b. Sheet Flow for DA-2a: The Applicants engineer modified the sheet flow
length from 75 to 150 feet, the maximum length allowed by DEC
guidance. The roughness coefficient was changed to 0.24, which resulted
in lengthening the time of concentration from 11 to 20 minutes.

c. Sheet Flow for DA-2c: The Applicants engineer modified the sheet flow
length from 33 to 60 feet, to where contours show the beginning of
concentrated flow. The result is a longer time of concentration, changed
from 10 to 12 minutes.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-109
d. Sheet Flow for DR-E4: The Applicants engineer modified the sheet flow
length from 68 to 104 feet, resulting in a longer time of concentration from
13 to 16 minutes. (The Applicants engineer was unable to verify the
Comments claim that a flow path east of the barn was longer.)

The recommended changes to each of the stormwater runoff parameters have
a cumulative effect on the stormwater model. The changes resulted in
lengthened times of concentration as noted above, which result in a decrease
in pre-development peak runoff rates. The cumulative changes to the
stormwater model, based on all of the overall changes, are noted in the
calculations provided in the FEIS SWPPP in Appendix E (and summary tables
provided in FEIS Introductory Responses 2 and 4). The FEIS stormwater
management was designed in consideration of the recommended changes.
Even though the Applicant does not necessarily agree with the Comment, the
recommendations were implemented to provide a more conservative model
(i.e., one which tends to overstate impacts and, the Applicaint therefore asserts
is conservative). The changes to the model result in a decrease in
predevelopment runoff, which triggers the need for an increase in the
detention and/or infiltration volumes. Accordingly, the DEIS required and
provided 7.9 acre-feet of combined stormwater storage and infiltration
volume; while the FEIS requires and provides 8.7 acre-feet of combined
stormwater storage and infiltration volume.

Other changes to the stormwater management design, described in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response, include an expanded infiltration system to capture
100% runoff from the water quality storm. The changes resulted in increased
infiltration, reduced runoff volume and reduced post-development peak
discharge rates, thereby avoiding adverse downstream impacts.

Comment III.G 39d (Document 148.1d, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 142.3d, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 136.10d, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates):

The following applies to all of the onsite pre-development subcatchments that
are modeled in the DEIS:

a. Existing Lawn Areas. The TR-55 method defines Open Space in Fair
Condition as grass cover 50% to 75%. Regarding the lawn areas
throughout the site, it is difficult to imagine that the grass has not established
to near 100% coverage. In our experience, grass with less than 75% coverage


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-110
exists only in newly seeded areas or very dry or nutrient deprived soils that
cannot sustain grass growth. Both of these conditions of partial grass coverage
are rare.

The correction of this inaccuracy is important because Open Space in
Good Condition (grass cover >75%) has a significantly lower Curve Number
than Open Space in Fair Condition (Curve Number of 61 for Hydrologic
Soil Type B and a Curve Number of 74 for Soil Type C.) Unless evidence
can be provided otherwise, lawn areas in the existing condition should be
assumed to be Open Space in Good Condition for the proper selection of
watershed modeling Curve Number parameters. It should also be noted that all
grassed areas in the post-development condition were assumed to be in Open
Space in Good Condition (>75% grass cover). Similar to the previously
noted modeling discrepancies, calculations that erroneously produce an over
estimation of pre development runoff discharge result in an under estimation
of stormwater management facilities required to control the post development
discharge, so these corrections are important and will require a revision to this
stormwater management design.

b. Nursery/Wooded Areas. As mentioned above, the southern portion of the
site contains a plant nursery. Per available aerial photos, the area is heavily
covered with plantings, with scattered pathways and with mature trees mixed
in. This area was also assumed to be Open Space in Fair Condition in the
pre-development watershed modeling analysis. Accordingly, this Curve
Number is modeled inaccurately higher than what is appropriate for this type
of ground cover, resulting in an additional case of an overestimation of runoff
from these areas.

Open Space in Good Condition or Woods/Grass Combination in Good
Condition would have been an appropriate and accurate representation of
existing ground cover for this area of the site.

Response III.G 39d:

a. Existing Lawn Areas. The runoff curve number for existing lawn areas in
the DEIS was changed in the FEIS as suggested from fair to good
cover with the exception of the portion of the nursery in drainage area
E2a. The referenced portion in E2a remains as open space fair
condition, as it is a combination of trees and bare soil based on field
observation and confirmation by Google aerial photos.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-111
b. Nursery/Wooded Areas: The runoff curve number for the nursery in the
DEIS was modified in the FEIS to reflect wooded in good condition, open
space in good condition, bare soil and, as indicated above, open space in
fair condition.

Comment III.G 39e (Document 148.1e, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 142.3e, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 136.10e, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates):

3. Runoff Volume. Section III (G)(3)(a) and Section III (F)(2)(h) of the
projects Scoping Document indicates that the impact from stormwater runoff
volume must be analyzed. Per our review of the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) provided in the DEIS, the increase in runoff volume
to the onsite wetlands and downstream water bodies was not analyzed or
quantified.

Additionally, perhaps the most significant regulatory instrument for
controlling runoff volume is the provision of Runoff Reduction Volume
(required by the NYSDEC as part of the requirements for coverage under the
Stormwater SPDES General Permit); however, only a fraction of the
necessary volume reduction required for this site is provided for in the
projects stormwater management facilities design. This volume reduction
deficiency issue is discussed in more detail later in these review comments.

As a summary of the deficiencies of the developments proposal to adequately
manage and limit the quantity of stormwater that will be discharge from the
site, it is clear upon review of the DEIS modeling calculations that the time of
concentrations are inaccurately long for pre development subcatchments, and
there are a total of 6.1 acres of this site that were inaccurately modeled as
Open Space in Fair Condition. The combination of these will undoubtedly
result in a substantial overestimation of predevelopment runoff rates. As the
Board is aware, post-development rates must be limited to pre-development
rates per NYSDEC regulations. Accordingly, the overestimation of pre-
development rates results in the under sizing of stormwater ponds and
infiltration basins and the consequent release of a significantly greater
quantity of stormwater than is allowed by compliance with minimum
regulatory requirements.

These inaccuracies must be corrected to provide a meaningful and accurate
representation of the potential significantly adverse runoff impacts associated


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-112
with the project and the resultant direct impact to properties downstream of
this development site.

Response III.G 39e:

The Applicants engineer revised the stormwater hydrologic model by
incorporating the Comments suggested revisions pertaining to existing Tc,
CN and land covers (refer to FEIS Responses III.G 39c and III.G 39d). These
changes affected the pre-development condition by decreasing the existing
runoff rates.

The Applicants engineer modified the stormwater management design to
enlarge the proposed subsurface infiltration facility to contain and remove
100% of the water quality volume, thereby meeting the runoff reduction and
water quality requirement for the Project. Implementation of the infiltration
facility will significantly reduce runoff volume discharging from the Site,
thereby, reducing impacts to downstream offsite water bodies. Refer to FEIS
III.G Introductory Response items 2 and 4, which provide an overview of the
FEIS modifications to the stormwater management model including runoff
volume reduction and reduction of peak runoff discharge rates. Refer to FEIS
SWPPP in Appendix E.

Comment III.G 39f (Document 148.1f, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 142.3f, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 136.10f, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates):

III. Stormwater Quality Treatment

The following lists specific instances where the project does not meet the
minimum requirements that are specified in the NYSDEC Design Manual:

1. Redevelopment Credit. Chapter 9 of the Design Manual allows for a
credit for the reduction of both Water Quality Volume (WQv) and Runoff
Reduction Volume (RRv) that is required for the development of the
portions of the site that were previously developed with impervious
surfaces only. However, a review of the information in the developments
SWPPP indicates that RRv is not required for this project due to a
Redevelopment status. This presumption is patently inaccurate. No credit
for any reduction in either WQv or RRv is allowed for areas that were not
previously developed with impervious surfaces, which is the case for


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-113
primarily all of the development site.

2. Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv). RRv provides attenuation of runoff,
infiltration/recharge of the groundwater table, and water quality treatment.
Per the Design Manual, runoff reduction of the full Water Quality Volume
(WQv) must be provided. A reduction in the minimum RRv can be
allowed only after specific conditions at the site make the achievement of
the full RRv impossible. To secure the credit for a reduction in the
required RRv, the Applicant must evaluate and provide a detailed
discussion that each Green Infrastructure Practice (GIP) that is available
cannot be implemented at the site. Additionally, per Section 4.5 (page 4-5
of the Design Manual), reduction of the Full WQv must be provided and
can only be reduced when physical constraints, hydraulic conditions, soil
testing, existing and proposed slopes (detailed contour), or other existing
technical limitations are objectively documented. Rationale for not
providing the full runoff reduction volume or water quality volume cannot
be based on lack of space for required footprint of the practice.

Per the DEIS, the Minimum RRv has been provided in lieu of reduction
[sic] the Full WQv without the required necessary proper documentation
of a justification or rational. Per our discussions with NYSDEC
stormwater management staff, the Full RRv must be reduced on sites
where infiltration is possible (e.g. permeable soils exist on the site). The
site contains significant areas with Type B soils, which are ideal for
infiltration. These existing favorable site characteristics for soil
percolation clearly is supported by the Applicants proposal for a large
infiltration basin on the site. It is therefore quite clear that infiltration of
the Full RRv is easily achievable at this site and therefore must be
provided to comply with the Design Manual requirements.

Of the eleven Green Infrastructure Practices (GIPs) available which are to
be considered in a developments design per the requirements of the
NYSDEC Design Manual (i.e., each of the practices are discussed on
pages 10-12 of the SWPPP) only two (2) were utilized in the projects
design, and both of them lack much merit considering the circumstances
of existing conditions at the site. As an example, very little recognition of
conservation value can be justified for the Conservation of Natural
Buffers credit since very dense development is proposed and the wetland
areas on the site simply prohibit development by regulatory restrictions
already in effect. The other GIP utilized, Stream Daylighting was also
achieved by default. This GIP was achieved since the


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-114
obvious and easiest discharge point from the site was to the onsite
wetland, which is, of course by definition, not located in an enclosed
culvert. The remaining nine (9) GIPs that are required to be carefully
considered for use by the Design Manual were summarily rejected in the
SWPPP. It is clear that GIPs were not seriously considered for this
project, despite the specific and clear regulatory requirement to do so.

Further, Section 10.3.4 (Page 10-13) of the Design Manual indicates
Runoff reduction is an effective means for preventing pollutant loads to
receiving waters and has a number of positive effects on a sites water
balance. Due to the potential impacts from pollutants to the onsite
wetlands and downstream water bodies, which pollutant loading
assessment has not been provided as thoroughly discussed as a
requirement in the Scoping Document, providing the Full RRv in
accordance with the Design Manual is a necessary measure to mitigate the
significant adverse environmental impact associated with the quality of
stormwater that will be discharged from the site. The pollutant loading
calculations that are required in the Towns Scoping Document (that have
not been provided in the DEIS) would be a basis for the selection and
design of RRv practices (that are required to be met under NYSDEC
regulations) which would put in place effective measures to minimize the
impacts on downstream receiving waters. The present design appears to
have ignored this fundamental local and state requirement for RRv
compliance, which could, when properly designed, mitigate this
potentially significant adverse impact.

3. Additionally, the detail on Sheet C-703 of the Site Plans indicates that the
sediment storage available within the hydrodynamic separator is 128 cubic
feet (4.75 cubic yards). Per our calculations, the WQv for the tributary
area to the infiltration basin is 55,800 cubic feet, thereby requiring a
pretreatment volume equal to 13,950 cubic feet (i.e., the NYSDEC Design
Manual requirement is 25% of WQv). By this simple calculation it
becomes evident that the proposed hydrodynamic separator provides for
less than 1% of the required pretreatment volume. The developments
design must be revised in accordance with the minimum design criteria
that are required by the NYSDEC Design Manual.

Finally with regards to compliance allowances associated [sic] this
particular selection of equipment, it should be noted that the
hydrodynamic separator that has been specified cannot qualify under the
Redevelopment allowances in the Design Manual because it collects a


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-115
much larger impervious area than existed prior to the proposed project
development.

Response III.G 39f:

1. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 2A regarding
redevelopment as it pertains to the proposed Project.

2. The FEIS stormwater management plan includes a subsurface infiltration
system that meets the regulatory requirements for runoff reduction in a
green infrastructure practice and water quality treatment for the Project.
Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response items 2 and 3B regarding
runoff volume reduction, infiltration and pollutant loading analysis. Refer
to FEIS Responses III.G 34, III.G 37c and the SWPPP included in FEIS
Appendix E regarding green infrastructure practices.

With regard to the other recommended green infrastructure practices
(GIPs) described in Chapter 3 of the DEC Design Manual and discussed in
the revised Preliminary SWPPP in FEIS Appendix E, those uses would be
more applicable to developments with smaller contributing drainage areas
(refer to FEIS Response III.G 34). Although the application of tree
planting as a GIP for runoff reduction within the curbed parking area
islands is not feasible due to pavement slope constraints and runoff
disconnection, trees will provide shade and aesthetic benefits.

The Applicant asserts that the RRv and WQv requirements are more
effectively achieved through the use of the proposed expanded infiltration
practice. In addition to providing the required water quality treatment and
runoff reduction, other green infrastructure planning practices such as
minimization of impervious surfaces (refer to FEIS Response III.G 3) and
conservation of natural areas were implemented to the degree practicable.
(For example, the FEIS Site Plan added a retaining wall to reduce grading
and land disturbance within the Wetland A wooded buffer. Refer to FEIS
III.G Introductory Summary Response item 1.) Refer to FEIS Section 3.3
of the revised Preliminary SWPPP, FEIS Appendix E regarding GIPs) .

3. Infiltration Basin Pretreatment It is stated in the last paragraph of the
New York State Verified Proprietary Stormwater Management Practices
section of the DECs website:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29089.html that All proprietary practices
accepted for use on a redevelopment project may also be used for


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-116
pretreatment, provided the practice has been designed in accordance with the
Design Manual(emphasis added). Hydrodynamic separators such as the
Vortechs units that are part of the proposed storm water management
system are acceptable, verified types of proprietary practices that can be used
for pretreatment.

The hydrodynamic separators proposed for pretreatment on the Project are
rate or flow-based practices and, not volume-based practices as
suggested in the Comment. The units are sized based on the peak rate of
discharge (flow) for the water quality design storm (Section 9.5.5 of the
DEC Design Manual). The water quality design storm for sizing flow-
based practices is calculated using the methodology in Appendix B.2 in
the DEC Design Manual, also known as the Small Storm Hydrology
Method. With the 1-year, 24-hour event (3.0 inch rainfall) as the water
quality design storm for the Project and the infiltration practice being
designed in accordance with the Design Manual, the multiple Vortechs
units that will act as pretreatment for the infiltration system will
collectively capture and pre-treat the peak discharge flow from the water
quality storm.

Comment III.G 39g (Document 148.1g, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 142.3g, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates), (Document 136.10g, David B. Clouser, David Clouser &
Associates):

Based on the substantial lack of information provided and the corrections to
very substantive errors and omissions that need to be made to the DEIS, we
believe that addressing all of these issues goes well beyond the normal
procedure used to continue toward preparing the FEIS and a SEQRA finding
statement. We suggest that the Board simply does not have complete and
accurate information with respect to the projects design or its potential
impacts on the community to make a reasoned elaboration of the DEIS
materials as presently presented. These substantial issues of concern must be
addressed before the environmental review or the developments site plan
review can proceed. It is quite evident that the project design and layout are
likely to require significant modification to meet the important requirements
that have not been addressed in the DEIS. Once this new information is
available, we respectfully suggest that the public hearing be reopened on this
matter so that the Board will have the opportunity to evaluate input from the
public on the revised project proposal.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-117

Response III.G 39g:

In response to comments on the DEIS, the Applicant has modified the
stormwater management design to improve stormwater management and
further reduce any potential stormwater impacts. Although the Applicant does
not concur with the Comments conclusions, due to the subjective nature of
the analysis, the Applicant implemented many of the technical
recommendations raised in the foregoing comment (refer to FEIS Responses
III.G 39c and III.G39d), resulting in a projected decrease from the pre-
development stormwater runoff.

The Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan is compliant with all
applicable stormwater regulations. The plan includes a subsurface infiltration
system and a detention basin that the Applicant asserts will meet the
regulatory requirements for runoff volume reduction, water quality treatment
and peak discharge attenuation for new construction. FEIS Appendix E
includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact analysis and
pollutant loading analysis. Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response. The results of the analyses conclude that post-
thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A and/or at the point of discharge where

The FEIS stormwater management design presents improvements to the
Proposed Action that are more environmentally protective and further reduce
potential environmental impacts. Since the Proposed Actions stormwater
impacts are adequately documented in both the DEIS and the FEIS, these
improvements to stormwater management design do not warrant a reopening
the public hearing.

Comment III.G 40a (Document 142.4a, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed
Chapter-Trout Unlimited), (Document 149.1a, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton
Watershed Chapter-Trout Unlimited):

As shown below, a fatal flaw in the DEIS is its failure to identify existing
water quality and conditions of the Sherry Brook and Hunter Brook as trout
spawning areas


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-118
Brook trout have very specific water chemistry requirements. They prefer
water temperatures less than 68 F. and are less tolerant of warmer water
temperatures than [B]rook trout survive in only the coldest and cleanest
water.

For this reason, NYSDECs regulations prohibit any discharges to trout
streams raising baseline temperatures more than 2 degrees from J une to
September or by 5 degrees from October through May. The regulations forbid
any discharge exceeding 70 F.
5

Brook trout also require relatively high concentrations of dissolved oxygen
(DO) in water compared to other fish and even other trout species. Water
temperature is inversely related to DO concentrations, so as water warms, it
holds less oxygen. As algae dies, bacteria consume available oxygen as they
decompose the algae, reducing oxygen levels and increasing fish mortality.
6

Significantly, the Hunter Brook is a haven for the brook trout. NYSDEC has
upgraded the classification of the Hunter Brook segment
7
north of Mill Pond
in the vicinity of Sherry Brook to C(TS), meaning that it is a trout spawning
stream.

Though Sherry brook is not classified as a trout spawning stream, changes in
its temperature, PH, nutrient levels and DO content would also degrade the
Hunter Brook.

The DEIS III-G acknowledges the Hunter Brook as a trout spawning stream.
However, the Flora and Fauna section of the DEIS (III.E) does not mention
brook trout. The DEIS does not evaluate the DO content, PH, nutrient levels
or ambient water temperatures of any of the receiving waters for the projects
stormwater discharges.

Thermal requirements for brook trout are well-documented.

The DEIS claims that thermal impacts will be mitigated by a micropool
detention basin. It also claims that by passing through over one half mile of
forested wetlands and underground pipes the temperature of the stormwater
runoff will be lowered and the potential for thermal impacts on Hunter Brook
will be greatly reduced. DEIS III-F-25.

There are two primary problems with the DEISs statements.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-119
First, the DEIS contains no evidence demonstrating that the projects thermal
pollution (from runoff with surfaces as high as 110 F.) is mitigated by the
length of a streams segment. I am unaware of any thermal study or graph
showing a point source discharge decreasing in temperature solely based upon
the length of the stream.

Second, I understand that an engineering firm, David Clouser and Associates
has examined the DEIS and find that the projects stormwater volumes are
grossly underestimated. Consequently, the project will discharge untreated
and, during summer months, heated stormwater and sediment into the
receiving waters. Again, the DEIS contains no existing data on the receiving
waters PH, DO, nutrient levels or temperatures. Clousers findings also mean
that more stormwater will reach the confluence of the crompond wetland
area and Sherry Brook leading to potential flooding precisely because that
confluence is almost completely blocked with sediment and debris. At III-F-
10.

The fact that Sherry brook is conveyed from the crompond wetland by an
underground pipe for 1000 feet (DEIS III-F-25) indicates that the projects
stormwater will reach the Hunter brook quicker and at a higher velocity than
by a normal stream. This may directly impact the Hunter brook trout
population as a quarter-inch of silt over trout eggs can result in 100 percent
mortality.
10
Such discharges also have a deleterious by eliminating the
benthic food supply for trout. My letter of J anuary 10, 2000 provided notice to
this Board more than 12 years ago that the Sherry Brook was depositing
inordinate amounts of sediment into the Hunter brook and required
remediation.

__________________________
5
NYCRR 704.2(b)(2).
6
Id. at footnote 3.
7
From Mill Pond to tributary Il (Sherry Brook, the Hunter Brook is identified by NYSDEC as
the stream portion, Item #92, Waters Index Number, H-31-P44-2.

10
http //www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishingftroutlwild-trout-program/.

Response III.G 40a:

treatment, thermal moderation and peak discharge attenuation. FEIS


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-120
analysis and pollutant loading analysis. Summary descriptions are provided in
FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The results of the analyses conclude that
post-development stormwater related impacts, including thermal, will be
reduced below existing thresholds prior to leaving the Site.

As shown in Table III.G A3 of the III.G Introductory Response, the
temperature of the stormwater discharge to Design Point 2 (where the stream
flowing through Wetland A discharges from the Project Site) will be reduced
below pre-development conditions. Post-development temperature reductions
at Design Point 2 are within the allowed 5F temperature change for non-trout
waters as compared to the existing conditions. They are also less than 86F
(FEIS Table III.G A3), indicating there will be no thermal impacts in the
wetland stream. Therefore, results of the thermal study indicate that post-
development discharges from the Project Site are in compliance with
regulatory requirements. The quantitative thermal impact analysis confirmed
the effectiveness of the FEIS infiltration practice to moderate temperature of
the stormwater runoff from the proposed development. Since the analyses
downstream water bodies, including Sherry and Hunter Brooks will result.

The Applicant asserts that it is not responsible for improving preexisting
offsite conditions under SEQRA or any State or Town law or regulation; those
laws and regulations address the impacts of the Project and do not impose an
obligation to improve extant conditions. The Comment references historic
sedimentation contributing from Sherry Brook as also described in Comment
III.G 2 of the FEIS. As noted above, by reducing impacts at the Site, no
downstream adverse impacts will result from the Proposed Action.

With regard to FEIS modifications to the stormwater design calculations
resulting from comments presented by David Clouser and Associates, refer to
FEIS III.G Responses 39a through 39g.

Comment III.G 40b (Document 142.4b, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed
Chapter-Trout Unlimited), (Document 149.1b, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton

I also note that the maximum storm analyzed by the DEIS is a 7.5 inch storm.
The Planning Board should be aware that recent hurricanes Irene (2011),
Sandy (2012) and Floyd (1999) along with tropical storm Lee (2011) have
dumped as much 15 inches of rain in the area. Therefore, as climatologists


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-121
expect that trend to continue, the Board must reasonably examine stormwater
volumes of greater magnitude.

Response III.G 40b:

Refer to FEIS III.G 37d for discussion regarding design year storms and
rainfall amounts.

Comment III.G 40c (Document 142.4c, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed
Chapter-Trout Unlimited), (Document 149.1c, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton

As I made the Board aware in 2000, pursuant to NYS Environmental
Conservation Laws, Article 11, 11-503 (1) and (4), a violation exists with
respect to the prohibition against polluting streams inhabited by trout with
earth, soil, refuse, salt and other deleterious substances by the illegal and
unpermitted discharge of such earth, soil, refuse, salt and other deleterious
substances into this specific portion of Hunter Brook. And, pursuant to NYS
Environmental Conservation Laws, Article 17, 17- 0501 (1), a violation
exists with respect to the prohibition against introducing pollution into the
classified waters more specifically described under Article 17, 17-0301 and
in violation of the water quality standards set forth in Article 17, 17-0301. I
again note that it is a violation of 178-9 (B), (5) and (7) of the Yorktown
Wetland Regulations which require a permit for the introduction of any form
of pollution and/or to alter or modify natural drainage patterns and
watercourses.

Response III.G 40c:

treatment, thermal moderation and peak discharge attenuation. FEIS
Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The
A and/or at the point of discharge where leaving the Site. Since the analyses


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-122

The Project proposes no direct discharge to a trout stream, no land disturbance
within the existing wetlands; proposes treatment of the Sites stormwater prior
to discharging overland to any wetlands; and respects the existing overall
natural drainage patterns. However, a Town of Yorktown wetland permit
will be required for disturbance to the wetland buffers.

Comment III.G 40d (Document 142.4d, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed
Chapter-Trout Unlimited), (Document 149.1d, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton

I also note that the Sherry brook watershed is the main cause of silt sand and
water draining into the Hunter Brook precisely at the location where trout are
known to spawn. From the Sherry Drive area, the water flows down hill from
the outfall at the end of Sherry Drive taking silt and sand with it. Sherry Brook
is deep and well defined and has unstable banks, providing a ready source of
silt and sand.

Again, this whole arrangement is what has been inherently wrong with the
science and engineering that has preceded us. That is, curb the streets in a
development capture the water in storm drains, concentrate it in culverts and
keep it encapsulated for all or part of its journey to the nearest stream,
dumping high-volume, high-velocity flows resulting in serious erosion
problems in the receiving waters.

The continued deposition of silt, sand and other pollutants at the point where
they are deposited into Hunter Brook must be eliminated. The Applicant can
participate in the siltation elimination scheme by providing additional
structures and practices on his property after correcting the DEISs stormwater
errors as identified by David Clouser and Associates. I also note that a nutrient
analysis must be included in the projects stormwater plans because excess
phosphorus causes plant growth which depletes oxygen levels and leads to
higher trout mortality. (As above the DO concentration shall not be less than
7.0 mg/L. 6 NYCRR 703.3). Studies of New York citys watershed show
that phosphorus uptake by a stream bed is minimal.
11
This is made more
apparent in this case where nutrient spiraling would be exacerbated by 1000
feet of the Sherry Brook being artificially piped.

In. sum, the DEISs errors are so substantial that they cannot be corrected in a
FEIS. Instead, what is required is the collection of baseline water quality data
and analysis of the projects impacts to brook trout and their habitat in the


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-123
context of the new data and with stormwater review corrections as identified
by David Clouser Associates. The only means by which that can be
accomplished under SEQRA is by the production of a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), including a detailed, focused
scoping outline.
________________________________

11
See Uptake of nutrients and organic C in streams in New York City drinking-water-supply
watersheds Stroud Water Research Center (2006)
http:/fwww.stroudcenter.org/nyprojpics/pdfs/newbold2006jnabs_nyprojectspiraling.pdf.

Response III.G 40d:

The Applicant described the preexisting sedimentation and flood prone
condition of the Sherry Brook drainage basin in DEIS III.G.1. However, the
Applicant asserts that it is not responsible for correcting previously existing
conditions. Refer to FEIS Response III.G 2 and III.G 40a. As described
below, the Projects stormwater management design will control project
construction related sediment and erosion (FEIS Response III.G 37f) and
reduce runoff volume and peak discharge rates from the Project (FEIS III.G
Introductory Response).

Modifications to the stormwater model regarding Tc, CN and land cover, were
incorporated in response to the recommendations made in the Clouser Report
(refer to FEIS Responses III.G 39a thru III.G 39f and FEIS Response General
1.9).

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact analysis and pollutant
Introductory Response. The results of the analyses indicate that post-
development stormwater related impacts including nutrient and sediment
loads will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A
and/or at the point of discharge where leaving the Site. Since the analyses

The FEIS stormwater management design presents improvements to the
Proposed Action that are more environmentally protective and therefore a
Supplemental EIS is not warranted. Refer to FEIS Response III.38g and FEIS


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-124
Response General 1.9 regarding the need for an SEIS. It is the Applicants
opinion that an SEIS is not warranted.

Comment III.G 41a (Document 170.1, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant
for YSG):

I agree with the conclusions of other commentators on the Costco DEIS that
compliance with the project Scoping Document and SEQRAs hard look
standards, the Planning Board must require the project sponsor to complete a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to remedy the
deficiencies of the DEIS.

I concur with other commentators that the Applicant should issue a revised
SWPPP for public review as part of a SEIS. Then, we recommend that the
Board hold a public hearing on the SEIS scope as 8/well as the SEIS
consistent with SEQRAs requirements.

Response III.G 41a:

Refer to FEIS Response III.G 38g and FEIS Response General 1.9. It is the
Applicants opinion that an SEIS is not warranted.

Comment III.G 41b (Document 170.6, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant
for YSG):

North Pond Outfall (area north of Wetland A and hotel site)

The landscape north of Wetland A and the hotel is discussed briefly in the
DEIS. Consultants for the project surveyed this area to document drainage and
to assess the potential for diversion of stormwater into this state property with
the states cooperation. For this report I call this area North Pond Outfall
(NPO) because it does receive water from the west verge of the Taconic
Parkway and southeast comer of the site (including Wetland B). Most of this
water goes into North Pond (a dysfunctional stormwater basin) and then,
along with water from the BME stormwater basin wetlands, into Hunter
Brook.

Prominent features of the NPO landscape are the west-facing slope north of
the hotel site, North Pond, the west and northwest-facing slopes broadly
located west of North Pond, and complex of natural wetlands and stormwater
wetlands west to north of North Pond. Human-made drainage features include


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-125
a stone spillway on the northwest comer of the pond, a small culvert exiting
beneath the spillway (flowing at survey time), a receiving stone drainage
channel emptying into the BME stormwater wetlands, and an old stone road
with a lateral ditch conducting water down to the stormwater wetlands at the
BME ramp and through two box culverts (only about two feet in diameter)
into Hunter Brook on the west side of the BME. There is a small isolated
wetland just south of the stone road descending from North Pond to the level
of the BME.

Response III.G 41b:

The Comment refers to the North Pond as a dysfunctional stormwater basin.
The Applicant understands that the facility was constructed as part of the
NYSDOT stormwater management associated with improvements to the
Taconic State Parkway. Based on discussions with the DEP and DOT, the
Applicant understands that improvements to the referenced facility have been
designed by the DOT and they are scheduled to be implemented under
NYSDOT Project: 8811.71.
Also refer to FEIS Response III.G 20 regarding stormwater management on
DOT lands.

Comment III.G 42 (Document 170.8, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for
YSG):

West Ridge, though generally dry, is at times a significant source of water
input to the site, notably Wetland A, especially during major storms
accompanied by rapidly accumulating and transported precipitation runoff.
This demonstrates the need for detailed and accurate assessment and
mitigation of stormwater impacts from the Costco development, particularly
in light of Clousers analysis of stormwater problems the Costco DEIS claims
to be remedied by the development plan.

The valley west of West Ridge is described under Hunter Brook since that
watercourse travels through the valley alongside the Bear Mountain Parkway
Extension (BME).

Response III.G 42:

The Comment states the need for accurate assessment and mitigation of
stormwater impacts in light of the Clouser report. Refer to the FEIS responses
to specific comments made in the Clouser Report. The report (document #148,


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-126
also submitted as document #142 and #136) is included in its entirety in FEIS
Appendix A. Responses to Clousers comments regarding stormwater
management are provided in FEIS Response III.G 39a thru III.G 39g. Many
of the Clouser recommendations were implemented in the FEIS stormwater
management design which yields a more environmentally protective plan that
is compliant with NYSDEC, NYCDEP and Town of Yorktown stormwater
regulations. (Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response for a description of
the FEIS stormwater management design.

Comment III.G 43 (Document 170.9, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for
YSG):

HUNTER BROOK

Hunter Brook from BME outfall to Crompond Road

Here Hunter Brook closely approaches the Costco site, entering from the north
after crossing under the Taconic Parkway from east to west. The brook
parallels the BME along its northwest side, then crosses east through a culvert
under the Parkway after receiving overflow from the BME stormwater basins
through two similar culverts southeast of the BME (see North Pond Outfall
above). About 900 feet downstream from the North Pond stone road
Hunter Brook turns southeast under the Parkway, crossing again to the
opposite side, then continues circuitously across a low, level floodplain before
crossing North Crompond Rd through another culvert, much larger than those
under the BME.

On the southwest side of Crompond Rd Hunter Brook veers southwest across
a portion of the same lowland, a triangular piece of land surrounded by Old
Crompond Rd on the northwest, Stony Street on the east and Crompond Road
on the south. [check map for accuracy]. The brook passes through a wooded
portion of the floodplain, with marginal wetlands, then across a grassy area,
forming a deep, wide pool just before another large concrete box culvert
carrying the stream under Crompond Rd.

This evenly and moderately sloping stretch of the stream, with clean, cool,
well oxygenated, briskly flowing water is good trout habitat. Trout are
sensitive to many impacts, including pollution, siltation, persistent turbidity,
excessive flooding, and erratic fluctuations of temperature and oxygenation.
Many once healthy and productive streams in Westchester and the lower
Hudson Valley of New York are impacted by these effects to a degree that


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-127
trout and other fish have significantly declined or disappeared entirely.

J ohn F. Keane, Conservation Chairman of the Croton Watershed Chapter of
Trout Unlimited states that:

Significantly, the Hunter Brook is a haven for the brook trout.
NYSDEC has upgraded the classification of the Hunter Brook
segment north of Mill Pond in the vicinity of Sherry Brook to C(TS),
meaning that it is a trout spawning stream. Though Sherry Brook is
not classified as a trout spawning stream, changes in its temperature,
PH, nutrient levels and DO content would also degrade the Hunter
Brook.

Response III.G 43:

Although the Comment states that Hunter Brook closely approaches the
Costco site the Applicant notes that Hunter Brook at its referenced location
remains approximately 1,000 feet from the Project Site. The Applicant also
acknowledges that Hunter Brook is a trout stream and a sensitive receptor.
The Applicant is protecting the stream by providing a stormwater
management design that meets and exceeds regulatory requirements.

the analyses conclude that post-development stormwater related impacts will
bodies including Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook and the New Croton Reservoir
will result.

Regarding J ohn F. Keanes quotation included in this Comment, refer to FEIS
III.G Response III.G 40a.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-128
Comment III.G 44 (Document 170.10, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant
for YSG):

Sherry Brook

Sherry Brook is a tributary of Hunter Brook fed by water from the outlet of
Wetland A on the Costco site. Southwest of Costco site and south of North
Old Crompond Rd the formative Sherry Brook meanders through a mixed
wetland (Crompond Wetlands on DOT map), by turns swamp or marsh, and
surreptitiously sneaks into Hunter Brook south of a bank and other buildings.
Sherry Brook is largely unshaded, small and slow, not ideal for trout, Hunter
Brook is much more suitable for spawning. On the other hand, Sherry Brook,
like larger wetlands farther north and south along Hunter Brook, filters out
silt, suspended solids and pollutants from the water before it reaches Hunter
Brook (through a buried pipe). Thus Sherry Brook is a crucial part of the
peripheral waters and wooded uplands that protect Hunter Brook from the
urban sprawl at its doorstep.

Response III.G 44:

The majority of the Project Site drains into an unnamed stream (within
Wetland A) or directly to a drainage system in Old Crompond Road that
drains overland through an existing wetland south of Old Crompond Road
toward Sherry Brook.

the analyses conclude that post-development stormwater related impacts will
bodies including Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook and the New Croton Reservoir
will result.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-129
for YSG):

Concerns have been raised that the SWPPP [in the DEIS] is inadequate in
presenting an accurate picture of the storm water impacts of the proposed
development. The DEIS traffic analysis concludes that the level of service at
several intersections along Route 202 will not be significantly impacted by the
additional traffic generated by the proposed development once the DOT
completes their roadway improvements to the Route 202 corridor. Basing the
conclusion on a supposition that the DOT work will materialize in the future
is dangerous enough on its own; however it is further impacted by the fact that
the DOT work will involve adding more impervious surfaces into areas that
are currently serving as wetlands to contain stormwater runoff and the
additional runoff will only further negatively impact Hunter Brook. The
proposed DOT improvements identified in the DEIS are therefore highly
unlikely.

Response III.G 45:

The Comment implies inadequacies associated with the Projects SWPPP.
Refer to FEIS Responses III.G 39a thru III.G 39g and III.G 42 regarding
specific comments made in the Clouser Report.

The Comment questions the DEISs (Section III.K) reference to proposed
DOT improvements to Route 202/35, which are independent of the Costco
Project and the associated roadway improvements that are the subject of this
EIS, suggesting they will not occur. Construction of the DOT Route 202/35
improvements, which extend west of the Project Site approximately mile
from the intersection of Route 202/35 and Old Crompond Road past Stoney
Street, Pine Grove Court and Bear Mountain Parkway Extension, began in
April 2013. The DOT prepared a SWPPP dated August 2012 that includes
design of the following post-construction practices for control and treatment
of stormwater runoff associated with the project:
A pocket wetland that replaces an existing stormwater pond at the
intersection of Route35/202 and Bear Mountain Parkway Extension;
An organic filter basin at the intersection of Stoney Street and Bear
Mountain Parkway Extension, and;
Two bioretention basins at FDR State Park to treat runoff from the
Taconic State Parkway.

Based on a review of the DOTs SWPPP by the Applicants engineer, the


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-130
design of the practices conform to the NYSDEC and NYCDEP technical
standards. The DOT project received coverage under the DEC SPDES
Construction Stormwater General Permit GP-0-10-001 (Permit ID
#NYR10V859), along with a 401 Water Quality Certification and an
Individual Article 24 Permit from the NYSDEC.

for YSG):

The uncertain status of these DOT improvements is supported by the
conflicting and sketchy plans for these high way projects that have been
issued by DOT to date. To illustrate this I have included here two plan maps,
both from DOT, one from a DOT project update, and one employed in the
DEIS to support the feasibility of the Costco development project. The two
plans are entirely different in their approaches to widening Rt. 202-35. One
widens the road on the south side, the other on the north side, greatly
impacting the aforementioned wetlands.

DOT aerial photo-based highway improvement plan from Costco DEIS. Note that proposed
environmental impact areas include the stormwater basin west of the BME and Hunter Brook
(with associated wetland) north of Crompond Rd and east of BME, but south of Crompond Rd
only the construction-impacted piece of Hunter Brook in the zone of widening on the south
side of the highway. The natural wetlands north of Crompond Rd west of the intersection are


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-131
not indicated as impact areas, though the (unexplained) red line (highway right-of-way?) is
troubling.

The DEIS does not acknowledge that DOT has two different construction
plans (that we have found), and does not analyze and compare the clearly
different environmental and community impacts of each plan. This deficiency,
like so many others, is a violation of Scoping and SEQR, emphasizing the
need for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Costco
development project.

DOT aerial photo-based highway improvement plan from DOT Project
Update. Note that disturbance areas (proposed environmental impact
areas in the first plan) include the stormwater basin west of the BME (but
not the contiguous wetland we identify a curious gap), and land to the west for
a long distance, likely to all construction impact is shown north of Crompond
Rd including the section of Hunter Brook west of Stony Brook and the
Crompond wetland.

Note that the Costco DEIS shows only the first plan, with the impact or
disturbance areas south of the highway and farther from the Costco site. In
fact I was unable to find that plan (used in the DEIS) by searching online,
whereas I got 3 hits for the Project Update maps on the first page of search
results.
Response III.G 46:

Construction of the DOT improvements to Route 202/35 began in April, 2013.
The reference to the DOT improvements in section III.K of the DEIS were
discussed in the context of the resulting regional improvement to traffic
circulation.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-132
The Comments reference to the DOT improvements is in the context of
potential impacts to adjacent wetlands/stormwater management and this
Comment is therefore included in this stormwater section. The DOT
improvements to Route 202/35 are being undertaken regardless of the
proposed Costco development, and are thus independent of the Proposed
Action. DOT has an approved SWPPP and is responsible to implement the
required stormwater management measures as approved by the NYSDEC and
NYCDEP (refer to FEIS Response III.G 45). Assessment of the
environmental and community impacts resulting from the DOTs project is
beyond the subject and scope of this Project and, therefore, a Supplemental
EIS for the Proposed Action to assess the DOT project an independent
project is not necessary or warranted under SEQRA (refer to FEIS Response
III.G 38g and FEIS Response General 1.9).

for YSG):

My observations on and near the Costco site support David Clousers analysis
and conclusions regarding the stormwater projections of the DEIS as distorted
and entirely inverted from reality-based expectations in their predictions of
impacts from implementation of the site plan. Increased runoff, with attendant
increases in flow rate, erosion, siltation and pollution on and off site, will
overwhelm all areas within the watershed down-drainage of the site. This area
includes the BME lowland area north and south of Crompond Rd, the Sherry
Brook subwatershed, the Hunter Brook corridor through South Crompond and
continuing downstream to the New Croton reservoir.

Response III.G 47:

In the Applicant's opinion, the Comments conclusion that the Proposed
Action will overwhelm all areas within the watershed [downstream] of the
Site is unsupported. Regarding responses to the Clouser report see FEIS
Responses to III.G 39a thru III.G 39g, III.G 40d and III.G 42. Also refer to
FEIS III.G Introductory Response.

for YSG):

Clousers sound and solid analysis predicting greater concentrations and more
rapid transport of stormwater after development apply also to offsite sources
of stormwater carried into and across the site, particularly runoff and snow


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-133
removed from the Taconic Parkway. Off-site stormwater input is not
considered in the DEIS or included as a measured factor in the stormwater
analysis, further underestimating down-drainage stormwater output and flow
rate.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-134
Response III.G 48:

Regarding responses to the Clouser report see Responses to III.G 39a thru
III.G 39g. Also refer to FEIS Response III.G 42.

Minimal offsite stormwater runoff will contribute to the Project Site. Offsite
runoff that enters the Site has been accounted for in the stormwater hydrologic
model. Runoff from approximately 0.16 acres will drain from offsite onto the
southeast corner of the Project Site. This runoff from this land adjacent to the
Taconic southbound off-ramp will be collected by the Sites drainage system.
This runoff and runoff from an additional 2.92 acres of Route 202/35 right-of-
way will be collected in the FEIS site drainage system and conveyed to the
Projects water quality and detention facilities for water quality treatment,
runoff reduction, and detention prior to discharge. The stormwater analysis as
described in Section III.G and Appendix D of the DEIS included offsite
contributing area and the runoff calculations were not underestimated due to
the suggested omission of that source. Regarding capture and treatment of
offsite stormwater runoff from Route 202/35, refer to FEIS III.G Introductory
Response items 2 and 4.

The Comments map illustrates the drainage pattern (in white) from Wetlands
A and B. The Applicants understanding is that the map may suggest Wetland
B drains from the west side of the wetland toward Wetland A. Midway the
flow pattern branches and also flows to the north toward North Pond. The
map may suggest that Wetland B also drains to Wetland A. That would not be
correct. Based on interpretation of GIS topography and field verification,
flow from Wetland B drains westerly then northerly and does not drain to
Wetland A.

for YSG):

Hunter Brook through South Crompond

Crompond, New York is a community and census-designated place
(CDP) located in the town of Yorktown in Westchester County, New
York. The population was 2,292 at the 2010 census. A census-designated
place (CDP) is a concentration of population identified by the United
States Census Bureau for statistical purposes. CDPs are delineated for
each decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places
such as cities, towns and villages. CDPs are populated areas that lack


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-135
separate municipal government, but which otherwise physically resemble
incorporated places.
- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

South of Rt. 202-35 (Crompond Road) Hunter Brook flows through a short
patch of second-growth forest between commercial properties, then across Old
Crompond Rd and through a residential subdivision. To avoid confusion I call
this section of Old Crompond Rd South Old Crompond Rd to distinguish it
from North Old Crompond Rd, a loop road north of Crompond Rd
connected to Crompond Rd at both ends. On 23 November 2012 I surveyed
the Hunter Brook corridor in South Old Crompond, guided by Vincent Scotto,
a longtime resident of the subdivision, which I call South Crompond, the
southern section of Crompond CDP.

The short stretch of Hunter Brook that crosses under Crompond Road and
then under South Old Crompond Rd is where the urban-suburban world
squeezes the brook, as it enters a modest neighborhood of single-Family
houses. Although the trout stream maintains its placid profile through a
narrow, wooded corridor passing through back yards, it,is an ecologically
wronged river in this stretch.

Entering South Crompond, Hunter Brook is suddenly degraded in comparison
to its reach upstream that is, north and west of the Costco site as it
parallels, then crosses, the Bear Mountain Parkway Extension (NYS 821),
North Crompond Rd. and Crompond Rd. On entering South Crompond
between Limetree Court and Mill Pond Rd Hunter Brook becomes clogged
with silt and clay deposits, and frequently overcomes its banks, flooding
residential properties to depths of up to a foot or more. This is supported by
visible evidence and by Mr. Scottos personal experience.

Consequences of recent floodwater effects included collapsed stream banks,
eroded lawns and stream-deposited woody debris including large tree trunks.
Mr. Scotto showed me where his neighbors standing swimming pool had
been washed into his back yard, and a row of 2-foot diameter boulders he had
placed along his north property line to catch stream-borne debris and to lessen
erosion of his yard.

Mr. Scotto took me to places along Hunter Brook downstream from his house
where flooding had impacted the streamside environment. The first was the
area around a town sewage treatment plant that had been flooded in all the
major storms of 2011-12 and earlier storms as well. The second was the dead


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-136
end of Mill Pond Rd, with access to Mill Pond and a low floodplain.

Mill Pond was a popular fishing and skating place until the dam collapsed.
Ownership of the dam was disputed apparently, so it was never repaired,
resulting in siltation of the former pond and growth of a wooded swamp in its
place. Other visible impacts included flooded yards (under dry weather
conditions with the stream running 20-30 inches below its upper banks) in the
vicinity of storm drain covers and clear and visible evidence of recent land
subsidence in residential yards in the vicinity of Mill Pond.

On my own I looked at several other locations along Hunter Brook from other
local streets in South Crompond, where I observed signs of recent flood
levels, including suspended waterborne plant remains, sediment deposits and
mud stains on stems on small trees, shrubs and stiff herbs such as cattail and
common reed.

My examination of the Hunter Brook corridor in South Crompond convinced
me that this is a highly impacted section of stream valley, and in line with
other area streams the impacts are worsening with climate change. What I
observed along Hunter Brook was comparable in kind and severity with
observations I had made during surveys of stream corridors subject to storms
of late 2011 and early 2012 in Ulster County (Saugerties, Kingston, New
Paltz, Plattekill) and Orange County (Warwick, Goshen, Chester). All these
surveys included both developed and undeveloped streamside areas.
Maximum flood levels are exceeding those of past storm events, or as
Governor Cuomo put it recently, our region is experiencing a 100-year storm
every two years.

The Costco development will exacerbate damage from floodwaters in South
Crompond. Again, with severity of storms likely to increase with advancing
climate change, impacts are sure to include repeated flooding of the sewer
plant with contamination of Hunter Brook, its floodplain and associated
wetlands. Additionally, private septic systems are likely to be overwhelmed,
with spillage endangering the health of residents and imposing costly repairs
to their properties. For town and county governments these impacts will also
be expensive, also placing local governments in violation of state and federal
health and water standards and regulations. It is the responsibility of the
Planning Board to ensure that any proposed development under its review
meets all town standards, as well as most state and federal standards. The
Costco project does not appear to meet these standards, nor does the DEIS
demonstrate in any way that the project can and will meet minimum


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-137
environmental requirements under current laws at all regulatory levels under
all administrative purviews.

Threatened impacts caused by flooding in South Crompond provide a
potential source of significant contamination to Mill Pond and to Hunter
Brook, its floodplain and associated wetlands downstream to the New Croton
Reservoir.

Flooding zone observed by Barbour as pointed out at observation points
(O-1 O-5) by Vincent Scotto, and (O-6O-7) by Barbour alone, who
had observed flooding in fall, 2011 and spring 2012. Physical evidence of
flooding observed and confirmed by Barbour includes erosion, siltation,
watermarks, drift lines.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-138

Hunter Brook
Mill Pond to NCR

This nearly pristine reach of Hunter Brook runs southwest to south for about
8000 feet from the outlet of Mill Pond to the northwest lobe of the New
Croton Reservoir in a somewhat circuitous path through mostly forested land
with moderately dense residential neighborhoods.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-139
Hunter Brook upstream from Costco site

The primary area of impacts from the Costco development site affecting
Hunter Brook is south and down- drainage of the site. However, the Hunter
Brook corridor upstream (north and northeast of the site) is influential in two
ways. The first is positive. Current aerial photographs show that the upper
Hunter Brook watershed along the mainstem is less developed than the
landscape near the Costco site. The existing development is a similar
commercial and residential mix, with several large shopping centers, urban
housing complexes and suburban subdivisions, but the lands immediately
along Hunter Brook are mostly unfragmented, with broad natural
wetlands, predominantly marshy. This accounts for the exceptional
environmental quality of the stream at the site vicinity and downstream from
the center of the Yorktown Heights commercial-suburban nexus.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-140

From J efferson Valley Mail to Barberry Road, Hunter Brook traverses wide
marshes bordered by undeveloped former agricultural lands and residential
suburbs, arriving at the area west of the Costco site relatively free of pollution
and other negative impacts of intense development. [can mark/caption map in
graphics program]

Response III.G 49:

The Comment describes historic flood events in the residential neighborhoods
along what the Comment refers to as the Old South Crompond Road in the
area of Limetree Court and Mill Pond Road. The Comment further describes
that historic floods impacted the existing sewage treatment plant. (It is noted
that the referenced treatment plant is actually a municipal sewage pumping
station.) Upon review of the FEMA Flood Insurance Map covering the
described area, it is noted that the referenced area is situated within the
existing flood plain of the Hunter Brook, which means that periodic flooding
is a normal occurrence within the mapped flood zone. (Refer to FEIS Exhibit
III.G 49.)

The Comment claims that the Costco development will exacerbate flooding in
the South Old Crompond Road area. Refer to FEIS Response III.G.2, which
finds that downstream flooding will not be adversely impacted by the Project.

treatment and peak discharge attenuation for new construction. FEIS
Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response.
Table III.G A1 of the Introductory Response to this section indicates that the
Project will reduce the stormwater runoff volume leaving the Site for all
storms studied. The results of the analyses conclude that post-development
reaching Wetland A and/or at the point of discharge where leaving the Site.
Since impacts will be reduced at the Site, no adverse impacts to downstream
water bodies including Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook and the New Croton
Reservoir will result.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-142

for YSG):

Critical Comments on Costco DEIS

Scoping Violations

The DEIS fails to meet the fundamental requirements of the Final Scoping
Document, which required the DEIS to:

- Discuss potential impacts to NYC watershed and any other offsite
environmentally sensitive receptors including wetlands, watercourses,
groundwater and critical environmental areas.

- Include a description of existing onsite drainage patterns and offsite drainage
areas extending a sufficient distance to include drainage patterns that
contribute to the site. Discussion should include the Hunter Brook and its
associated flood prone areas.

- Provide analysis of existing onsite runoff conditions including peak flow
rates for the I, 2, 10,25-and 100-year storms as required by local and
NYSDEC regulations. Include discussion regarding the sites relation to the
Hunter Brook drainage area.
- Describe proposed onsite and offsite drainage conditions including changes
to land surface cover-types, including increased impervious surfaces.

- Describe construction and post-construction increase in storm water runoff
and anticipated short and long term impacts to surface water quality, drainage
collection systems, water quality treatment and storm water management
(detention) systems.
- Include a discussion regarding potential impact to the Hunter Brook both
through piped sections and exposed sections that eventually flow into Mill
Pond.

Response III.G 50:

The following bulleted items address each of the points listed in the comment
above:


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-143

Discussion of the existing conditions, potential impacts, and proposed
mitigation for the Crompond Wetland, Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook and
Mill Pond, all within the NYC watershed, were discussed in DEIS
Sections III.F.1c, III.F.1d, III.F.2c, III.F.2h, III.F.3c,. III.G.1a, III.G.2d
and III.G.3a. Potential stormwater related impacts and mitigation are fully
discussed in sections III.G.2 and III.G.3 of the DEIS.

FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,
thermal impact analysis, quantitative pollutant loading analysis and water
balance analysis to Wetland A. Summary descriptions are provided in
FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The results of the analyses conclude
that post-development stormwater related impacts will be reduced below
existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A and/or at the point of
discharge where leaving the Site. Since the analyses show that impacts
will be reduced at the Site, no adverse impacts to downstream water
bodies, including wetlands, Sherry and Hunter Brooks and the New
Croton Reservoir will result.

Description of existing onsite drainage patterns and offsite drainage areas
extending a sufficient distance to include drainage patterns that contribute
to the Site including the Hunter Brook and its associated flood prone
areas was included in section III.G.1a of the DEIS. A summary of the
updated analysis is included in FEIS III.G Introductory Response and
FEIS SWPPP (Appendix E).

Analysis of existing onsite runoff conditions including peak flow rates for
the 1, 2, 10, 25-and 100-year storms as required by local and NYSDEC
regulations and discussion regarding the Sites relation to the Hunter
Brook drainage area was included in section III.G.1b of the DEIS. A
summary of the updated analysis is included in FEIS III.G Introductory
Response item 4 and FEIS SWPPP (Appendix E).

Description of proposed onsite and offsite drainage conditions including
changes to land surface cover-types, including increased impervious
surfaces, was included in section III.G.2a of the DEIS and is included in
the FEIS SWPPP (Appendix E).

Description of construction and post-construction increase in storm water
runoff and anticipated short and long term impacts to surface water
quality, drainage collection systems, water quality treatment and storm


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-144
water management (detention) systems was included in section III.G.2c of
the DEIS. A summary of the updated analysis is included in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response and FEIS SWPPP (Appendix E).

Discussion regarding potential impact to the Hunter Brook both through
piped sections and exposed sections that eventually flow into Mill Pond is
included in section III.G.2d of the DEIS. A summary of the updated
analysis is included in FEIS III.G Introductory Response and FEIS
SWPPP (Appendix E).

Comment III.G 51 (PH2, Walt Daniels):

In that same vein, later on in the program tonight I see you are talking about
the proposed zoning regulations which have a lot of information about
reducing parking requirements for -- particularly the CSC category, this is a 3
category, where the parking is really sort of minimally, but my reading of the
CSC proposal was rather a massive cut back of the parking and the if you cut
back the parking, that will reduce the impervious pavement and -- impervious
pavement and -- hence the thermo-pollution going into the water. [PH2, Page
95, lines 6-18]

Response III.G 51:

As noted by the Comment, decreased parking yields decreased impervious
area which yields decreased thermal impacts. The Applicant proposes
providing no more parking than needed to meet the demand for the peak
shopping season. DEIS Section III.L provides extensive discussion
supporting the proposed parking demand (610 spaces), which is significantly
less than would be required if the Project was required to design for a retail
use (756 spaces). FEIS Section III.L provides further support of proposed
parking demand. Construction of the 610 parking spaces versus the 756
spaces will result in a reduction of around an acre of impervious area.
Therefore, the Applicants proposal will, through reduction of impervious
area, reduce potential thermal impacts.

FEIS Appendix E includes a quantitative thermal impact analysis and a
summary description of the analysis is provided in FEIS III.G Introductory
Response item 3A. The results of the analyses conclude that post-
development impacts will be reduced below pre-development conditions prior
to discharging from the Site. Since the analyses show that impacts will be
reduced at the Site, no adverse impacts to downstream water bodies, including


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-145
Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook and the New Croton Reservoir will result

Comment III.G 52 (PH2, Walt Daniels):

There is also some remarks about storm water, other people have addressed
those issues. Although, one person did mention the non-mentioning of their
plans for snow removal and de-icing, those add a potential for massive
amounts of adding massive amounts of salt or other chemicals into the ground
water. [PH2, Page 93, lines 22-25], [PH2, Page 94, lines 1-4]

Response III.G 52:

The FEIS includes a pollutant loading analysis in which deicing materials are
discussed. The report is included in FEIS Appendix E and a summary
description, which includes a discussion of the use of deicing agents, is
provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 3B. Also refer to FEIS
III.D 8.

Comment III.G 53 - (Document 83. 9, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

The DEIS does not indicate what methods will be utilized for snow removal
and de-icing of the parking area and surrounding walkways. This is a large
omission which can have a significant adverse impact on the environment,
with no mitigation stated.

Response III.G 53:

Refer to FEIS Response III.G 52, III.D 8 and II.10.

Comment III.G 54 - (Document 145.1, No Costco Petitions (8)):


As concerned citizens and taxpayers who live in the White Hill/ Mill Pond
area, the undersigned wish to state our opposition to the proposed the
Costco warehouse store for many reasons.

We live in an area that is already subject to regular flooding of the
Hunter Brook and runoff from Costcos asphalt parking lot will only
aggravate this situation.


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-146

Refer to Appendix A for the 8 petition signatures

Response III.G 54:

Regarding flooding of the Mill Pond area, refer to FEIS Response III.G 2.
The Applicants FEIS stormwater management design will result in
reduction of peak discharge rates and total runoff volume from the
proposed Costco Site. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response items 2,
and 4.

Comment III.G 55 - (Document 45.12, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj,
Barbara and Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola), (Document 93.6, Ben Falk),
(PH2, Ben Falk), (Document 93.19, Agin and Cyme Mujaj), (Document
93.19, Barbara and Brian Hoy), (Document 93.19, Rose Mazzola),
(Document 93.19, Edmund Chan), (Document 93.19, Alfio Della Vecchia),
(Document 93.19, Mr. and Mrs. Mike Hanlon), (Document 93.19, Ben
Falk), (Document 93.19, Renee Cerasuolo), (Document 93.19, John
Bauso), (Document 93.19, Peter Aritonaros), (Document 93.19, Gilbert
Claudio and Elizabeth Martinez)::

Storm water management tactics being proposed for the project site will
correct runoff problems from the Nursery site that have plugged drains along
OLD CROMPOND ROAD for years. It is difficult to force remediation when


______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
III.G-147
there is no viable landlord. These problems result in sheet flow run off directly
into wetlands draining into the Hunterbrook, potentially contributing
sedimentation and nutrient loading downstream where flooding is a growing
problem, and risking thermal impacts to this valuable trout spawning stream.

Response III.G 55:

The comment expresses support for the Proposed Action based on proposed
stormwater management practices that will improve stormwater runoff when
compared to existing conditions.

With redevelopment of the nursery site, the existing erosion, occurring from
their embankment, will be eliminated and therefore improving downstream
conditions.

Comment III.G 56 - (Document 45.4a, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj,
Barbara and Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola), (Document 93.11, Agin and
Cyme Mujaj), (Document 93.11, Barbara and Brian Hoy), (Document
93.11, Rose Mazzola), (Document 93.11, Edmund Chan), (Document
93.11, Alfio Della Vecchia), (Document 93.11, Mr and Mrs Mike Hanlon),
(Document 93.11, Ben Falk), (Document 93.11, Renee Cerasuolo),
(Document 93.11, John Bauso), (Document 93.11, Peter Aritonaros),
(Document 93.11, Gilbert Claudio and Elizabeth Martinez):

Mr. Breslin continues to demonstrate his commitment to a high quality
project, and has been responsive to suggestions from local residents who
would be affected by the development and from the Town. Among these, the
developer is exploring ways to help the Town address regional storm water
issues, and has committed to make traffic amelioration improvements on
Route 202, at no cost to the Town.

Response III.G 56:

The Applicant has abandoned the concept of providing a regional stormwater
management facility, as discussed in FEIS Response III.G 20.

III.H UTILITIES

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.H
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Utilities

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.H-1

Section III.H Utilities

Comment III.H 1 - (Document 111.5, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

This section discusses the offsite parcels that are to be included in the proposed sewer
extension. It is noted that eleven (11) properties have expressed interest in connecting
including one commercial, as yet to be built, proposed Temple Israel Project which is
located directly across from the proposed action. According to the tax parcels to be
annexed, it does not appear that 36.07-1-13 and 36.06-2-73 were considered. Parcel
36.07-1-13 should be given consideration as this existing commercial property has a
history of a failing septic system and poor on-site soils and such a connection would
be beneficial.

Response III.H 1:

The Applicants attorney sent invitations, by first class mail, on more than one
occasion to owners of the referenced parcels 36.07-1-13 and 36.06-2-73, inviting the
owners to attend informational meetings regarding the formation of a local sanitary
sewer district and its eventual inclusion in the Westchester County Sewer District.
The recipients failed to accept or acknowledge the invitations. Copies of the
invitations are included in Appendix C.

Comment III.H 2 (PH2, Babette Ballinger):

I would just like to add that I just moved into an area which is called Amawack [sic]
Acres, I believe it is one of the oldest subdivisions in Yorktown, and I was so excited
during the storm because I actually had Yorktown sewer and Yorktown water.

So, without electricity I had a few benefits that I wasn't used to having. And I was
talking to my neighbors and I said, isn't this wonderful, and he told me that very few
people on my street had their sewers hooked up and I was shocked and I said why
not, and he said they couldn't, that their sewer district was closed, and I was -- I didn't
get that, I was really, really surprised.

I mean, this is the oldest subdivision in Yorktown and they -- most of the people there
couldn't get hooked up to a sewer in the past, I think it was done about fifteen years
and now we are creating two new sewer districts so we can have a Costco come in
and have the sewer and -- so that they can take care of the people in the immediate
area on -- and they can be hooked up to the sewer, then my neighbors can't.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.H
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Utilities

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.H-2

I think that's a little inequitable, and I really don't quite understand it. [PH2, page
125, lines 6-25], [PH2, page 126, lines 1-8]

Response III.H 2:

The Amawalk Subdivision is located in the Town of Yorktown Hallocks Mill Sewer
District (HMSD). The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
placed a moratorium on sewer extensions within the HMSD in 1988. Then in 1997,
the New York City Department of Environmental Protection placed a moratorium on
individual sewer connections. The Project is located within an area of Yorktown that
would be a part of Westchester Countys Peekskill Sewer District, which is not under
a moratorium.

Regarding the Proposed Action, the Applicant has requested municipal sewer service
through the necessary channels that include the appropriate departments of the Town
of Yorktown and Westchester County. The procedure for approval into the local
Hunter Brook Sewer District and the Westchester County Peekskill Sewer District is
described in DEIS Section III.H.2. The Applicant has also undertaken to construct
the sanitary sewer system necessary to serve the Project Site.

Comment III.H 3 - (Document 45.11, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and
Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola and Document 93.15, Agin and Cyme Mujaj),
(Document 93.15, Barbara and Brian Hoy), (Document 93.15, Rose Mazzola),
(Document 93.15, Edmund Chan), (Document 93.15, Alfio Della Vecchia),
(Document 93.15, Mr and Mrs Mike Hanlon), (Document 93.15, Ben Falk),
(Document 93.15, Renee Cerasuolo), (Document 93.15, John Bauso), (Document
93.15, Peter Aritonaros), (Document 93.15, Gilbert Claudio and Elizabeth
Martinez):

The proposal to include sewer connections for the residential properties along Old
Crompond Road is of tremendous benefit to the Hunterbrook/Croton watershed, into
which failing sewers in the area would drain. The Hunterbrook, a trout spawning
stream, drains into the Croton Reservoir which is a Regional drinking water source.

Response III.H 3:

Comment noted. The Proposed Action includes the installation of sanitary sewer
along Old Crompond Road from Stony Street to the Project Site. Abandoning these
residential onsite sewage disposal systems will benefit the Hunter Brook drainage
basin by eliminating these potential sources of groundwater pollutants.

III.I USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY GREEN
TECHNOLOGY

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.I
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Use and Conservation of Energy Green Technology

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.I-1
Section III.I Use and Conservation of Energy - Green Technology
Comment III.I 1a - (Document 41a.1, Paul Moskowitz, Yorktown Energy Advisory
Committee):

The Yorktown Energy Advisory Committee respectfully submits the following
comments and questions on the Use and Conservation of Energy Green
Technology section of the Costco DEIS.

The DEIS presents data on the yearly loss of carbon dioxide (C02) sequestration by
the trees on the site to be removed. However, it does not present the loss represented
by the destruction of the existing trees. How many trees on the site are to be removed
and how much Green House Gas emission of the C02 that they contain will be
released?

Response III.I 1a:

Based on the tree survey data presented in Table III.E.3 in the DEIS, a total of 682
trees would be removed from the area of disturbance. The conservative estimate of
the total biomass (tree wood, branches, and scrub wood) within the proposed area of
disturbance is approximately 1,200 tons. The CO2 equivalent for dry wood is 1.9
tons CO2/ton wood, resulting in approximately 2,300 tons CO2 released from the
clearing and immediate destruction of the existing trees.
1
Since the publication of the
DEIS and in response to public comments, the Applicant has reduced the amount of
proposed disturbance to the woodlands. Therefore, the Applicant asserts that the
estimated tonnage of CO2 that would be released is conservative.

Comment III.I 1b - (Document 41a.4, Paul Moskowitz, Yorktown Energy Advisory
Committee):

Table 111.1.2 contains a summary of automobile trips. Does that include trips to and
from the fueling facility as well as the warehouse store?

1
The emissions estimates are based on USEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Factors found online at
http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/documents/emission-factors.pdf. The basis for the
calculations uses the Wood and Wood Residuals Fuel Type and assumes moisture content of 15
percent.
15.38 MMBtu/short ton x 93.80 kg CO2/MMBtu x 2.204 pounds/kg x (1/(1-0.15)) =
3,741 pounds CO2/ short ton dry wood x 1 ton/2000 pounds =1.9 tons CO2/ton dry wood.
1,200 tons dry wood x 1.9 tons CO2/ton dry wood =2, 280 ~2,300 tons CO2


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.I-2
How much emission can we expect from cars idling, with their engines on, while
waiting to use the fueling station, or from travel of cars through the site to and from
parking spaces. How much emission will there be from supply trucks while they are
at the loading dock? Is the applicant aware of the Westchester County law on vehicle
idling? Does the applicant plan to make an effort to enforce the Westchester County
law?

Response III.I 1b:

When modeling the air quality for traffic related emissions, the Air Quality Study,
included in DEIS Appendix F, accounted not only for the number of projected
vehicles but also for vehicle operational time. Emissions from vehicles operating
within the Project, including trips to and from the fueling facility as well as the
warehouse store, were accounted for. Vehicle operational time, within the model,
accounted for idling, standing, low speed cruising for parking spaces and at the
fueling station within the total round-trip vehicle emissions. Figure 22 of the Traffic
Impact Study included in Appendix E of the DEIS indicated the number of total trips.

The Applicant is aware of Westchester Countys Anti-Idling legislation, effective
February 10, 2009. The law bans automobiles from idling for more than three
minutes in temperatures above 32 degrees (with some exceptions). Applicant asserts
that Costcos security personnel will advise their delivery/loading personnel, and
require compliance with the applicable regulation. Furthermore, where deemed
necessary Costco will place signs in loading areas indicating that vehicle idling is
limited to three minutes pursuant to Westchester Countys Anti-Idling Law which is
part of the County Sanitary Code. The penalties for non-compliance of the idling law
can be found in Sections 873.218, 873.219 and 873.220 of the Code. The signage will
identify the penalties: for a first offense, a fine not exceeding $250.00 or
imprisonment not exceeding 15 days, or both; and for a second or subsequent offense,
a fine not to exceed $500.00 or imprisonment not exceeding 15 days, or both.

Comment III.I 2 - (Document 83.10, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

Green Technology Concerns:

The DEIS reflects the intransigence of Costco in incorporating green technology in its
development plan. On the LEED scale where 40 out of a 111 total points is the
minimum for certification, the applicant qualifies for only 20 points. This project
provides the opportunity to use more green technology. Any number of methods from
incorporating a green roof, green walls, permeable pavement, use of geothermal
power, solar power and planted islands in the parking lot would increase the number


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.I-3
of points and show a good faith effort on the part of Costco to bring a more state of
the art building to Yorktown.

Response III.I 2:
While the Applicant is not seeking LEED certification, it has incorporated green
infrastructure planning practices into its project design. Those practices include, but
are not limited to: construction of pedestrian and bicycle transportation
improvements; use of retaining walls to limit land disturbance and maintain forested
areas; use of underground stormwater management controls to limit land disturbance;
reduction of impervious area through parking area reduction; recharge of groundwater
through use of stormwater infiltration; use of water saving plumbing fixtures;
optimization of energy performance equipment and building materials; institution of
an in-store recycling program; installation of a solar reflective cool white reflective
roof,; and installation of skylights with energy-saving photo cells. The LEED score
for the DEIS was 20 points. With the proposed modifications to the Stormwater
Management Plan as described below, the FEIS LEED score will increase to 21
points.

The Applicant has determined that the other green infrastructure measures suggested
by the Comment would not be practical for this project. For example,

A green roof is not proposed for the reasons described in FEIS Response II.4,
however, a solar reflective cool white reflective roof will be utilized.

Adding more landscaped islands would require displacing parking spaces.
The parking area would then need to be enlarged to replace those displaced
spaces and the expansion would likely be to the west, resulting in increased
land disturbance to the wooded buffer of Wetland A. In lieu of adding interior
landscape islands, the Applicant has modified the DEIS Site Plan to reduce
the earth embankment adjacent to the westerly edge of the parking area by
constructing a retaining wall to replace much of the earth embankment. The
proposed modification would result in preserving more of the existing wooded
buffer to Wetland A. The Applicant also proposes significant planting along
the site perimeter as well as along the Taconic State Parkway off-ramp.

The Applicant asserts that permeable pavement is not a preferred infiltration
practice of choice as it is recommended for application only in limited use
travel ways and parking areas. The Applicant proposes green planning
practices, such as subsurface stormwater infiltration and reduction of the
parking area by eliminating excess parking spaces, in lieu of permeable
pavement.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.I-4
The Applicant proposes to provide stormwater runoff reduction through a
green infiltration practice. The Applicant has modified the DEIS Stormwater
Management Plan to capture the runoff from the entire water quality storm (1-
year) for treatment through a subsurface infiltration practice. The positive
impacts from this practice will include improved stormwater quality
treatment, replenishment of the groundwater table, reduction of stormwater
runoff volume and cooling of stormwater runoff, thereby eliminating thermal
impacts. Implementation of this infiltration practice will reduce runoff
volume from both the 1- and 2-year storms, thereby earning another LEED
credit point. By providing runoff reduction, the total LEED score will be 21
points (FEIS).

Costco has constructed several stores utilizing solar arrays on their roofs. The
construction cost to provide solar power was estimated at approximately $3.5
million for each store. The solar energy panels have a life expectancy of
about twenty years, so these costs would be re-incurred in the future. Those
stores that added solar energy were constructed in geographic locations where
solar energy is more predicable than in the Northeast (California, Arizona and
Hawaii) and where cost incentive programs offset the increased construction
costs, which made the use of solar energy economically viable. New York
State offers a maximum incentive for non-residential construction projects of
$200,000
2
, which is a small portion (6 %) of the estimated $3.5 million added
construction cost. Considering costs of maintenance and limited local
incentives, Costco has determined that construction of a solar energy building
would not be economically feasible.

According to the NYS Energy Research and Development Authority,
Geothermal heat pump systems tap the constant temperature of the earth to
provide efficient heating and cooling. The systems operate by using water-
source heat pumps which can be distributed throughout the building. Heat
energy can be extracted from the earth in the winter, and added to the
building. In the summer the process can be reversed. Unwanted heat is
extracted from the building and added to the earth. With geothermal heat
pump systems, water is circulated between the building and the "ground-loop"
piping buried in the ground. The additional building cost to provide
geothermal energy was estimated by Costco to be approximately $3 million in
addition to significant rock excavation for the installation of the piping
system. Much of the Project site is underlain with bedrock requiring rock
excavation to construct the Project. The subsurface geothermal system,
consisting of wells and pipe grids, would require additional rock excavation

2
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=NY10F


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.I-5
thereby increasing the construction cost. Costco has therefore indicated that
this form of energy would be economically infeasible.

In addition, Costco will employ a renewable resource program that
significantly reduces energy usage and the resulting carbon footprint. Such
applications include: pre-engineered building using 80% recycled building
materials, insulated textured wall panels to reduce HVAC requirements, heat-
reclamation system, water efficient fixtures, use of ceiling fans, double
vestibule doors, HID and LED lighting systems, recycling waste stream and
other technologies and practices that result in reduced overall energy usage.
Costcos solar reflecting white building roof also reduces the energy demand
for cooling in summer months.

Comment III.I 3 (PH2, Walt Daniels):

Another issue is green technology concerns. The DEIS requests the independence of
Costco in incorporating green technology in its development plan. They have a
cookie cutter mold, they build the same place everywhere. They can -- nowadays you
can do a lot better than that in terms of things like leed certification, where they forty
out of a hundred and eleven points from what they are -- looks like in their proposal.

Forty out of eleven is the minimum certification and their plans only come up to
about twenty. So there is an opportunity for more -- using work green technology
including geothermal power. But, both electric power, even Costco -- even Walmart
is massively over the country installing their electric cells, the power for internal uses.
[PH2, Page 94, lines 5-24]

Response III.I 3:

Refer to FEIS Response III.I 2

Comment III.I 4- (Document 139.1, Jonathon Nettelfield), (PH2, Jonathon Nettelfield):


1 .Page I-25: Use and Conservation of Energy Green Technology. Under the
mitigation section, the DEIS states, Mitigation measures to encourage alternate
forms of transportation include installation of bike parking racks As part of the
Proposed Action, offsite roadway improvements include constructing a sidewalk and
paved shoulder from Strang Boulevard extending across the site frontage, which will
enhance potential pedestrian and bicycle transportation. Can the applicant provide
data on the number of pedestrians and cyclists using existing Costco Warehouse


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.I-6
Clubs? If the applicant is serious about including the provision of pedestrian and
cyclist amenities as mitigating the impact of additional vehicle traffic, then they
should provide evidence that this mitigation is effective.

Response III.I 4:

There is no known data regarding the numbers of cyclists and pedestrians using other
Costco Stores. Although shoppers are more likely to access Costco by automobile for
convenience in transporting bulk goods, local employees may be able to access
Costco both by sidewalk or bicycle. The proposed pedestrian and bicycle
improvements (sidewalk and dual use shoulder/bike lanes along Route 202/35) not
only offer a transportation option to Costco employees, but they also provide a
desirable amenity to the Town of Yorktown and the local public at large, thus
promoting alternate forms of transportation to locations within the traffic corridor.

Comment III.I 5 (Document 132.1, Patricia Peckham):
However the section discussing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions (Section III)
states: The annual GHG emissions from the proposed Project (onsite stationary
sources, delivery trucks and Costco visitors, Table 111.1.2) are predicted to be
approximately 15,114 tons of CO2. As discussed earlier, the energy efficiency
measures being proposed for this Costco result in an approximate reduction of
0.663 million kWh per year compared to the standard Building code. This results in a
total reduction of approximately 409 tons per year of CO2. (The
Applicant notes that the offsite production of electricity for the project would
be approximately 637 additional tons of CO2 as discussed in Section III.l.2.b.)
The total annual inventory of GHG emissions in New York State is approximately
284 million tons of CO2 per year as reported by the New York State Energy and
Research Development Authority (NYSERDA). The annual CO2 emissions of the
Project represent only 0.005% of the total New York State emission inventory.

Using this last statistic as a way to invalidate the impact of the 15,114 plus
additional tons of CO2, as reported in the DEIS, is deceptive. Consider that an
average household in the suburban Northeast produces 30 tons of CO2 annually.
Therefore, this ONE project would be the equivalent of 500-plus such homes.
This is a much more meaningful statistic and one that more clearly
demonstrates the impact on our towns air pollution from this one store.

Response III.I 5:

The Applicant asserts that the offsite roadway improvements will improve traffic
flow resulting in reduced idling time and therefore improve air quality.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.I-7

In order to assess the energy efficiency of the proposed Costco, which exceeds
minimum Code requirements, it is appropriate to make the comparison to a
comparable building, built to minimum code requirements. This comparison results
in a reduction of CO2 as noted. The Applicant did not make the comparison to
residential as the Project Site is not zoned for residential and residential development
is not a valid option for the Site. The purpose of the comparative assessment was to
describe how the proposed Costco will include energy saving design features beyond
the Building Code requirements as described in DEIS Section III.I.2b. Energy saving
technology is described in DEIS Section III.I.3.

Comment III.I 6 (Document 132.2, Patricia Peckham):

The DEIS does not investigate solar solutions, beyond the passive skylight day
lighting (6% of lighting), as a viable way to decrease the electrical use and
therefore the carbon impact. The developer does not offer solar thermal as a
way to heat water in the building, which could also significantly reduce its
impact on air pollution.

To have a better understanding of the GHG emissions impact of this
development, I request that the applicant provide data from other Costco
locations in the NY metropolitan area. Specifically:

What are the on average and peak waiting times for cars filling up on
gas and what are the calculated emissions from them?

How do these real GHG values relate to the proposed DEIS values?
Additionally:

How could solar photovoltaic panels reduce electrical usage, by how much
and what is the resulting reduction in carbon footprint?

How could solar thermal reduce energy usage, by how much, and what is
the resulting reduction in carbon footprint?

How does the developer justify NOT using available renewable resources
to reduce energy use and carbon footprint?

Thank you for your attention to these key issues not adequately addressed in
the current DEIS. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.I-8
Response III.I 6:

The Applicant asserts that although Costco does not track the average and peak
waiting times for cars using its fueling stations at other locations, the idling
emissions associated with the proposed project have been accounted for in the
overall GHG emission calculation for the facility by assuming that all vehicles
entering the property utilize the fueling facility. Within the Air Quality Study,
(DEIS Appendix F) the Applicants engineer accounted for idling time at the
fueling station by adding travel distance to each of the total vehicles trips. One
mile per vehicle trip was used to account for actual distance driven in the Site
and idling time. The Applicant notes that the emissions of CO2 during 5 minutes
of idling are approximately the equivalent on average of driving a passenger
vehicle a distance of 0.6 miles.
3

GHG emissions during refueling will occur regardless of the location a customer
chooses to refuel their vehicle. Thus, Applicant asserts that it is not expected
that the Costco fueling station will incrementally add to global GHG emissions
from customer vehicle refueling. Moreover, the Applicant asserts that by
offering gasoline at the same location as a shopping destination, the proposed
project would be expected to reduce miles traveled and GHG emissions
compared to those that would be generated by two separate trips.

The GHG values in the DEIS are reflective of idling time associated with the
fueling station, and therefore are real.

Solar photovoltaic panels could reduce electrical usage, however, since they will
not be employed for this project (refer to FEIS Response III.I 2), no reduction of
carbon footprint was calculated. The Applicant does propose, however, the use
of passive solar energy in the form of their daylighting program. The proposed
Costco Warehouse will incorporate about 200 4x8 skylights evenly distributed
over the sales floor area. Since the ceiling will be 25, high the natural light from
the skylights will spread evenly throughout the sales floor. Applicant asserts that
by using photocell controlled lighting in combination with an Energy

3
(Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle, EPA-420-F-11-041, December 2011).

A typical US passenger vehicle has 0.93 lb CO2 per VMT based on the national average. A Westchester County
passenger vehicle based on the MOVES emission factor is 356 grams CO2 per VMT or 0.78 lbs CO2 per VMT.

Equivalent VMT from idling =(0.57 lb CO2/ 5 minutes idle) / (0.93 lb CO2 / VMT) =0.6 VMT/idle
Thus, 5 minutes of idling equates to only 0.57 lb CO2 or 0.6 miles traveled for the typical US passenger vehicle, and
0.7 miles traveled for the Westchester County passenger vehicle.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.I-9
Management System, Costco will be able to maintain an even light level at the
store interior while conserving energy.

A solar thermal system could reduce energy usage, however, since it will not be
employed for this project (refer to FEIS Response III.I 2), no reduction of carbon
footprint was calculated.

The Applicant asserts that Costco employs a renewable resource program that
significantly reduces energy usage and the resultant carbon footprint. Such
applications include: pre-engineered building using 80% recycled building
materials, insulated textured wall panels to reduce HVAC requirements, heat-
reclamation system to supplement the water heating system, water efficient
fixtures, use of ceiling fans, double vestibule doors, HID and LED lighting
systems, recycling waste stream and other technologies and practices that result
in reduced overall energy usage. Costcos solar reflecting white building roof
reduces the energy demand for cooling in summer months. The Applicant
asserts that Costco has chosen not to employ solar energy as it does not believe it
to be cost effective (Refer to FEIS Response III.I 2).

III.J SOLID WASTE
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.J

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Solid Waste

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.J-1

Section III.J Solid Waste

Comment III.J 1 - (Document 113.1, Lauren Hirsch):

Another big box store, would cause significantly more litter and car pollution, and be
disaster for the esthetics of our town -just look at the sides of our roads now -
Baldwin Rd, Rt. 202, even on the bike path. Its disgusting. I myself, am appalled and
ashamed. And Costco will only make it worse. Do you want to live and have your
children live in a town where everywhere they walk, they step on litter???

Response III.J 1:

Refer to DEIS and FEIS Sections III.K and III.M regarding traffic and air quality
impacts and mitigation.

According to the Applicant, Costco has indicated it will manage litter through
implementation of an internal housekeeping policy carried out by the Costco
employees. Costco employees will be trained to make regular inspections of the
parking areas and open space to collect litter and abandoned shopping carts. In
addition, the landscape contractors will provide regular maintenance that will include
collection of litter during regular maintenance operations.

Comment III.J 2 - (Letter 39a.6, The Concerned Residents of Yorktown), (42.1a, The
Concerned Residents of Yorktown), (Document 178.8c, Henry Steeneck,
Residents of Yorktown):



Response III.J 2:

Comment noted.. The referenced articles can be found in their entirety in FEIS
Appendix A. Article 8 of the Comment addresses solid waste. With regard to solid
wastes, refer to DEIS and FEIS Section III.J . Refer to DEIS Sections III.M, K, C, F,
D and J regarding air, traffic, soil, water resources, and noise respectively.
III.K FISCAL IMAPCT ANALYSIS
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.K

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Traffic and Transportation

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-1

DEIS Section III.K Traffic and Transportation

Introductory Response - General Traffic and Transportation Overview

Based on public comments on the DEIS, several changes have been made to the analysis of the
potential traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Action. A summary of these changes, as
well as a summary of all improvements to the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor proposed
by the Applicant, is provided below for clarification. Separate and apart from the Proposed
Action there are significant independent improvements currently being undertaken by the New
York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), with which the Applicant has coordinated
its improvements. These NYSDOT improvements are not designed to mitigate impacts of the
Proposed Action, but are summarized herein because several of the public comments received
are specifically addressed by the ongoing work being conducted by NYSDOT.

In addition to the items discussed below, a Revised Traffic Impact Study has been completed by
the Applicants Traffic Consultant (Maser Consulting, P.A.) as part of this FEIS and is contained
in FEIS Appendix G. This Revised Traffic Impact Study provides a detailed description of the
revised analyses conducted in response to public comments on the DEIS and also incorporates
much of the information discussed throughout this section of the FEIS. The analysis contained in
the Revised Traffic Impact Study has been updated to reflect the most current lane geometry and
traffic signal timings for each of the study area intersections and the analysis has been performed
with the latest traffic analysis software (Synchro 8) which accounts for the effects of queuing at
nearby intersections. The results of the revised analysis are discussed in detail in Section III.H of
the Revised Traffic Impact Study and summarized in Table No. 2 therein. Furthermore, in
response to specific comments from both J acobs Engineering, the Towns Traffic Consultant and
the public on the DEIS which expressed concerns that the traffic generation of the Proposed
Action might be higher than anticipated in the DEIS traffic study, a sensitivity analysis has been
conducted that analyzes potentially higher traffic generation estimates for the site. This analysis
is discussed in detail in Section III.J of the Revised Traffic Impact Study and the results are
summarized in Table No. 2-S thereof. It should also be noted that separate comments on the
DEIS from the Towns Traffic Consultant as contained in their J une 2013 report (the J acobs
Traffic Report), were received by the Applicant from the Town of Yorktown Planning
Department on November 12, 2013. While the comments presented in the J acobs J une 2013
Traffic Report are generally addressed within this FEIS and the Revised Traffic Impact Study,
specific responses are not provided. Therefore, a separate memorandum dated December 16,
2013 prepared by the Applicants Traffic Consultant (Maser Consulting, P.A.) has been included
in FEIS Appendix G along with the J acobs J une 2013 Report. This memorandum provides
specific responses to the comments presented by the Towns Traffic Consultant.

The following provides a brief description of the corridor improvements currently under
construction by NYSDOT and those proposed by the Applicant in association with the Proposed
Action, which are discussed throughout this Section III.K of the FEIS.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-2

NYSDOT NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 Corridor Improvements
Major improvements are currently being constructed by NYSDOT (PIN 856134) on the NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor and the Bear Mountain Parkway (BMP) Extension.
NYSDOT commenced such improvements at the end of April 2013. These improvements, which
are described by NYSDOT on the project website at the follow web address
www.dot.ny.gov/35-202atpinegrovecourt - are also described in detail in Section III.K.2.b of the
DEIS and repeated here for ease of reference. A copy of the information provided on the
NYSDOT project web page, which also includes the project schedule and estimated costs, is
provided in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G.

The NYSDOT roadway improvements extend from the west beginning in the vicinity of the
existing Snap Fitness building, past the Parkside Corner Shopping Center and involves the
construction of improvements to the intersections of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and Bear
Mountain Parkway Extension, NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and Pine Grove Court, NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 and Stony Street/BJ s-Staples Plaza, and Bear Mountain Parkway and (BMP)
Stony Street. It should be noted that since the completion of the DEIS, the NYSDOT
improvements have been expanded from Stony Street east to Old Crompond Road to
complement the proposed Applicant-sponsored improvements, which are described below.

The NYSDOT improvements will provide two through lanes in each direction on NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 beginning in the area of the existing Parkside Corner shopping center to the
west of the Bear Mountain Parkway Extension. The area between the BMP and Parkside Corner
will also have a center turn lane providing a dedicated lane for left turns into the businesses
located along the south side of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202.

At the BMP intersection, NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 will have a separate left turn lane on the
eastbound approach. The southbound approach will be modified from a two-lane approach to a
single lane and left turns will be prohibited. The southbound right turn movement from the Bear
Mountain Parkway Extension will be reconstructed and channelized and an acceleration lane will
be constructed for vehicles entering the traffic stream along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202
westbound. This should enhance the ease of access for the BMP traffic destined to the west and
eliminate the extensive peak hour queues, which currently exist at this location.

The intersection of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and Pine Grove Court will be reconstructed to
have two through lanes in each direction and a separate left turn lane westbound and right turn
lane eastbound. The northbound approach will have two lanes. This intersection will also be
signalized.

The intersection of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and the BJ s/Staples Plaza and Stony Street
will be modified to have an additional right turn lane in the eastbound direction. This will allow
for two through lanes in this direction. In the westbound direction, the existing dedicated right

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-3

turn lane will be extended to a point approximately 100 ft. west of Old Crompond Road to match
the Applicants proposed improvements. This lane will become a shared through/right turn lane
at the Stony Street intersection and there will be two receiving lanes continuing in the westbound
direction. The traffic signal at this intersection will also be upgraded and coordinated with the
new signal at the Pine Grove Court Intersection.

The Stony Street and Bear Mountain Parkway Extension (BMPE) intersection will be improved
by providing one lane in each direction along the BMPE as well as dedicated left turn lanes at the
intersection. The raised center median along the BMPE will be eliminated to reduce the conflicts
due to the offset left turns at this intersection. The northbound Stony Street approach will also be
widened to provide a separate right turn lane. The intersection will be signalized. Some new
sidewalks will be provided at this intersection with these improvements including the provision
of crosswalks on the westbound and southbound intersection approaches.

The NYSDOT improvements will also provide a complete sidewalk system between Old
Crompond Road and the Parkside Corner shopping center. The sidewalk will begin at Old
Crompond Road on the north side of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 continuing to the Stony
Street/BJ S intersection. At Stony Street the sidewalk will then cross to the south side of the
roadway via a crosswalk with pedestrian signals. From this point the sidewalk will continue west
along the south side of the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 to the Parkside Corners Shopping
Center driveway, providing a pedestrian connection to the businesses along the south side of the
roadway. A sidewalk will also be constructed on the north side of the existing Chase Bank along
Stony Street extending up to the Bear Mountain Parkway Extension where it will cross the
roadway to connect to a trail to be constructed along the west side of the Bear Mountain Parkway
Extension providing access to the existing town trail system to the north.

Based on the current schedule of work for the NYSDOT improvements, the geometric and
signalization improvements are planned to be substantially completed by the end of 2013 and the
final completion date is scheduled for Summer 2014. The total projected cost for the NYSDOT
improvements is currently estimated to be in excess of $11 million. A more detailed description
of the NYSDOT improvements is provided in Section III.E of the Revised Traffic Impact Study
contained in FEIS Appendix G. It should also be noted that, as indicated in the Revised Traffic
Impact Study, the Proposed Action is not expected to impact the operation of the intersections
being improved by NYSDOT after completion of these improvements and the Proposed Action
when compared to No-Build conditions with the NYSDOT improvements.

Long term plans are in development by NYSDOT to connect the two ends of the Bear Mountain
Parkway with a limited access roadway to alleviate congestion and safety issues through the
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and Route 6 Corridors. No specific timetable for this particular
work is scheduled.

Applicant Sponsored Improvements

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-4

As described in Section III.K of the DEIS and further expanded upon in Section IV of the
Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, the Applicant has proposed to
improve the roadway section of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 between Strang Boulevard and
Old Crompond Road by constructing an additional westbound through lane as well as an upgrade
of the existing traffic signal systems along this area of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202. In
addition, in response to comments regarding queuing in J acobs J une 2013 Report, which an be
found in FEIS Appendix G, a dedicated eastbound left turn storage lane for vehicles turning left
onto the Taconic State Parkway northbound entrance ramp would be constructed as part of the
Applicants improvements. This widening would increase the left turn lane storage length from
approximately 100 ft. under existing conditions to approximately 360 ft. This widening would
also result in an improvement in the westbound left turn lane storage distance, which would be
increased in length from approximately 100 ft. to 330 ft. Based on the analysis provided in the
Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, these modifications would
improve the traffic movements getting onto the northbound and southbound ramp and would
help reduce delays to vehicles continuing to the east and west past the interchange area. (See
FEIS Exhibit A-4).

Associated with these off-site roadway improvements to be funded by the Applicant, a new
sidewalk is proposed to be constructed by the Applicant on the north side of NYS Route 35/U.S.
Route 202 between Strang Boulevard and Old Crompond Road consistent with the
recommendations of the Town of Yorktown Comprehensive Plan (Policy 3-20) and the
Sustainable Development Study (Chapter V.C.4: Pedestrian and Bicycle Considerations). A
crosswalk and pedestrian signals including countdown modules are also proposed to be installed
by the Applicant at the Strang Boulevard intersection to provide safe and convenient access to
both FDR State Park and to the existing Westchester County Bee-Line bus stop located on the
south side of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 at this intersection. Signalized pedestrian crosswalks
would also be provided for the crossings of the Taconic State Parkway northbound on-ramp and
southbound off-ramp. At the intersection of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and Mohansic
Avenue/Costco Site Access, signalized pedestrian crossings including all required ADA ramps
would be provided on all four approaches. A sidewalk connection would also be provided
between the Costco storefront and NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 via a sidewalk along the main
access driveway. (See FEIS Exhibit A-4). The construction of the Applicant funded
improvements are estimated to total approximately $3.0 million.

The sidewalk, which would be constructed by the Applicant, would continue west of the Costco
site access driveway along the site frontage and would connect to the new sidewalk currently
being constructed as part of the NYSDOT improvements described above, which will begin on
the west side Old Crompond Road. A crosswalk for pedestrians crossing Old Crompond Road
would be provided as part of the Applicant sponsored improvements to connect the two sections
of sidewalk. Thus, between the NYSDOT improvements and the improvements proposed to be
constructed by the Applicant, a continuous sidewalk system would be provided from Strang

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-5

Boulevard/FDR Park west to the Parkside Corners shopping center, a distance of approximately
5,800 feet.
The proposed sidewalk system to be constructed by the Applicant will connect from the Project
Site to the bus stop on the north side of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 at Strang Boulevard. This
bus stop will be reconstructed by the Applicant to accommodate patrons who currently stand at
the edge of the existing travel way of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 when waiting for pick up.
The bus stop is included on the Projects Highway Improvement Plans (FEIS Appendix K).
Review and approval of the upgraded bus stop will be required by the Westchester County
Department of Public Works and Transportation and the Applicants engineer is presently
coordinating that effort. This sidewalk system also provides access to the bus stop on the south
side of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202. It should also be noted that the site plan for the Proposed
Action has been designed to accommodate buses if the bus route is changed in the future by
Westchester County.

In addition to the Applicant sponsored improvements to the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and
Taconic State Parkway interchange area described above, signal timing improvements, as
specified in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, have been
recommended for several of the study area intersections to accommodate both existing and future
traffic volumes including the following:

NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 & Lexington Avenue
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 & NYS Route 132
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 & Springhurst Street/High School
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 & Granite Springs Road/Middle School
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 & Baldwin Road
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 & NYS Route 118/Commerce Street

This work would continue to be coordinated with NYSDOT by the Applicant as part of the
Highway Work Permit process.

The offsite improvements that would be constructed by the Applicant would also provide a
minimum shoulder width of 5 ft. in each direction along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 through
the Taconic State Parkway Interchange area to accommodate bicycles as per Section 17.4.1
(Bicycle Facilities Design Policy) of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual, which states that
the needs of bicyclists can be met through the use of wide curb lanes, bike lanes and/or paved
shoulders of adequate width. This will complement the ongoing NYSDOT improvements, which
will also provide a shoulder in each direction along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 from Old
Crompond Road to the project limits near the existing Snap Fitness.

Comment III.K 1 Form Letter A (Document 5.1, Ameena Papl), (Document 14.1, Mr.
Marc Alfredo), (Document 20.1, Steven Rosenbaum), (Document 28.1, Joanna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-6

Cali), (Document 32.1, Joseph Eduardo), (Document 38.1, Babette Ballinger),
(Document 75.1, Ann and Robert Harper), (Document 159.1, Lisa M. Neglia):

Dear Planning Board,

Do you realize that, according to the developers own study; the traffic will be
increased by at least 758 cars per hour. As per traffic counts from the DOT (dated
from 2003), the average #of cars at noon time is 1,609 per hour. That means that we
would have an increase of almost 50% moreand this is based on 2003 counts,
and the projected increase comes from the developer. Imagine what it will be like at
5pm in the afternoon?

How long am I supposed to have to wait in traffic because some big out of state
corporation wants to earn money? How long must my children wait at the lights so
they can get to school on time? What about the trucks, they cannot go on the
Taconic?

At the next town meeting, please be advised that I would like to formally request:

1 - A projected traffic count after the project is built (separately for the store and the
gas station and then both combined) as compared to the current traffic count. We
need these projections for weekdays, and especially for Saturdays and Sundays, all
hours. Additionally, we would like to see this information for all intersections from
the Bear Mountain Parkway/Rte 202 intersection to the Rte35, Route 202 Triangle
shopping center.

2 - A projected traffic count and study on the increase in truck traffic using the above
parameters.

We respectfully request that the Town hold off on granting any permits for this
project until after a proper in-depth analysis can be made.

Thank you,
[Your Name]

Response III.K 1:

1 - A brief summary of the traffic data contained in the DEIS and presented again in
the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, as shown on the
Traffic Volume figures contained in Appendix A of the Revised Traffic Study
(Figures 1 through 22A) is presented in Table III.K.1 below. This indicates the traffic
volumes on NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 for the key roadway segments for

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-7

Existing, No-Build and Build Conditions during the PM and Saturday Peak Hours
(the times of maximum potential traffic impact) as well as for each of the intersection
studied in the analysis.

TABLE III.K.1

LOCATION
PEAK
HOUR
EXISTING
NO-
BUILD
BUILD
NET INCREASE
NO-BUILD TO
BUILD
ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Immediately West of
Costco Site
PM 2,319 2,762 2,877 + 115
Saturday 2,305 2,730 2,916 + 186
Immediately East of
Costco Site
PM 2,515 2,965 3,325 + 360
Saturday 2,443 2,871 3,453 + 582
East of Taconic
State Parkway
PM 1,936 2,201 2,355 + 154
Saturday 1,857 2,109 2,357 + 248
West of Bear Mountain
Parkway Extension
PM 2,621 2,929 3,025 + 96
Saturday 2,389 2,678 2,833 + 155
INTERSECTIONS
Lexington Avenue
PM 2,581 2,867 2,963 + 96
Saturday 2,466 2,740 2,895 + 155
Bear Mountain
Parkway Extension
PM 2,642 2,951 3,047 + 96
Saturday 2,436 2,728 2,883 + 155
Pine Grove Court
PM 2,411 2,717 2,823 + 106
Saturday 2,286 2,579 2,750 + 171
Bear Mountain Parkway Extension
& Stony Street
PM 1,092 1,279 1,289 + 10
Saturday 725 887 903 + 16
Old Crompond Road &
Stony Street
PM 395 752 762 + 10
Saturday 289 625 641 + 16
Stony Street/BJ's-Staples
Plaza
PM 3,023 3,504 3,620 + 116
Saturday 2,945 3,407 3,594 + 187
Old Crompond Road
PM 2,320 2,763 2,878 + 115
Saturday 2,308 2,733 2,919 + 186
Mohansic Avenue/
Site Access
PM 2,567 3,025 3,585 + 560
Saturday 2,496 2,932 3,837 + 905
Taconic State Parkway
SB On/Off Ramp
PM 2,639 3,096 3,456 + 360
Saturday 2,613 3,052 3,634 + 582
Taconic State Parkway
NB On/Off Ramp
PM 2,763 3,153 3,409 + 256
Saturday 2,388 2,742 3,157 + 415
Strang Boulevard
PM 1,977 2,244 2,398 + 154
Saturday 1,899 2,153 2,401 + 248
NYS Route 132
PM 2,114 2,379 2,523 + 144
Saturday 2,138 2,379 2,630 + 251
Springhurst Street/
High School Driveway
PM 2,041 2,289 2,418 + 129
Saturday 2,050 2,291 2,501 + 210

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-8

Granite Springs Road/
Middle School Driveway
PM 2,273 2,532 2,656 + 124
Saturday 2,276 2,528 2,730 + 202
Baldwin Road
PM 2,022 2,235 2,331 + 96
Saturday 1,890 2,090 2,246 + 156
NYS Route 118/
Commerce Street
PM 2,808 3,047 3,110 + 63
Saturday 2,726 2,957 3,058 + 101
Note:
1) Traffic volumes for roadway segments and intersections obtained from Traffic Volume Figures
No. 1 through 22A contained in Appendix A of the Revised Traffic Impact Study, which is
contained in FEIS Appendix G.

The projected increase in traffic volumes from the Proposed Action includes the
effect of the distribution of traffic to and from the Taconic State Parkway, to and from
the west on Route 202 and to and from the east on NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and
thus, there will not be an increase of 758 cars per hour for the entire corridor as
implied by the comment. As shown in Table III.K.1 above, the volumes are well
distributed onto the roadway network benefiting from the sites location.
Furthermore, as indicated by the arrival and departure distributions shown on Figures
15 through 16A of the Revised Traffic Impact Study, approximately 45% of the site
generated traffic is destined to/from the Taconic State Parkway thereby reducing the
impacts to NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202. This is also indicative of why the
Applicant has focused its offsite improvements at the interchange area where the
greatest impact of traffic generated by the Proposed Action would be felt. The
improvements proposed to be constructed by the Applicant are discussed in detail in
the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K. See also FEIS Appendix G.

The Traffic Study described in Section III.K of the DEIS included a series of site
generated traffic figures which show the additional traffic volumes that are expected
as a result of the Proposed Action at each intersection by individual turning
movements. These include the total trips including all trips generated by both the
fueling facility and the wholesale store. The DEIS Traffic Study has been revised and
is can be found in FEIS Appendix G. Table No. 1 of the Revised Traffic Impact Study
now shows the trips generated by the Costco store and the fueling facility separately.
The additional volumes to be generated by the Proposed Action along specific
segments of the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor are shown in FEIS Table
III.K.1.A above for the Weekday PM and Saturday Peak Hours. The volumes are
expected to be comparable to or lower during other hours of the day. See also FEIS
Responses III.K.4 and III.K.6.2 regarding the Sensitivity Analysis, which was
completed to address comments from the Towns Traffic Consultant, J acobs
Engineering, regarding the potential impact if the actual site trip generation was
higher than originally analyzed in the DEIS.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-9

Furthermore, Applicant sponsored improvements, which are discussed in detail in the
Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K, are designed to expedite the flow of
traffic through the interchange area. In addition, the separate NYSDOT
improvements, currently under construction, are designed to further improve the flow
traffic through the area between Old Crompond Road and the Parkside Corners
shopping center. Under existing conditions, based on the traffic analysis contained in
the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, peak hour traffic
traveling in the westbound direction currently experiences delays in excess of 120
seconds. After completion of the NYSDOT improvements as well as those
improvements to be completed separately by the Applicant, delays in the westbound
direction are projected to be approximately 65 seconds or less. This projected
reduction in delay resulting from the additional capacity along NYS Route 35/U.S.
Route 202 would improve travel times along the corridor through this area. In
addition, as indicated by the revised traffic analysis, the Taconic State Parkway Ramp
intersections will not be improved by the NYSDOT improvements alone. The
Applicant sponsored improvements, which are focused in this area, are expected to
improve operating conditions in the area of the ramps and the site access intersection
for the Proposed Action.

2 - As indicated in the DEIS Traffic Impact Study, based on information provided by
the Applicant, it is anticipated that the site will generate in the order of 10 trucks per
day with approximately 2 to 3 of these vehicles being fuel related. Since trucks are
prohibited from using the Taconic State Parkway, they will remain on the NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 corridor. The traffic impact analysis conservatively assumed that
approximately 2% of the trips entering and exiting the site will be truck trips during
each of the peak hours. This equates to approximately 10-15 truck trips during the
peak hours, which is unlikely since most of the delivery vehicles to the site are
expected to arrive during the non-peak early morning, late evening and overnight
hours. Thus the additional truck traffic as considered in the original DEIS analysis as
well as the analysis contained in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS
Appendix G is conservative.

Comment III.K 2 - (Document 15.1, James A. Garofalo, Tim Miller Associates):

We are attempting to review portions of the proposed Costco DEIS on behalf of a
number of interested residents of the Yorktown area. In order to rationally review the
process and conclusions, the following information is essential, but not apparent in
the recently posted DEIS for the Project. We are requesting the actual manual turning
movement counts and specific letters referenced in the DEIS with their attachments as
described below.

1. Trip generation data letter and attachments provided by McMahon

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-10

Associates, Inc. to the Pennsylvania Department of Transpiration (Penn DOT)
regarding Discount Club with Gasoline Sales trip rates as noted in paragraph two
of the Penn DOT letter J anuary 21, 2011.

2. The letter and attachments submitted to the New York State Department of
Transportation (NYS DOT) containing the Synchro analysis printouts (.pdf) and
analysis computer files on CD (J ohn Collins Engineering letter May 19, 2011).
Clarification should be made as to whether the Synchro 7 or 8 software was used
in the analysis.

3. The actual turning movement traffic counts are requested for the study
intersections,

4. The letter and attachments of Highway Improvement Plans and Related
Visual Exhibits referenced to in the December 22. 2011 letter from TRC
Engineers, Inc. to the NYS DOT or submitted updates.

a. HD Index Sheet
b. HD-11 to HD-14
c. HD-l9 to HD-22
d. HD-26, 27, 29, 31. 32, 33
e. PL-1
f. EBE Existing Bridge Elevations
g. CP-1 Conceptual Planting Layout Plan
h. C-101 Site plan (with 300 foot and 500 foot sign offset lines)
i .Building elevation with Building sign
j. 3D Visual Simulations and Sight line Sections

We request the foregoing information be provided within one week so we may
incorporate the information obtained into our review, and provide our conclusions to
our clients, before the date set for the public hearing on the DEIS.

Response III.K 2:
The Planning Department responded to the Freedom of Information requests
associated with this Comment.

In addition, the Applicant asserts the following points:

1. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) letter regarding
trip rates for a Discount Club with Gasoline Sales is contained in Appendix I of
the Revised Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (FEIS Appendix G). This letter was
provided to Maser Consulting, P.A. (formerly J ohn Collins Engineers, P.C.) by

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-11

the Applicant and was provided for informational purposes only.

2. The Synchro Files were provided to NYSDOT by J ohn Collins Engineers,
P.C. (now Maser Consulting, P.A.) on May 19, 2011 for their use only as part of
the Highway Work Permit process. These Synchro Files were not part of the EIS
and therefore were not included in the DEIS document. The Synchro Analysis
was completed using Synchro 7 and was used to generate the HCS printouts,
which were contained in the DEIS. Subsequently, the capacity analysis has been
updated for the FEIS using the more recently released Synchro 8 Version. Those
Synchro analyses and results including consideration of the currently under
construction NYSDOT improvements are presented in the Revised Traffic Impact
Study contained in FEIS Appendix G.

3. Manual turning movement traffic counts are not typically included as part of
the DEIS unless specified in the Scoping Document. The DEIS document does
contain a summary of the dates of counts at each intersection as well as a
summary of all machine count data collected. These summaries are included in
Appendix B of the DEIS Traffic Impact Study (DEIS Appendix E) and are also
provided in the Revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS Appendix G). The machine
count data collected by J ohn Collins Engineers, P.C. (now Maser Consulting
P.A.) and NYSDOT was also submitted to the Towns Traffic Consultant and
Yorktown Planning Department with the J ohn Collins Engineers, P.C.
Memorandum dated May 9, 2012. In addition, the manual turning movement
traffic volumes and machine count data collected by Maser Consulting (formerly
J ohn Collins Engineers, P.C) as well as the NYSDOT Traffic Volume Data is
presented in Appendix H of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS
Appendix G.

4. a. thru f. The drawings referenced in 4a to 4f were preliminary roadway
improvement plans submitted to the NYSDOT, the agency responsible for
review and approval, and were not included in the DEIS. Conceptual roadway
improvements were shown on drawing CP-1 which was included in the DEIS.
The drawings referenced in 4a to 4f were outdated at the time of the DEIS
acceptance. Updated drawings are included as part of this FEIS Appendix KJ .
a. The CP-1 drawing from the DEIS is included on the Towns website as Item
25 under the Costco Site Plan section. A follow-up email from Mr. Garofalo
indicated that this plan did not include a Scale or a Title Block. However, the
plan does include a Title Block which also indicates that the plan is at a scale
of 1=60 when printed on a standard 24 x 36 plan sheet. In addition, the
Conceptual Planting Plan is drawing sheet LP-1 and titled Site Landscape
Plan. Both Plans are included in the Site Plans submitted with the DEIS and
provided on the Towns website.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-12

b. The C-101 Site Plan with 300 ft and 500 ft sign offset lines was not submitted
to the Town and not used in the DEIS. The drawing is included in FEIS
Section Site Plan Response 2c.
c. Building elevations are included in the Costco DEIS text Section III.B Visual
Character.
d. 3D Visual Simulations are included in the Costco DEIS text Section III.B
Visual Character. Sight line sections are included in the Costco DEIS text
Section Ill.B Visual Character and larger in the Site Plans submitted with the
DEIS, on Sheets C-601 and C-602, which are provided on the Towns
website. Also refer to FEIS Section III.B and Site Plan for updated visual
simulations.

Comment III.K 3 - (Document 15A.2, James A. Garofalo):

information. Where possible the specific references are made to the scope or the
DEIS. If these items exist please have them made available to us as soon as possible,
and within 1 week so that we may have them sufficiently in advance of the scheduled
public meeting. The materials requested are as follows:

B. Highway Safety Investigation Study as request by the NYS DOT (February 16,
2012 letter) and noted in the Scope of work (K.1 .e.f.).

C. Copy of any waivers and requests made regarding parkway signing restrictions and
signing deed restriction noted in the NYS DOT letters February 16, 2012 letter and
J uly 11, 2011.

D. Please provide any plans showing the loading and stage areas with anticipated
truck turning paths and routing through the site.

E. Before and after Route 35 & 202 cross sectional road elements under the Taconic
State Parkway. These may have been included in submittals to NYS DOT by TRC
December 22, 2011.

F. Any submitted updates or additional plans submitted to the NYS DOT including
updated striping plans, Workzone Traffic Control Plans, and signing plans as noted in
NYS DOT (Document February 16, 2012).

We further submit that The Board may want to consider providing some or all of this
data and other data requested online and to J acobs Engineering to better facilitate a

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-13

meaningful public review of the DEIS by the Town and interested public at large.

Response III.K 3:

The Applicants Engineer submitted a letter with attachments to the NYSDOT on
February 16, 2012 (letter included in DEIS Appendix L). The submittal included
preliminary design of improvements to Route 202/35 to the NYSDOT, the agency
responsible for review and approval, along with supplemental support data relative to
the proposed improvements. The submittal was preliminary and was consistent with
the analysis in the DEIS. Since that submittal, the highway design plans have been
updated and are included as part of this FEIS (Appendix K).

The Planning Department responded to the Freedom of Information requests
associated with this Comment. In addition, the Applicant asserts the following:

B. A copy of Highway Safety Investigation Summary Table was contained in
Appendix E of the Traffic Impact Study which is contained in Appendix E of the
DEIS. A complete copy of the Study as well as additional accident data for the
area near the Yorktown High School/Middle School driveway as requested by
J acobs (the Towns Traffic Consultant) in their J une 2013 report have been
included in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G and
are discussed in more detail in Section II.D of that study.. Note that the
improvements proposed by the Applicant as well as those currently under
construction separately by NYSDOT are designed to address the existing accident
patterns in this area and will improve the operations and safety of this portion of
the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor. In addition see the J ohn Collins
Engineers, P.C. memo from Philip J . Grealy, Ph.D., P.E. cited above (sent by
email).

C. The Applicants request for relief from the 500 foot sign restricted area that is
under NYSDOT jurisdiction was submitted by TRC Engineers to the NYSDOT
on February 16, 2012 (letter included in DEIS Appendix L). The NYSDOTs
response letter indicating that it will only permit signs not visible from the
Taconic State Parkway is provided in the FEIS Appendix C and discussed in FEIS
Responses III.B and III.B 15. Relief from the 300 foot deed restriction is being
sought from the NYSDOT and is being finalized. Refer to FEIS Site Plan
Response 1.

D. Truck turning paths to and from the building loading areas are illustrated on
FEIS Exhibits III.K 3a and 3b. Access to and from the fueling facility is shown
on FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2e(12) and the construction staging areas are shown on

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-14

FEIS Exhibit III.O-4a.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-17

E. Updated highway improvement plans including cross sections are included as
part of this FEIS (Appendix K). .

F. Updated highway improvement plans including striping, signing and traffic
control are included as part of this FEIS (Appendix K). .

Comment III.K 4 - (Document 41.2, Paul Moskowitz, Yorktown Energy Advisory
Committee):

Table III.I.2 contains a summary of automobile trips. Does that include trips to and
from the filling station as well as the warehouse store?

Response III.K 4:

The information contained in Table III.I.2 of the DEIS includes all trips generated by
the Proposed Action including those for the proposed store and fueling facility. As
part of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, this table
(Table No. 1 in Appendix B of Revised Traffic Impact Study) has been updated to
separately indicate the trips generated by the wholesale club and the fueling facility.

Comment III.K 5a - (Document 58.1, Jennie Sunshine), (PH1, Jennie Sunshine), (Document
181.1, Jennie Sunshine):


In this letter I have posed 10 questions of the proposed Costco - Draft Environmental
Impact Statement - as it relates to traffic and more specifically, the affect [sic]of
traffic on our emergency services and emergency services personnel.

It is clear that the DEIS was written only to consider present traffic conditions and
present building structures. However, over the last few weeks, Crompond Crossings
has broken ground. This new development contains commercial buildings, 26
multifamily units and a 29 lot subdivision and will add many additional cars onto
Route 202. As we speak, more development projects are being discussed and
formulated. Temple Israel, a project that has been approved, is to be built on the land
behind the Mobil Station, J ohnnys Deli and Signs Ink. When and if the State Land
project is completed, it will contain an additional big box store and strip shopping
area totaling 204,000 square feet. This will generate hundreds of more cars per

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-18

hour, creating an even more problematic traffic situation. All of this can be viewed on
the Town website, www.yorktownny.org. On Supervisor Graces page, he offers a
map entitled: Route 202 Corridor Economic Development. It contains a clear view
of the other present and pending development projects from the Taconic Parkway to
Lexington Avenue as I have mentioned and they are all in the same vicinity as the
proposed Costco project site. So, it is clear that all of the present and future
development on this important artery be considered fully and together.

Route 202 is a very important road in Yorktown. Along its length, one can find many
residents homes, businesses, restaurants, houses of worship, a town park, a State
park, a middle school, a high school, the ambulance corps, a fire station (close by at
132 and Locksley Road), our town police station, and our nearest hospital, The
Hudson Valley Hospital Center. As of now, only certain times of day bring
challenging traffic conditions on Route 202, where one might have to wait an extra 5
to 15 minutes to get into downtown Yorktown from the Granite Springs road area or
heading west toward the Taconic from 132. But conditions will be changing soon
as, Crompond Crossings, the first of the many development projects has begun.

And then there is the proposed Costco project. If Costco is built, Breslin Reality has
said Costco will attract 758 cars per hour. The traffic mitigation that is to take place
along with the Costco construction would be adding lanes in both directions from
Parkside Shopping Center through to Strang Boulevard as well as adding turning
lanes and adjusting timing of various traffic lights. These needed traffic
improvements will all be taking place within less than a two mile stretch along Route
202 adjacent to where the proposed Costco is to be built.

*please see attached 1

Aside from a better signal timing (according to Section 1 of the Executive Summary
in the DEIS) at the light at Route 132, improvements to Route 202 will not be made
from Strang Boulevard to downtown Yorktown. Improvements will not be made on
highway 35 from downtown Yorktown to 684 the road that will be traversed by
Costcos large delivery trucks and gas tanker trucks, the very same road that will
bring Costco shoppers from Ridgefield, Connecticut, North Salem, South Salem,
Lewisboro, Waccabuc, Pound Ridge, Bedford, Katonah, Somers, Brewster and
Mahopac. Road improvements will not be made on any length of Hanover Street or
Commerce Street, on which Engine #1 is located, yet Costco customers will also hail
from southern areas of Yorktown, Mount Kisco, Bedford, Katonah and Chappaqua
via Hanover Street.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-19

Response III.K 5a:

The Traffic Impact Study contained in the DEIS specifically included other proposed
or approved developments in the vicinity of the site including the Crompond
Crossing, Pulte Homes, Temple of Israel, and the Field Home Expansion. The
application for the State Land project, which requires a rezoning, is required to be
addressed as part of the SEQRA process for the State Land development. If the
rezoning application is approved, an expected design year of 2016 or beyond would
be anticipated for that development, which is beyond the expected opening date of the
Proposed Action. Also, as part of the State Land environmental impact review, the
traffic study for the potential rezoning is required to include traffic from the proposed
Costco development and other development traffic associated with the other area
developments identified in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS
Appendix G. Therefore, the SEQRA process for the State Land site is required to
consider and address all cumulative impacts including those generated by the
Proposed Action and thus is required to be addressed in the SEQRA process and not
as part of this FEIS.

The improvements being completed separately by NYSDOT together with those
improvements proposed by the Applicant are designed to improve the safety of
intersection operations and to reduce delays at major bottlenecks on the NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 corridor. For example, as indicated in Table No. 2 of the Traffic
Impact Study, under existing conditions during the afternoon PM Peak Highway Hour
the westbound traffic on NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 at the intersection with the
Taconic State Parkway northbound on/off ramp is found to experience delays in
excess of 150 seconds per vehicle with typical vehicle queues extending from the
Taconic State Parkway back past NYS Route 132 and to the Yorktown High School.
Following the improvements being completed by the Applicant and including the
additional traffic which will be generated by the Proposed Action as well as the other
traffic increases noted above, the analysis prepared by Applicants traffic consultant
(contained in FEIS Appendix G) indicates that the overall Levels of Service for the
Strang Boulevard, Taconic State Parkway interchange and Mohansic Avenue
intersections will be improved and average vehicle delay will be reduced to
approximately 50 seconds per vehicle, thereby significantly reducing expected delays
and future vehicle queues at these locations.

Furthermore, the presence of additional travel lanes through this area will allow
improved flow and safety for emergency vehicles. Relative to the 758 cars per hour
that are projected to occur at the site access connection to the development from NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202, these volumes will be distributed onto the roadway
network traveling to and from the north, south, east and west. Thus, the volumes
generated by the Proposed Action are significantly lower on any particular section of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-20

roadway east or west of the site as shown in Table III.K.1A presented in FEIS
Response III.K.1. As indicated in this table, the section of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route
202 east of NYS Route 132 is projected to experience total peak hour traffic volumes
in the order of 2,185 vehicles during the PM Peak Hour. Note that this section of
roadway would have a volume of 2056 vehicles during the PM Peak Hour under the
No-Build condition (i.e. without the Proposed Action). Signal timing improvements
are proposed by the Applicant to offset these increases along this section of NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202.

Comment III.K 5b - (Document 58.1, Jennie Sunshine), (PH1, Jennie Sunshine), (Document


Question: Everyday Traffic

Given the importance of the entire length of Route 202 and of the key businesses and
community services that are located on this artery and given the other approved and
potential development projects on Route 202, including the proposed Costco and the
generation of many additional vehicles from those projects, will the present road
improvements that are to be made congruent with the Costco project be sufficient to
assure the safety and reasonable usefulness of this important corridor to our everyday
lives?

Ultimately, given the great deal of increased traffic from the cumulative effect of
developing the 202 corridor - even with the few traffic improvements that are to be
made near and around the proposed Costco site: police, fire and emergency services
will be negatively affected.

In Appendix VII.L of the DEIS, Chief Daniel M. McMahon, the Yorktown Chief of
Police, wrote in his *letter to TRC Engineers (referring to the Costco project) in bold,
The proposed Costco will have an unfavorable impact on the policing of the entire
Town of Yorktown. Chief McMahon underlines the word, unfavorable. In section
B of his letter he states that Costco will cause an increase of 106 calls for service
annually that will increase the need for manpower and or overtime. He also states,
investigations, reporting paperwork, arrest processing and court appearances will
create overtime.
Chief McMahon also mentions response time in his letter. He says that throughout the
town of Yorktown one can expect a response time of about 3 to 6 minutes. (One can
assume this if and only if the roads remain clear.)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-21

Response III.K 5b:

As indicated in Table No. 2 of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS
Appendix G, the average vehicle delays following the completion of the
improvements proposed by the Applicant and/or NYSDOT will significantly reduce
delays at many of the area intersections between the Bear Mountain Parkway
Extension and NYS Route 132. The analysis of the other intersections indicate the
additional traffic generated by the Proposed Action will not significantly change the
average vehicle delays once the signal timing improvements are completed.

Comment III.K 5c - (Document 58.1, Jennie Sunshine), (PH1, Jennie Sunshine), (Document


Question: Police Response Time

If the Yorktown police department is overburdened with a more detailed coverage
area and if our roads are not clear due to the traffic issue the proposed Costco and
other Route 202 development projects will create on other feeder roads and the entire
length of the Route 202 corridor and the fact that the Police Station is also located on
Route 202, might Yorktowns residents have to wait longer than 3 to 6 minutes (as
per Chief McMahon) for policing services?

Question: Fire & EMS Response Time to the Proposed Costco Location

If the Lake Mohegan Fire District is overburdened with a more detailed coverage area
and if our roads are not clear due to the traffic dilemmas Costco and other Route 202
development projects will create on other feeder roads and the entire length of the 202
corridor, doesnt it seem likely that Yorktowns residents would have to wait longer
than 5 minutes (as per Captain Barbieri) for fire and EMS services from the station on
Route 6/J efferson Valley area to the Costco site?

Question: Fire & EMS Response Time to Other Yorktown Locations

What about response time to other locations within Yorktown? Doesnt it seem likely
that those times would be lengthened due to increased traffic and possibly, an
overburdened fire and EMS staff?



_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-22

Question: EMS Hospital Response Time

And what about getting back through the length of Route 202 and through other
feeder roads in order to bring someone to the closest hospital - Hudson Valley
Hospital Center (HVHC) when its only entrance and exit is on Route 202? At peak
traffic times, doesnt it seem likely that it will take more time for an individual
driving in their vehicle or for an ambulance to reach the HVHC in more than a
reasonable about of time to make this important trip?

In Section I of the Executive Summary, section L of the DEIS that describes parking
for the proposed Costco, it also mentions there will be a sidewalk installed on the
north side of route 202 from Strang Boulevard to the proposed Costco site. It also
mentions that there will be 6-foot paved shoulders on the northbound and southbound
sides of the street created to accommodate bicycle transportation from Strang
Boulevard to the proposed Costco site.


Response III.K 5c:

The addition of lanes including eastbound and westbound left turn lanes and an
additional westbound through lane on NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 between Strang
Boulevard and Old Crompond Road, which would be completed by the Applicant,
would expedite the flow of emergency vehicles through the interchange area. In
addition, the separate NYSDOT improvements, currently under construction, will
further improve the flow of emergency vehicles through the area between Old
Crompond Road and the Parkside Corners shopping center. On other sections, as
they do today, emergency vehicles will still have the priority of traveling through
these other locations. Under existing conditions, based on the traffic analysis
contained in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, peak
hour traffic traveling in the westbound direction currently experiences delays in
excess of 150 seconds. After completion of the NYSDOT improvements as well as
those improvements to be completed by the Applicant delays in the westbound
direction are projected to be approximately 60 seconds or less. This projected
reduction in delay resulting from the additional capacity along NYS Route 35/U.S.
Route 202 would provide improved response times along the corridor through this
area and for example to the HVHC.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-23

Comment III.K 5d - (Document 58.1, Jennie Sunshine), (PH1, Jennie Sunshine), (Document


Question: Further Road Complications for EMS services

To get from the east side of Route 202 to the west side of 202, one must pass under
the Taconic Parkway overpass. If the developer includes two, 6-foot paved shoulders
for the bike lanes, a sidewalk for foot traffic on the north side of the street from the
bus stop near Strang Boulevard - extending under the overpass to the proposed
Costco site and the additional westbound car lane, how can all of this fit through or
under the Taconic Highway overpass? Further, how can we be sure emergency
vehicles will have adequate clearance to pass through this area in order to get to The
Hudson Valley Hospital Center in a timely manner?

There is another critical emergency issue which presents itself. I am reminded of the
possibility of an evacuation of the area due to a radiological emergency at Indian
Point. J ust last week, my childs elementary school practiced an early dismissal
procedure for this purpose. The early dismissal notice* also mentioned the evacuation
location where the children from her school would be taken. We cannot forget we live
within the 10-mile evacuation zone of the Indian Point nuclear facility.

Response III.K 5d:

The improvements proposed by the Applicant in the vicinity of the Taconic State
Parkway will accommodate emergency vehicles as indicated in Response III.K 5c.
The additional westbound through lane and eastbound turning lane at the ramps
would reduce the existing queuing problem and would improve the efficiency of
traffic flow through this area. The Taconic State Parkway overpass was constructed
to accommodate a six (6) lane cross section and sidewalks as indicated by NYSDOT
plans for the interchange reconstruction completed in 2003. The Applicant proposed
improvements would-provide a five (5) lane cross section with shoulders and
sidewalks and can be accommodated by the overpass structure. In addition, adequate
vertical clearance for all vehicles at the Taconic State Parkway overpass will be
provided as part of the final design. The lanes, shoulders and sidewalks proposed are
shown on FEIS Introductory Exhibit A-4. Emergency vehicles will have adequate
clearance to pass through this area in order to get to the Hudson Valley Hospital
Center in a timely manner due to the added lanes.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-24

Comment III.K 5e - (Document 58.1, Jennie Sunshine), (PH1, Jennie Sunshine), (Document


Question: Evacuation procedure regarding Indian Point

Route 202 is a major road that leads AWAY from Peekskill, Cortlandt and the
Buchanan area. It is necessarily a planned route in the case of an emergency at Indian
Point that would require an evacuation of its nearby residents. Not mentioned in the
DEIS is how would the additional Costco traffic and the additional traffic caused by
further 202 corridor development impact such an evacuation?

In conclusion, because it does not recognize the great importance of Route 202, a
chief artery of Yorktown - and because it doesnt take into consideration ANY of the
other present and proposed development projects in this key, Route 202 Corridor, the
COSTCO Draft Environmental Impact Statement is badly lacking in sufficient facts
and figures that will allow Yorktowns residents an authentic view of all traffic and
safety issues that will come from a further developed 202 corridor.

It is only fair and just that if the proposed Costco (and if other, further development)
is to take place in the key, Route 202 corridor, that all of the citizens residing in
Yorktown continue to receive the same, quality care and service from our excellent,
hardworking police force, fire fighters and EMS personnel and continue to have the
ability to move about the roads in a reasonable manner and in times of a true
emergency.

Response III.K 5e:

Since the area in the vicinity of the Taconic State Parkway as well as the Bear
Mountain Parkway intersections with NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 are existing
bottlenecks, the improvements currently under construction by NYSDOT to the west
of the site area as well as those that would be completed separately by the Applicant
in the vicinity of the Taconic State Parkway interchange will actually improve the
ability to accommodate additional vehicles through these locations during times of
emergencies. Also, as would be the case with any other commercial businesses in the
area, during times of emergencies, including evacuations, traffic will be
accommodated appropriately as controlled by emergency personnel.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-25

Comment III.K 6a - (Document 60.5a, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.6a,

The New York State Department of Transportation recently increased the capacity of
Route 35/202 under the Taconic State Parkway. This project will consume all of the
existing capacity to the detriment of existing businesses and future corridor development.
Response III.K 6a:

As part of the previous NYSDOT Improvements to the Taconic State Parkway,
accommodations were made for future improvements to NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202
by setting back the Taconic State Parkway overpass support structures to allow
construction of added lanes on NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202. Since NYSDOT has no
plans to add additional lanes in this area at this time, the Applicant would be funding and
constructing those improvements, which would include an additional westbound through
lane as well as an additional eastbound left turn storage lane for traffic entering the
Taconic State Parkway northbound. The resultant total cross section between the
interchange ramps would include at least a 5 ft. shoulder in each direction, two
westbound travel lanes, one westbound left turn lane, one eastbound left turn lane and
one eastbound through lane. Note that the westbound left turn lane for vehicles entering
the Taconic State Parkway southbound would be extended from approximately 100 ft.
under existing conditions to approximately 330 ft. after the improvements and in the
eastbound direction, the eastbound left turn lane queue storage area would be increased
from approximately 100 ft. to 360 ft. for vehicles entering the Taconic State Parkway
northbound. These improvements complement the improvements currently being
constructed by NYSDOT to the west of the interchange along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route
202 between Old Crompond Road and the Parkside Corners Shopping Center. The
improvements proposed by the Applicant will significantly increase the capacity of NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202 in the area of the Taconic State Parkway ramps to benefit both
existing businesses and future corridor development including the Proposed Action. In
addition, based on the analysis contained in Appendix G of this FEIS, this section of
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 is presently operating above capacity with PM Peak Hour
average vehicle delays in the westbound direction in excess of 150 seconds, which at a
signalized intersection equates to a Level of Service F, but with the Applicant proposed
improvements these westbound delays will be reduced to average vehicle delays of less
than 60 seconds, which at a signalized intersection equates to a Level of Service E. A
further discussion of the expected future Levels of Service after completion of the
Applicant proposed improvements is provided in Section III.H of the Revised Traffic
Impact Study, which is contained in FEIS Appendix G. Thus additional capacity for
future growth will be available after the completion of the NYSDOT improvements west
of Old Crompond Road and the improvements that would be undertaken by the Applicant
along the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor as identified in the Introductory

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-26

Response to FEIS Section III.K.

Comment III.K 6b - (Document 60.6b, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.7b,

Proper arterial management calls for minimal curb cuts to promote safety. For example
the BJ s to the west on Route 202 was prohibited from its secondary right in and out
access in order to improve safety. At that time, Route 35/202 had a center median
physically blocking left turns, a safer situation than the conditions in front of the Costco
site where there is no median and a steeper vertical road grade.

Response III.K 6b:

The right turn in/right turn out access that is proposed to be provided as a secondary
access for the Site is subject to the Highway Work Permit from NYSDOT. The access is
proposed to provide improved on site circulation and has been designed to NYSDOT
standards to ensure that left turns entering and exiting this access will not be possible.
Appropriate sight distances would also be provided for vehicles exiting this access
connection. In addition, the right turn in/right turn out access would be signed
appropriately with No Left Turn signs to further enforce these prohibited movements.
It should be noted that the traffic analysis contained in Revised Traffic Impact Study
contained in the FEIS Appendix G assumes that all traffic will enter and exit at the main
access opposite Mohansic Avenue to provide a conservative analysis. This analysis
indicates that the main access can accommodate the full load of site generated traffic if
NYSDOT were to not allow the right turn in/right turn out access. It should be noted that
NYSDOT has provided detailed comments on the main access driveway and the
Applicant proposed improvements (which are discussed in detail in the Introductory
Response to Section III.K) in their letter dated J anuary 24, 2013 and a subsequent email
dated April 5, 2013.

Comment III.K 6c - (Document 60.6, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim
Miller), (136.7, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):


Traffic Issues

3.0 DEIS No Build Traffic Analysis

A proper traffic analysis must consider projects that are in the planning process and
such a review must also take into account vacant buildings that could be occupied in

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-27

the time frame that the Costco is built and operating.

However, the No Build Condition in the DEIS did not consider the many vacant
businesses that were cited in the DEIS (see DEIS Appendix K Market Study and
Commercial Character Assessment).

There are more than 30 unidentified stores and the following vacant uses that were
formerly occupied as follows:

1. Emigrant Savings Bank
2. Bed Bath and Beyond
3. Ernestos Grill
4. NA-2 Store Front
5. Currys
6. Auto Sales
7. Bella Vita Trattoria
8. Tali J ewelry and Design
9. Pure Weight Loss
10. Charlie Browns
11.Aveda
12. Under Care Auto Body Shop
13. Neil Garden
14. Bagels and More
15. Yorktown Physical Medical and Rehab
16. Printing and Copying
17. Yorktown Delicatessen
18. Seek A Geek
19. Heights Bakery and Cafe
20. Green Earth Cleaning
21. Westchester Art & Frame
22. Blooms Delicatessen
23. Food Emporium
24. H&B Brook
25. Up Front Boutique

The No Build Condition did not include trips generated by these 55 [sic]vacant
businesses.

While there is a recession that has affected occupancies of local businesses, it is
unlikely to last forever and if traffic from the occupancy of these businesses are not
taken into account, all local intersections will be burdened much more than that
revealed in the DEIS. If these businesses each average 3,000 square feet, their total

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-28

size would be 165,000 square feet or larger than the proposed Costco. How can the
Town of Yorktown and Route 202 accommodate traffic from a Costco, the re-
occupancy of these businesses, and a large project on the State Land site?

Response III.K 6c:

The No-Build analysis contained in the DEIS included traffic for other specific
projects, which were identified by the Yorktown Planning Department, included the
Crompond Crossing, Temple of Israel Site, the Field Home Expansion, a potential
supermarket development on the Adrian Property
1
and the Pulte Homes Project which
was the previously proposed single family development proposal for the State Land
property. Note that on April 2, 2012, a petition was submitted to the Yorktown Town
Board to rezone the State Lands property to allow for a commercial use. J ohn Collins
Engineers, P.C. (now Maser Consulting P.A.) was involved with the original State
Land application in the 80s and 90s when Home Depot was proposed on that
property and have provided State Land updated information for their rezoning request
as outlined in the J ohn Collins Engineers, P.C. report dated March 2012. That
updated March 2012 report for the State Land rezoning request includes consideration
of the traffic generation for the Costco Development. Also note that if the rezoning
request is granted, the Design Year for the State Land project would be 2016 or
beyond, which is after the projected opening of the Costco store.

Relative to the comments on other background traffic and accounting for vacancies in
the Town, the historical traffic count database which was used in the DEIS traffic
report includes references to traffic data from NYSDOT, from the Sustainable
Development Study and other studies that had previously been completed by J ohn
Collins Engineers, P.C. (now Maser Consulting, P.A.) in the Town of Yorktown.
Much of the database was collected between the early 2000s through 2010 and the
most significant of those businesses (including as many as 15 of those businesses) on
the Tim Miller Associates (TMA) list of 25 vacant spaces (believed by the
Applicant to be inadvertently stated as 55 in the last sentence to Comment III.K6c)
were in fact occupied during the time when many of these other counts were
collected. The specific major developments, which are on the list, that were known to
be occupied at the time of these other historical traffic data surveys include the
Emigrant Savings Bank, Bed Bath & Beyond, Ernestos Grill, Currys Auto Sales,
Bella Vita Trattoria, Charlie Browns, Bagels and More, Yorktown Physical Medical
and Rehab, Printing and Copying, Yorktown Delicatessen, Seek A Geek, Heights
Bakery and Caf, Blooms Delicatessen and Food Emporium. Others on the list may

1
The Adrian Property is located on the north side of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 between
Stony Street and Old Crompond Road. Adrian Auto Body is currently contained on a portion of
this property.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-29

also have been occupied at the time of the various surveys. Furthermore, the traffic
volumes contained in the DEIS traffic report as well as the Revised Traffic Impact
Study contained in FEIS Appendix G for existing conditions used the highest
historical base traffic volumes for the various intersections studied. Thus, any traffic
from these major vacancies have already been considered in the base traffic volumes
used in the DEIS traffic analysis and the Revised Traffic Impact Study analysis.

Also, note the Bed Bath & Beyond store that had moved to Cortlandt from the BJ s
Shopping Center now requires that residents of Yorktown, or other points from the
east or south, to travel along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 or U.S. Route 6 to get to
Bed Bath & Beyond. Since the store has relocated, many of those trips are still
present on the area roadways, but now have to travel further.

In summary, with respect to background traffic conditions, there are typically some
vacant spaces as a result of normal tenant turnover, but the conservative methodology
for establishing the base traffic data, which was utilized in the DEIS Traffic Study
used the highest observed historical volumes at area intersections such as the Triangle
intersection and/or at the BJ s Shopping Center resulting in a base traffic volume
condition which accounted for these vacancies. Thus, the use of the historical traffic
data in the analysis has accounted for the traffic from these other developments, some
of which may currently be vacant. Furthermore, as part of standard practices, a
separate growth factor of 2.0% per year was also applied to these base traffic
volumes to account for additional background traffic growth and other miscellaneous
traffic increases in the area. See Section III.A of the Revised Traffic Impact Study
contained in FEIS Appendix G for a further discussion of the background growth
factor. Based on the information discussed above, the Revised Traffic Impact Study
accounts for the traffic from the vacancies identified in the Comment.

Comment III.K 6d - (Document 60.6, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim

4.0 Costco Trip Generation

Trip Generation is perhaps one of the most important elements in the traffic study.
These project generated trips are added to the No Build volumes to ascertain future
road and intersection operations when a project is fully built and occupied.

A major defect of the DEIS is the fact that the trip generation of the fuel facility has
not been evaluated. This omission can not be corrected in a Final EIS unless the fuel
facility is dropped as an element of the project.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-30

Section 617.9 of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act would
dictate the Towns next action. ..that of requiring this omission to be addressed in a
Supplemental EIS. SEQRA specifically states that a Supplemental EIS is applicable
when there is specific significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or
inadequately addressed in the EIS that arise from: newly discovered information.

The fact that the DEIS did not address the trip generation and traffic impact of the
fueling facility component of the proposed project represents such newly discovered
information.

Attachment B reviews the trip generation in the DEIS and explains why the trip
generation used in the traffic study is unrealistically low and therefore does not
accurately evaluate road and intersection impacts on Route 202.

a. The DEIS traffic study uses ITE rates for a discount club for the weekday
p.m. and Saturday peak hours.

b. The ITE data did not include data from discount clubs with major gas
dispensing facilities as is proposed at this site.

c. The trip generation for this project as presented in the DEIS did not account
for the high volumes of traffic that will come to the site for gas purchases only
for the weekday p.m. and Saturday peak hours. The a.m. peak hour
underestimates trips by selection of a location near New J ersey as
representative.

d. The DEIS indicates that the gas facility will receive between one to five
tanker trucks of fuel a day. If the site receives 9,000 to 45,000 gallons of fuel a
day, it will dispense that fuel to approximately 600 to 3000 cars per day (at 15
gallons per vehicle).

e. Some of these cars will be shopping at Costco, however, a large portion will
simply be buying gas except in the a.m. peak hour when fuel facility trips will
be the majority of site trips.

f. Each car represents two trips...thus the DEIS traffic study underestimates trips
by a substantial amount.

g. Actual count data at other Costcos with gas dispensing stations supports the
fact that this DEIS (using ITE rates in the weekday p.m. and Saturday peak
hour and a Costco site in the a.m. peak hour) underestimates traffic

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-31

h. These additional trips will overburden the network above and beyond that
presented in the DEIS. There are eleven intersections that based on the Costco
traffic study with Costcos mitigation that will operate with a level of service
F. This failing condition will be even worse than presented.

The McMahon report (Traffic Impact Study for the Brinton Lake Corporate Center
Phase VII-B, Concord Township, Delaware County, PA, November 17, 2009 page
16) was referenced in this DEIS. This report was provided to the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation to make the case that Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates are too high. It states Based on the data
published by ITE, as well as discussions with ITE representatives, it is our
understanding that none of the studies conducted for discount clubs (ITE Land Use
Code 857) specifically include gas sales. ITEs

Trip Generation specifically does note that fueling facilities are not a part of all
Discount Club trip generation data. Table 3 shows trip generation for the Costco
project as presented in the DEIS, and compares that to the trip generation from _a
Costco fueling station using data presented by Costco itself with ITE Trip Generation
data for a discount club. Table 1 indicates the DEIS has underestimated traffic as
follows:

under projected traffic in the weekday am. peak hour by 190 trips,
under projected traffic in the weekday p.m. peak hour 420 trips, and
under projected traffic in the Saturday peak hour by 450 trips.

Source: Tim Miller Associates Letter Dated October 15, 2012

ATTACHMENT B
Trip Generation

Trip Generation Comments
Trip Generation Based on Fuel Deliveries


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-32

The DEIS indicates that tanker trucks will deliver fuel one to five times daily, (Costco
DEIS lll.K.3.b page lll.K-47) however, the Traffic Impact Study (page 21) does not
reflect the vehicle trips that such an amount of fuel sales would incur.

Tanker trucks carry between 6,000 to 15,000 gallons of gasoline.

The DEIS provides no data on the capacity of the tanker trucks, or if combination
loads (double bottoms) would be used. Also there is no data provided on the
frequency of the high demand (five loads per day). Appendix G of the Traffic
Impact Study does not contain information on truck deliveries as suggested in the
DEIS on page Ill.K-47 and the Traffic Impact Study page 21.

With a typical tanker delivering 9,000 gallons, five times per day, deliveries could
reach 45,000 gallons per day.

The gas station is open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. or 15 hours. That is 3000 gallons per
hour average. At 15 gallons per vehicle that should be an average of 200 vehicles or
400 vehicles trips (one trip in and one trip out per vehicle) for a 3000 gallon average
hour.

To estimate peak hour traffic. 15 percent of the daily total (45,000 gallons per day)
was used. With a peak demand at 6,750 gallons, a fueling rate of 15 gallons per
vehicle would generate 450 vehicles or 900 trips during peak hour periods. This level
of traffic exceeds the DEIS p.m. peak hour traffic for the entire site by 40 percent.

A separate sensitivity analysis is necessary for network traffic, site queuing, and air
quality based on this scenario.

ITE and Costco Fuel Facility Trip Generation

Since the Traffic Impact study suggests 2-3 fuel deliveries daily (Page 53), Table B-2
has been assembled based on 2.5 deliveries in a typical day. It is noted that this would
be half the traffic of a scenario with five deliveries daily.

Trip generation data specific to Costco fuel stations was collected between 2008 and
2011 as described in a memorandum from Kittelson & Associates, Inc. to Costco
Wholesale (J une 29, 2011). The number of trips per fuel pump was over 25.16 trips
per fueling pump in the p.m. peak hour and 27.12 trips per fueling pump in the
Saturday peak.

For comparison purposes the average p.m. peak hour rate of the adjacent street traffic
was 13.87 trips per fueling pump with a maximum of 27.33 trips per fueling pump for

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-33

gasoline service stations in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation, 8th edition, Washington DC, 2008.

The average of the 14 Costco fueling stations surveyed for the p.m. peak hour was
slightly below the peak the maximum station surveyed in Trip Generation.
The aforementioned Kittleson memorandum indicated that Costcos fueling stations
weekday average trip generation is 417 trips and Saturday of 452 trips. For Costcos
Kirkland Station a.m. peak hour trips were projected at 220 trips (110 in and 110 out).
The am. peak hour is nearly double the projected a.m. peak hour used for the entire
Yorktown Costco estimate.

The Kittlson & Associates memorandum (Page 4) indicates that there is not a
significant difference between 16 and 20 pump locations with respect to trip
generation. It goes on to state that factors other than pump stations are more
important variables in determining trip generation.

The projected fuel deliveries as stated in the DEIS suggests that the 12 pump
Yorktown site will have trip generation similar to a 16 to 20 pump station. This
further indicates the need for queue and air quality analysis at the fueling station.

Table B-1 shows a.m. peak hour trips estimates of the Yorktown Costco fuel facility
based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, the Kirkland
Station estimate, and an estimate based on tanker deliveries of gas. The Kittelson &
Associates, Inc. Study indicated that fuel facility traffic is not all internal traffic,
rather only 35 percent in the p.m. peak and 34 percent in the Saturday peak.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-34


Pennsylvania Study

The Pennsylvania trip generation study should not be used to substantiate that the ITE
Discount Club rates are too high and that other Costco studies indicate ITE rates are
actually too low.

The DEIS Traffic Impact Study uses the ITE rates for the p.m. and Saturday peak
hour periods. The trip generation is substantiated based in part on a Costco Study of
four facilities in Pennsylvania and one in New J ersey referred to as the McMahon
study.

The McMahon study
1
suggested that Costco has a lower trip generation than that
provided by ITE.

In the McMahon study, the highest trip generating Costco has 750 trips and lowest
244 in the weekday p.m. peak hour. In the Saturday peak hour these vary from 462 to
924 trips in the peak hour.

The New J ersey location near a Walmart, Target. BJ s, Best Buy, and Kmart produces
the fewest trips. Of the competing developments, Costco is furthest from the state
roadway.

The second lowest trip generating store of the five stores is further from the highway
than the nearby Sams Club that was reviewed on August 27, 2012 as matching the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-35

Costco gas price. This competition is likely partially the cause for lower trip
generation.

Table B-2 indicates a genuine disparity in the data. Two of the five stores in the
Pennsylvania study are generating less traffic than just the fuel facility at other
locations in the Kittelson & Associates study in the p.m. peak hour and not much
more than the fuel facilities during the Saturday peak hour. This does not make much
sense and raises questions regarding the reliability and usability of the McMahon
studys average trip generation of the five stores.


There are other locations (Melville and Hackensack, NJ ) that show higher trip
generation in Table B-3 than highest trip generating Costco of the Pennsylvania stores
(Lancaster, PA).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-36


Site Trip Generation

The trip generation presented in the DEIS appears to be for the retail facility only for
the weekday p.m. peak hour and Saturday peak hour. The weekday p.m. peak hour
and Saturday peak hour fuel facility would be another about 50 percent of that
projected for the entire site. This difference of 50 percent is detailed in Table B-1 that
analyzes Costco fuel station data, DEIS projected fuel deliveries, and ITE data. These
projections of weekday p.m. peak hour and Saturday peak hour traffic indicate the
DEIS may have underestimated by 400 to 450 trips. The gas delivery data suggests
that during peak days, traffic maybe underestimated by 900 trips.

This additional 50 percent increase in traffic cannot be addressed as being all internal
traffic. The Kittleson Memorandum prepared at Costcos request (Kittleson &
Associates, Inc. Memorandum to Costco Wholesale J une 29, 2011)... suggests
internal traffic accounts for about 35 percent of the p.m. peak hour and 34 percent of
the Saturday fuel station traffic. Furthermore the NYS DOT pass-by rate of 25
percent is also likely reasonably accurate when considering a third of pass-by vehicles
32 percent to 39 percent of fuel facility traffic may also be internal traffic.

Review of Costco fuel station data, ITE trip generation data on gas stations, and the
DEIS estimates of fuel to be delivered indicates the a.m. peak hour traffic of the fuel
facility would be about double the 60 entering 55 exiting trips DEIS projection of the
entire site.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-37

The basis for the DEIS project, a fueling facility in Nanuet, NY would be expected to
have low trip generation especially during a commutation period because of the
availability of cheap gas a few miles south in New J ersey. This competition would
not be available in the area of the Yorktown site where the facility is expected to
undercut current gas prices.


Weekday Midday

Weekday peak hour is from 11:00 to 2:00 p.m. for Discount Clubs based on ITE
although as discussed this does not account for the influence of the fuel facility.

The Midwestern Consulting study2 indicates peak trip generation occurs prior to the
peak p.m. commuter period. Since peak Costco traffic would occur about the same
time as Yorktown schools that use Route 351202, the school p.m. peak hour of traffic
should be investigated.

Data Underreporting


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-38

Some Costco studies may be under reporting actual trip generation. For example, the
Midwestern Consulting study indicates their data is based one vehicle per
membership card swipes at the warehouse and one per fuel transactions.

For each of the five Michigan Cost co locations, data was provided for
each hour of the day and each day of the week concerning fuel sales
transactions at the fuel facilities and membership card swipes at the
entrance for the warehouse. These data are assumed to represent ingress
vehicle trips generated at each location at a frequency of one vehicle per
recorded fuel transaction and one vehicle per member ship card swipe at
the warehouse.

This may be accurate for members but it ignores employees, guests, vehicles bailing
out of gas lines, and deliveries.

Any of Costcos trip generation data must be clarified as to whether they were actual
traffic counts or based on card swipes or other methodology.

The trip generation data presented at Costco facilities should be carefully reviewed as
to whether the data used (groups of people or card swipes etc.) are replacing traffic
counts. There is no information presented in such cases regarding how employees,
deliveries, guests, nonmembers, etc. are treated in non-vehicular traffic counts. At this
proposed facility, the presence of three bypass lanes in the fueling facilities suggests
that people do bail out of fueling lines prior to making a purchase. Actual traffic
counts would include fuel line bailouts trips unlike card swiping data.

ITE has a standard methodology for trip generation and requires use of actual vehicle
counts.

The 9th edition of Trip Generation does not to provide different categories for
Discount Clubs with and without fueling facilities.

Response III.K 6d:
Based on the information provided by the Applicant and from surveys performed by
the Applicants consultant of other facilities including Costcos existing locations in
Nanuet, New York and Brookfield, Connecticut, both of which include fueling
facilities, the trip rates in the DEIS represent typical operating conditions including
the fueling facility traffic generation. A further discussion of the data provided by the
Applicant and the surveys of the Nanuet & Brookfield facilities is provided in Section
III.B of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G. The
Applicant asserts that the Nanuet location is in excess of 4 miles from the New J ersey
State Line and is located in proximity to the Interstate 287 corridor, which is a major

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-39

east/west highway in Rockland County. Due to its distance from New J ersey, the
Applicant asserts that it is unlikely that a significant portion of traffic would divert to
New J ersey to purchase gasoline. In addition, the Nanuet fueling facility is open for
use by anyone regardless of whether they are a Costco member or not. The proposed
Yorktown Costco fueling facility will only be open to Costco members and therefore
the Applicant asserts that it would not generate as much traffic as the Nanuet facility
or as a stand-alone gas station. In addition, the temporal data provided by Costco for
their Nanuet, NY and Brookfield, CT locations presented in Table TD-1 of the
Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G and further discussed in
Response III.K.71 confirms the period of peak trip generation used in the DEIS.

The Applicants consultant has also provided an updated table showing the estimated
trips used in the DEIS Traffic Study for the Costco store and the fueling facility
separately (see Table No. 1 contained in Appendix B of the Revised Traffic Impact
Study contained in FEIS Appendix G) and shows each car as an entry trip and an exit
trip. It should be noted that many of the trips to the site would be dual purpose trips
that would visit both the Costco store and fueling facility in the same trip. This factor
had also been accounted for in the trip generation estimates for the fueling facility
used in the DEIS analysis as well as the analysis presented in the Revised Traffic
Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G

The Tim Miller Associates comments also discusses the trip generation data provided
by Costco from the McMahon Associates report that was included in the DEIS
(Appendix G of the DEIS Traffic Impact Study contained in DEIS Appendix E). This
information was provided by the Applicant and included in the DEIS for reference
only. These trip generation rates were not used to estimate the trips to be generated by
the Proposed Action.

There is much information presented in the Tim Miller Associates report relative to
traffic generated by the fueling facilities based on fuel deliveries. The Applicant
projects that there will be 2-3 daily fuel deliveries to the proposed site, which would
equate to approximately 2,000 daily vehicle trips generated by the fueling facility.
The fueling facility will be open from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM (15 hours per day).
Therefore, the fueling facility will average approximately 135 trips per hour,
however, as indicated in the Kittelson & Associates Memorandum dated J une 29,
2011 referenced in this Comment, which studied fueling facility operations at the
Kirkland, Washington Costco facility, as much as 35% of these trips will be dual
purpose trips that will also visit the Costco store in the same trip. It should be noted
that while there tends to be some peaking fueling facility trips that generally
coincides with the peak hours of traffic along the adjacent roadways, fueling trips
tend to be spread out over the day with less peaking then other land uses.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-40

J acobs Engineering (the Towns Traffic Consultant reviewing the Proposed Action
for the Planning Board) had also requested an additional evaluation which would take
into consideration the potential effect of potentially higher trip generation at the Site.
A separate Sensitivity Analysis with the higher trip generation referenced in the TMA
discussion above has been completed and is included in the Revised Traffic Impact
Study contained in FEIS Appendix G. Table No. 1-S contained in the Revised Traffic
Impact Study summarizes the trip generation volumes used in this analysis. The
results of the Sensitivity Analysis are discussed in Section III.J of the Revised Traffic
Impact Study and summarized in Table No. 2-S contained in Appendix E of the
Revised Traffic Impact Study. As indicated in the Revised Traffic Impact Study, the
results of this Sensitivity Analysis confirm the findings of the DEIS that the traffic
generated by the Proposed Action can be accommodated without significantly
changing the expected operating conditions in the study area.

The Tim Miller Associates comments also discuss the potential need for a Weekday
Midday Peak Hour analysis coinciding with the exit hours of the Yorktown Schools.
This is discussed in detail in FEIS Response III.K.73 as well as in Section II.B of the
Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, which indicates that a
Midday Peak Hour analysis is not required since traffic volumes along NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 during the Midday hours are approximately 75% to 95% less than
during the PM Peak Hour which occurs between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM.

Finally, the Tim Miller Associates comments request a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) to evaluate trip generation and traffic impact of the fueling
facility component. The trip generation from the proposed fuel station was included
in the DEIS traffic analysis, and is listed separately and amplified in the FEIS traffic
analysis. The SEQRA regulations authorize the use of an FEIS to provide additional
information requested in comments on the DEIS. 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(9). The
regulations cited to in the comment authorize the use of an FEIS to assess new
information that was not assessed in either the DEIS or the FEIS. 6 NYCRR
617.9(a)(7). As traffic impacts from the fueling station have been assessed, an SEIS
is not warranted.

Comment III.K 6e - (Document 60.6, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim

5.0 Level of Service and Delay

The DEIS is confusing in that it does not set a clear time line providing when and
who is providing what transportation improvements, for example it is unclear if
Costco will complete the New York State Department of Transportation

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-41

improvements at the site access if Costco is built first. Yet no analysis was made
based on Costco opening without the NYS DOT improvements at the access being
built or with the elimination of the westbound channel. Table 4 shows if Costco were
to open prior to the NYS DOT improvements 13 intersections would have a level of
service F and delays would be increasing at ten of those.



_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-42

Table 2 does not include a sensitivity analysis with regard to the traffic assignment in
particular if a portion of the pass-by traffic should be traffic diverted off the Taconic
State Parkway. Traffic counts have not been provided as part of the DEIS for the
public or Towns consultant to review. In particular peak hour factors that are key to
the analysis are not shown in the level of service analysis sheets nor can they be
computed without the actual counts. These key variables are used to establish the 15
minute volumes within the hour the level of service analysis is based on. Thus,
without the actual counts these key variables can not be checked by the public or the
Towns traffic consultant.

The impacts to the traffic network of the additional traffic generated as detailed in
Section 4 of this report is not shown in Table 2.

Numerous errors in the traffic analysis within the DEIS result in errors in the DEIS
summary tables and therefore do not provide the Board, Public and the New York
State Department of Transportation with an accurate evaluation of the traffic
conditions.

These errors and omissions (see Attachment C) include the following:

queue storage has not been taken into account
Spill back blocking other intersections has not been evaluated or disclosed
Incorrect (low) no build and build trip generation volumes improperly used
distribution of traffic by lane not properly evaluated
Incorrect lane geometry was used in level of service calculations
contradictory lane geometry utilized
illegal traffic signal phasing utilized
right-turn-on-red volumes unrealistically high

These errors call for a reevaluation and update of the traffic study and level of service
analysis. Software and methodologies that can properly evaluate queuing, spillback
and delay implications must be utilized and the background data, and computer files
should be available for public review.

ATTACHMENT C
DEIS Traffic Analysis Issues

The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) also does not account for queues that exceed
storage lengths blocking adjacent lanes (Storage Blocking), traffic queuing back into
an adjacent intersection (Spillback), nor green times when vehicles can not approach
due to red sign at the adjacent upstream intersection (starvation). All these currently

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-43

occur in the section between Mohansic Avenue and Strang Boulevard. The Planning
Board should require the Synchro software analysis that does identify such issues that
was provided to the NYS DOT to be reviewed and made part of SEQRA process with
adequate time for comment and review.

There are additional concerns about the HCS traffic analysis provided in the DEIS. In
the Highway Capacity Software right-(turn)-on-red (ROR) volumes are virtually
ignored or subtracting out of the right turn volumes. In the DEIS right-turn-on-red are
shown sometimes over 80 percent of the right turn volume and in some cases 100
percent of the right turn volumes. These are very usual. For example in one case the
right turn volume shares the lane with through and left traffic and would have about a
70 percent chance of being trapped behind a through or left turn traffic even if the
opportunity presented itself for right-on-red. This is also occurring where the
probably of arriving at a red light is lower for example is only 50 percent of the time.
A random arrival would suggest right-on-red would not exceed 50 percent of the right
turn volume. It is impossible to check these incredibly high right-on-red volumes
without reviewing actual counts and knowing if these are actual counts.

The Mohansic Avenue intersection with Route 35/202 is an unusual intersection in its
layout and use of the eastbound right turn lane in conjunction with the Taconic State
parkway southbound on ramp channel. Because the distance is so short between
Mohansic and the ramp the eastbound right turn lane is used as a through lane by
vehicles using the eastbound channel to the Taconic State Parkway on-ramp. In terms
of analysis the eastbound right lane at Mohansic Avenue is striped as a right turn lane
but functions as a through-right lane. As the models purpose is to simulate reality the
lane was correctly input as a through-right lane. However as there is approximately a
one-to-three ratio of vehicles using right lane to vehicles using the (left) through lane
this must also be included in the analysis. Failure to adjust for this variable the model
assumes a nearly one-to-one volume ratio between the lanes. For example for 1600
vehicles under a one-to-one ratio the model would approximately 800 vehicles to
each lane rather than approximately 400 to the right lane and 1200 to the through
lane. It is the 1200 vehicles in the through lane that is critical to account for in traffic
signal operations. Although the analysis provided in the DEIS does not show the lane
use variable, the eastbound and westbound through traffic delays at Mohansic
Avenue indicate lane usage was not considered.

The site plan shows the southbound main access road as being a left turn lane and a
lane allowing all movements. This is inconsistent with the Traffic Impact Study that
has a left turn lane and a through-right turn (does not allow left turns) lane. Also the
site plan shows northbound a left-through lane and the Traffic Study shows a left turn
lane and through right lane. Based on the geometry the Through right configuration
lines up better with the receiving lane.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-44

The site plan shows a right of way taking for northbound Mohansic Avenue. It is not
clear who owns the property and whether the Applicant can implement this without a
taking. If the intention is to use a dual left southbound then the lane usage is critical
as is the signing (not provided) as the shared lane left turning traffic should be traffic
destined for the Taconic State parkway southbound ramp. This would impact lane
utilization.

The Saturday volumes Build with improvements southbound are also wrong.
The analysis sheet for Mohansic Avenue intersection with improvements in the p.m.
peak hour is not provided in the DEIS. The Saturday and am. peak hour phasing are
different in the Saturday peak hour permits a northbound left turn during the
exclusive southbound phase. This can not be permitted as the Manual of Uniform
Traffic Controls would require no conflicting movements during a northbound left
turn arrow.

The HCS analysis of the Taconic Parkway southbound ramps is showing an extra
westbound through lane rather than a left turn lane.

If the HCS files were export files from SYNCHRO or used to develop the
SYNCHRO files then these SYNCHRO files provided to the NYS DOT also would
be similarly erroneous.

These errors are from cursory look a a few of the study intersections and without the
detailed traffic volumes or files to check further details.

Table C-1 shows the impacts of the trip generation, and correct lanes geometry on
three key intersections using HCS for comparison with the DEIS. The Route 35 &
202 intersections with Mohansic Avenue and the Taconic State Parkway northbound
ramps are each adding two movements with level of service F and having most other
movements with longer delays. The Taconic State Parkway southbound ramp
intersection with NYS Route 35 & 202 has level of service F delays increasing over
ten percent as well has some other movements with delays doubling.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-45


Response III.K 6e:
The HCS Software, which was used to perform the DEIS analysis, is an accepted
program for computing Level of Service and delays at intersections as per the
NYSDOT Highway Design Manual and the Federal Highway Administration. The
HCS analyses presented in the DEIS Traffic Impact Study were exported from a
Synchro analysis to account for the interaction of nearby traffic signals in each

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-46

intersection analysis. As described further below, the DEIS analysis has been updated
as part of this FEIS using the Synchro Version 8 software in response to public
comments. Both the HCS and Synchro programs provide a good representation of
traffic impacts when comparing Existing, No-Build and Build conditions.

The comments assert that the DEIS did not provide an analysis of conditions without
the proposed NYSDOT improvements. However as shown in Table No. 2 of the
DEIS Traffic study, contained in DEIS Appendix E, the analysis was conducted for
each of the intersections where NYSDOT improvements are being completed and the
table shows results both with and without these improvements under No-Build and
Build conditions. As contained in the DEIS Traffic Study, at many of the
intersections, the Levels of Service will in fact be improved from current conditions
upon completion of the NYSDOT road work. These include the areas of the Bear
Mountain Parkway Extension (BMPE) at Stony Street, Stony Street at NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202, NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202/Pine Grove Court and the BMPE
at NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202. These are significant since these locations
represent some of the major existing capacity and safety problem areas in the
corridor. Based on the analysis contained in the Revised Traffic Impact Study, the
NYSDOT roadway improvements, which commenced in April 2013 and according to
NYSDOT are planned to be substantially completed in Summer 2014, will also
accommodate the traffic associated with the Proposed Action and the capacity and
safety issues at those particular locations mentioned above will be addressed. It
should be noted that the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G
indicates that the traffic generated by the Proposed Action will not impact traffic
operations at the intersections being improved by NYSDOT when compared to No-
Build conditions with the NYSDOT improvements. In addition, this Comment also
states that the DEIS traffic analysis indicates that as many as 13 intersections will
operate at failing Levels of Service if the Proposed Action were to be completed prior
to the completion of the NYSDOT improvements. This comment is no longer
applicable since the NYSDOT improvements have commenced and as stated are
projected to be completed in Summer of 2014.

Furthermore, signal timing improvements have been identified in the DEIS Traffic
Study as well as the Revised Traffic Impact Study, for some of the locations which
are more remote from the site and it should be noted that some of these are problem
intersections with or without the Proposed Action. Additional improvements at these
locations have also been identified as potential long term improvements for the Town
to pursue with NYSDOT, but based on the Revised Traffic Impact Study are not
required to accommodate the traffic generated by the Proposed Action. More specific
modifications to the intersections immediately adjacent to the Costco site, such as the
Taconic ramps and at Mohansic Avenue, are incorporated into the current Applicant

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-47

funded improvement plans as discussed in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section
III.K.

The DEIS traffic analysis has been revised in this FEIS and a Revised Traffic Impact
Study is contained in FEIS Appendix G. The analysis has specifically incorporated
modifications to the analysis to reflect the latest SYNCHRO Version 8, the additional
improvements being completed by NYSDOT and the most recent roadway
improvements proposed to be completed by the Applicant for the intersections from
Strang Boulevard, the Taconic Parkway ramps and the site access/Mohansic Avenue.
These analyses include the revised signal phasing and timings based on the latest
traffic signal timing information available from NYSDOT, queue storage areas, and
current lane geometry. Also note that a separate Sensitivity Analysis was also
completed and is discussed in detail in Section III.J of the Revised Traffic Impact
Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, which addresses all issues relative to the
comments raising the issue of potentially higher traffic generation as a result of the
higher fuel facility usage.

The factors (peak hour factors, heavy vehicle percentages, etc.) used in both the
updated DEIS analysis and Sensitivity Analysis are based on actual count data
collected at the area intersections. The specific traffic volume counts for the study
area intersections were not included in the DEIS since it was not required as part of
the scoping document. However, the traffic volume counts are now included in
Appendix H of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G. In
addition, the peak hour factors (PHFs) used in the original DEIS analysis were shown
for the unsignalized intersections but not for the signalized intersections. The updated
DEIS analysis and Sensitivity Analysis (using Synchro Version 8) contained in
Revised Traffic Impact Study now show all factors used in the analysis. In addition,
the right turn on red volumes used in the DEIS analysis were based on calculated
values provided by Synchro and imported into the HCS. The right turn on red
volumes used in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G are
also based on the Synchro analysis calculations.

The Tim Miller Associates report provides comments about lane utilization at the
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 intersection with Mohansic Avenue and the proposed
site access. The Revised Traffic Impact Study analysis accounts for the existing
eastbound lane utilization for which the left hand through lane is used for vehicles
continuing through the southbound Taconic State Parkway entrance ramp and the
right hand through/right turn lane is mainly used for traffic entering the Taconic State
Parkway southbound. In addition, the Build analyses and site plan now both correctly
show the northbound Mohansic Avenue approach as shared left/through lane and a
separate right turn lane. The southbound site access approach will consist of a
separate left turn lane and a shared left/through/right turn lane. The southbound

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-48

approach will be signed appropriately to indicate that the separate left turn lane
should be used for traffic destined to the Taconic State Parkway northbound and areas
to the east along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and that the shared left/through/right
lane should be used for traffic entering the Taconic State Parkway southbound. Since
the proposed site access will function with a double left turn exiting the site, the
northbound and southbound approaches at this intersection will operate on separate
(split) phases. This has been included in the Revised Traffic Impact Study analyses
contained in FEIS Appendix G.

It should also be noted that the intersection of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and the
Taconic State Parkway southbound ramp incorrectly analyzed the westbound
approach as a shared left/through lane and a separate through lane. This has been
corrected in the Revised Traffic Impact Study analyses contained in FEIS Appendix
G which now correctly analyzes the westbound approach as a separate left turn lane
and separate through lane under Existing and No-Build conditions. Under Build
conditions, the improvements to be undertaken by the Applicant would add an
additional westbound through lane in this area and this has been accounted for in the
analysis.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Tim Miller report also reflects comments on
hypothetical trip generation based on fuel deliveries. The trip generation estimates
used in the Revised Traffic Impact Study are based on actual data collected at other
existing Costco facilities including the Nanuet, New York and Brookfield,
Connecticut facilities as noted in Response III.K.6. Furthermore, the Sensitivity
Analysisdiscussed in Section III.J of the Revised Traffic Impact Study, which uses
the trip generation shown in the above Table B-4 prepared by the commenter from
Page B-5 of the Tim Miller letter dated October 15, 2012, indicates that if these
additional trips were generated by the Proposed Action they would be adequately
accommodated on the roadway network. Also note that the Revised Traffic Impact
Study analysis contained in FEIS Appendix G is based on the latest SYNCHRO
Version 8 and the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and addresses all signal phasing,
lane assignment and other factors as raised by the commenter. The revised DEIS
analysis and sensitivity analysis have also been submitted to NYSDOT as part of the
Highway Work Permit review process.

Comment III.K 7 - (Document 63.1, William Kellner), (PH1, William Kellner):


My name is William Kellner. I am a resident of the Town of Yorktown residing at
1701 Hunterbrook Road. I am submitting these comments as a private citizen.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-49

The focus of my comments is the question of whether there is adequate access by
public transportation to the site of the proposed Costco Wholesale Store. Sections of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that deal with this topic include
parts of Section III.K.1.a.iii on pages III.K-7 and III.K-8 of Volume 1, Section
III.K.1.c on page III.K-19 of Volume 1, and Section III.K.3.f.ii on page III.K-86 of
Volume 1.

Public transportation access is important because it allows shoppers and workers who
do not own cars or do not drive the ability to reach the facility. It can serve to lower
greenhouse gas emissions associated with the site by reducing the number of
automobile trips, which also helps to lessen other forms of air and water pollution.
Facilities with high a public transportation access rate can have smaller parking lots
with an attendant reduction in environmental impacts. Good public transportation to
the site allows depressed communities access to jobs.

As the DEIS points out in Section III.K.l.c on page III.K-19 of Volume 1, the only
public transportation to the proposed Costco site is provided by the No. 15 Beeline
Bus. The No. 15 bus travels between Peekskill and White Plains. From Peekskill the
route follows Rt. 6 to Mohegan Lake, Lexington Avenue, Rt. 202/35 past the site,
continuing on to Yorktown Heights, Millwood, Briarcliff Manor, Hawthorne, and
Valhalla.

On weekdays, the No. 15 makes 7 trips from White Plains to Peekskill, with the first
run leaving White Plains at 7:53 am and the last run leaving White Plains at 5:24 pm.
There are 8 trips from Peekskill to White Plains, with the first run leaving Peekskill at
6:10 am and the last at 5:12 pm. Intervals between runs are as much as 2 hours.

On Saturday, there are 2 northbound and 3 southbound trips. There is no service on
Sundays and holidays.

According to the DEIS, the nearest bus stop to the project site is located at the
intersection of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and Strang Boulevard, which is
approximately 1,200 feet from the Costco main driveway access on NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 and approximately 1,700 from the building entrance.

Section III.K.3.f.ii of the DEIS enumerates improvements that will allow pedestrian
access from the bus stop near Strang Boulevard to the project site driveway, including
a sidewalk on the north site of Rt. 35/202 and addition of a pedestrian signal. I have
not been able to determine from the DEIS if the sidewalk will continue along the
driveway to the proposed store building. Also, the drawing entitled Highway
Improvement Plan submitted with the DEIS does not clearly indicate that the new

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-50

sidewalk will run the entire distance between the Strang Boulevard bus stop and the
driveway entrance. However, Section I.K on page I-29 of the DEIS indicates that the
sidewalk will be built from the bus stop to the western edge of the project site along
the Rt. 202/35 right of way.

Approval of this application by the Planning Board must be contingent upon
completion of the sidewalk; to avoid potentially life-threatening hazards, the store
must not be allowed to open until the sidewalk is fully built and available to
pedestrians. Additionally, the sidewalk must be made to continue from the Rt. 202/35
right of way to the store entrance, following the main driveway into the parking lot.
Failure to create a sidewalk that runs all the way from the bus stop on Strang Blvd. to
the store entrance will result in unacceptable hazards to pedestrians.

This Board must also see to it that provision is made for ongoing maintenance of the
sidewalk. There must be a mechanism for timely removal of snow and ice for the
entire length of the sidewalk, including the portion owned by the State of New York
and that owned by the developer or landlord of the Costco site. Failure to provide for
sidewalk maintenance and snow and ice removal will result in potential hazards for
pedestrians and liability for the public and private owners of the sidewalk. Approval
of the project must be contingent upon provision for sidewalk maintenance and
clearing.

The above discussion of the new sidewalk notwithstanding, failure to bring public bus
riders closer to the store entrance is a serious shortcoming of the applicants plan.
Forcing bus riders to walk 1,700 feet (about 1/3 mile) from the store entrance to the
bus stop while carrying their purchases is unacceptable and will result in reduced
public transportation usage by Costco shoppers as well as employees. Mitigation of
this problem could be done by altering the route of the No. 15 bus so that it enters the
project site and continues to a newly-created bus stop close to the store building. This
was done at the Cortlandt Town Centre where buses were rerouted into the site and
bus stops were built close to the store entrances. To force public transportation users
to walk 1,700 feet in inclement weather is tantamount to providing no public
transportation access. It raises a host of accessibility and safety issues.
This Board has as its constituents those who drive and own cars and those who dont.
While the needs of automobile users are carefully considered in the DEIS, public
transportation appears to be an afterthought. I would suggest that members of the
Planning Board make an additional official visit to the project site. This time, instead
of driving, put yourselves in the shoes of the Costco customers and employees who
will arrive by public transportation. I suggest you board the northbound No. 15 bus at
Yorktown Town Hall and ride to the bus stop at Strang Blvd. After leaving the bus,
walk the 1,700 feet to the where the store entrance will be. Then walk back to the bus
stop and board the southbound No. 15 back to Town Hall. This exercise should

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-51

convince you of the inadequacy of public transportation access as enumerated in the
DEIS.

The suggested site visit by bus will inform members of this Board about the lack of
adequate frequency of service provided by the No. 15 bus. Intervals between buses on
week days is much too long for viable access by public transportation for Costco
customers and employees. There is only skeleton service on Saturday and no Sunday
service at all. Again, contrast this with the Cortlandt Town Centre where three bus
lines proved frequent access 7 days a week.

The DEIS fails to provide statistics about potential public transportation usage. It
would be informative to see how many Costco customers and employees arrive by
public transportation at existing Costco locations. The DEIS fails to provide a full
discussion of how adequate public transportation may be provided to the Yorktown
site. Instead, it tersely enumerates the inadequacy of the existing bus service.

Failure to address problems with access to the site by public transportation should
result in the denial of the application by this Board. This would be fully consistent
with the role of the Planning Board as lead agency under SEQRA. It is not 1969.
Yorktown has seen a host of bad development that only considered the needs of the
automobile. In 2012 we know that pedestrians and public transportation users are not
afterthoughts. Projects of the scope of the proposed Costco store that fail to provide
meaningful access by those who are unable or chose not to drive should not be
approved.

APPENDICES (Continued from Document 63.1)

1. No. 15 Beeline bus schedule
4. Transit map of northwestern Westchester County (from 2011 County Transit
Guide)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-52


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-53


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-54


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-55


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-56


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-57


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-58

Response III.K 7:

The Applicants continued coordination with The Westchester County Department of
Public Works and Transportation resulted in agreement to provide a new bus stop
directly in front of the Site on NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 as well as improve the
existing bus stops currently located at Strang Boulevard..

As discussed in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K, the proposed
sidewalk connection that will be constructed as part of the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route
202 improvements to be funded and constructed by the Applicant will provide a
pedestrian connection to the existing bus stops for use by customers and employees to
access the site. The new sidewalk, to be constructed by the Applicant, will run
continuously from Old Crompond Road to Strang Boulevard and will connect with
the sidewalk being constructed as part of the NYSDOT improvement project west of
Old Crompond Road. As shown on FEIS Introductory Exhibit A-4 the sidewalk will
also enter the Project site from NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and continue along the
eastwest side of the main access driveway connecting to the sidewalk along the
frontage of the building. Thus, a continuous pedestrian connection between the
existing bus stops at the Strang Boulevard intersection and the entrance to the
proposed store will be provided by the Applicant. The improvements to be
constructed by the Applicant along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 would also
upgrade these bus stops and would be completed prior to occupancy of the Project
site. The pedestrian signal proposed to be installed by the Applicant at the Strang
Boulevard intersection will provide access to the bus stop on the south side of NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202. The onsite sidewalk will be maintained by the Applicant.
The maintenance of the external sidewalk system will be coordinated with the Town
and NYSDOT as part of the site plan and Highway Work Permit approvals.

In addition, based on the requirements of the NYSDOT, pedestrian crossings of NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202 from Mohansic Avenue and the existing Mobil Station will
also be part of the roadway reconstruction improvements. These pedestrian
improvements, which will improve access to public transportation for
employees/patrons of the Proposed Action, will also improve access for others in the
area and will lead to reductions in traffic congestion and air emission, and will
continue to be coordinated with the County.

Comment III.K 8 - (Document 64.1, Ron Buehl, Huntersville Association), (PH1, Ron Buehl):



_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-59

My name is Ron Buehl. I am president of the Huntersville Association, which has
about 200 active members. As a neighborhood association, we are quite concerned
about the effects of a COSTCO on Rt. 201 [sic]. I will not go into the serious
economic and environmental issues, about which you are hearing a great deal tonight.
Our concern as a neighborhood is the inevitable increase in traffic on Hunterbrook,
Baldwin, and Baptist Church Roads, which are narrow, hilly, and already dangerous
at times. Add to that the increased number of cars and trucks on Rt. 129, and we will
be living a nightmare.

Nowhere in the massive DEIS is there mention of additional traffic on these roads.
The documents traffic study is confined mainly to Rt. 201 [sic], already a nightmare,
and that study is grossly optimistic. As members of the Planning Board, you have to
be aware of the issues I am citing. Please add the Associations concerns to the long
list of flaws in the COSTCO DEIS.

Response III.K 8:

Based on the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, as
identified by the arrival and departure distributions shown on Figures 15 & 15A and
16 & 16A respectively, the majority of traffic (up to approximately 75%) resulting
from the Proposed Action will be on the State Highway system including the Taconic
State Parkway corridor and NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor. The Applicant
asserts that the use of local roads such as Hunterbrook Road and Baptist Church Road
and other area local roadways would primarily be due to residents in the area which
would be accessing the store. Based on the expected arrival and departure
distributions projected by the Applicants consultants, less than 1% of the traffic
generated by the Proposed Action, or between 5 and 10 vehicles per hour in the
highest time period (including trips for the local residences to the site), is expected to
use roadways such as Hunterbrook Road, Baldwin Road and Baptist Church Road.
The Applicant asserts that these roads would not be used for any significant regional
trips to and from the Costco facility because they are not major through streets.
Therefore, the Applicant asserts that increase in traffic volumes along these roadways
related to the Project will not be significant enough to warrant any mitigation.

In addition, the Applicant expects that the improvements proposed to be completed
by the Applicant in the area of the Taconic State Parkway interchange, as well as the
signal timing improvements at other area intersections (see Introductory Response to
FEIS Section III.K), to improve operating conditions along the NYS Route 35/U.S.
Route 202 corridor, as indicated in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in
FEIS Appendix G. This will reinforce the existing preferred route of the NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 for accessing the Costco site and other developments along the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-60

corridor, rather than the circuitous routes provided by Hunterbrook Road, Baptist
Church Road and other similar area roadways.

Comment III.K 9 - (Document 67.1, Richard E. Stanton, Law Office of Richard E. Stanton):

the Community Stakeholders have now identified substantial concerns with:

The conclusions of the Traffic Study and potential adverse secondary impacts on
local communities and neighborhoods; and

The preliminary review of the conclusions in the Developers traffic study has
identified: substantial points of disagreement in the technical assumptions upon which
the modeling was based: a failure to assess all substantive physical aspects of the
project in the modeling: a failure to fully quantify the severity of traffic delays at
failing intersections: an assumption upon future actions by NYSDOT to mitigate
adverse impacts without NYDOT funding or approvals for the assumed mitigation
measures: failure to assess secondary impacts of further adding substantial traffic
loads to the already overburdened route 202/35.

By way of illustration of the outstanding need for information we remind you that
when the traffic consultants initial review identified that there was information that
the Applicants Traffic Study relied upon that was not contained within the DEIS,
they promptly submitted a FOIL demand to the Town and Planning Board. Although
the traffic consultant promptly requested the information under the Freedom of
Information Law over two weeks ago the material requested has not yet been
produced, and based upon the Towns response is not expected to be produced for
another two weeks.

Response III.K 9:

In addition to the Applicant sponsored improvements in the area of the Taconic State
Parkway Interchange and as indicated in FEIS Section III.K Introductory Response,
the Applicant has also proposed traffic signal timing modifications for the several
other area intersections to accommodate both existing and future traffic volumes.
These signal timing improvements will be coordinated with NYSDOT by the
Applicant as part of the Highway Work Permit process.
The Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G addresses all
technical assumptions and has been updated in accordance with all current modeling
requirements based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual using SYNCHRO 8 and
reflect other geometric conditions and signal operations based on accepted standards
as discussed in Responses III.K. 2 and III.K 6e.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-61

The improvements proposed to be funded and constructed by the Applicant and those
currently being constructed separately by the NYSDOT would be completed prior to
the opening of the Proposed Action. The NYSDOT improvements which are
described in more detail in Introductory Response to Section III.K , commenced in
April 2013 and is expected to be completed in 2014. Together, these improvements
will address the majority of the currently failing intersections along the corridor
between Strang Boulevard and the Bear Mountain Parkway Extension and also
accommodate the additional traffic generated by the Proposed Action

On October 26, 2012, the Town of Yorktown Planning Department responded to Mr.
Garofalos September 25 & 26, 2012 request for additional information. The Towns
response is included in FEIS Response III.K 2 and document #96 in FEIS Appendix
A.

Comment III.K 10 - (Document 74.1, Chris Kehoe, Town of Cortlandt Dept. of Technical
Services Planning Division):

The Town of Cortlandt Department of Technical Services has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) dated September 10, 2012 prepared for the
proposed 151,000 square foot Costco Wholesale Club to be located on Route 202/35
at the intersection with the Taconic State Parkway. Our department respectfully offers
the following comments on the project:

1) We request that you carefully evaluate the Route 202/35 Lexington Avenue
intersection at the Yorktown/Cortlandt border since we understand that it operates at a
Level F even after the proposed signal timing improvements. In order to mitigate this
failing intersection and other traffic issues along Route 202/35, the Town of
Yorktown Planning Board should consider requesting that Costco contribute funds for
the construction of a Center Turn Lane/Median on Route 202/35. This improvement,
as recommended in the Sustainable Development Study, would provide vehicles
traveling west with a much needed center lane that will separate vehicles waiting to
make a left to the businesses along this section of road with through traffic.

2) According to the DEIS the closest Fire Station to the proposed project is located in
the Town of Cortlandt on Croton Avenue. Please carefully evaluate the response time
in this already congested corridor. The Planning Board should consider requiring
mitigation for this project to assist the emergency services providers such as traffic
signal preemptive devices for the emergency vehicles.

Response III.K 10:


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-62

The Proposed Action would concentrate roadway improvements in the vicinity of the
Taconic State Parkway interchange to complement the current NYSDOT
improvement project as discussed in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K.
The Applicant has also identified signal timing changes at intersections such as NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202 & Lexington to offset the increase in traffic. As indicated in
the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, these improvements
would result in the intersection operating at an overall Level of Service D during
the AM Peak Hour and at an overall Level of Service E during the Saturday Peak
Hour. An overall Level of Service F would only be experienced during the PM
Peak Hour, but delays during this time period would be improved as compared to No-
Build conditions. In addition it should be noted that a center left turn lane along NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202 is not required to address the impacts of the proposed
action.

At more remote locations, such as Lexington Avenue, the NYSDOT as part of their
long term improvement plans may address any future capacity issues. The issue of a
center turn lane and other improvements along other sections of the corridor could be
addressed in the future by the Town and/or NYSDOT as indicated in Policy 3-6 and
3-7 of the Town of Yorktown Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that in
association with other developments in the area of Garden Lane, conceptual plans for
constructing turn lanes have been developed and the Town may continue to
coordinate these with NYSDOT (see Drawing CP-3 contained in Appendix I of the
Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G). With regard to
emergency response times, the improvements to Route 202/35 in the vicinity of the
Project Site, as provided by the Applicant, would improve traffic flow, decrease
delays, provide shoulders for traffic to pull over in deference to emergency vehicles.
Also refer to FEIS Responses III.P 1a and III.P 1b.

Comment III.K 11 - (PH1, Andrew Fisher):

By the way, I've been -- over the past few years I've been a member and a Chairman
of the Cortlandt Traffic Committee for four years, member for seven years. I was
appointed to the Sustainable Development Study for five years, put at least two
hundred hours of time into that, and I was on the County and Traffic Committee
Planning Board. So, I have a little insight into traffic planning.

The trucks that are going to service this building are all going to come -- they have no
other choice but to come through Route 9 on 684, and they have no choice but to go
through the undersized ill-planned intersections that are sized from the 1940s and
'50s, they can't handle eighteen wheelers today.

They can't handle the trucks coming to Walmart, they can't handle the truck coming

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-63

in to the Cortlandt Town Center, they can't handle trucks coming to BJ s, other than
Route 202. We see that truck deliveries coming to car dealers on Route 202, they
can't fit in the parking lot, because back in those days it wasn't planned properly.
Sometimes they sit smacked in the middle of the turning lane of Route 202 to unload
their cars. It is dangerous. This has to be planned out better.

Now, the applicant may have planned for this on the property, on their property
adequately, but the infrastructure around is not. And while the traffic intersection
improvements that we are talking about, sound great on paper, it's in -- and they
might even helped those poor intersections, it is just a band aid for the region, as other
speakers have said.

The problem will be well beyond Strang Boulevard, and well beyond Pine Brook in
the other direction, unless a regional plan comes together it is not going to work.
[PH1, page 117, lines 4-25], [PH1, page 118, lines 1-21] But, I think you should
specifically detail as to the impacts on the school buses and the impacts on fire
department response time. After the Cortlandt Town Center was built, before it was
build [sic]out until it was built and occupied, the Mohegan Fire Department
volunteers can't make it to calls that have to go across the Lexington Avenue
intersection.
If that volunteer lives west of Lexington Avenue and has a call that has to go on the
east side, they just give up responding anymore because they can't make it across and
vice versa. The department has struggled through all that. Those developers by the
way also contributed money towards Cortlandt for the department, so I haven't heard
any offers of contributions for that from this developer.

School buses. Like, I am in the Lakeland School District, I live right over by Route
202 on the Bear Mountain Parkway. When my kids go to Lakeland Cooper Middle
School, that bus goes right past where this Costco will be, to make a left on the
Taconic to go north, will go left right into 132. Hundreds of buses do that every
morning.

Lakeland School District wasn't asked for comments on this, only the Yorktown
District was. You need to find out about the impacts that cost there to add another
bus route, there is a cost to that. [PH1, page 121, lines 10-25], [PH1, page 122, lines
1-17]

Don't underestimate the gas station impact to that, you will see who was right.
Costco offers cheap discounts on gas, and people are going to be conscious and you
are going to be grossly underestimating the number of traffic trips generated just for
gas. The Costco in Ramapo opens its gas station to non-members frequently as a
marketing tactic from time to time to increase membership. I don't even have a

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-64

problem with that per se, but you need to account for it.
And please don't forget you have an approved plan for the Sinagogue [sic] across the
street from this property, although it hasn't been develop[sic] yet, it is not off the
books and it could be build [sic] and that wasn't accounted for, writing the traffic
impacts. One quick thing, if you end up approving this at the end, I will suggest,
please take your language out that restricts gas station use to members only let that be
Costco's decision the way they run it. . [PH1, page 126, lines 17-25]

Response III.K 11:

The additional truck traffic expected to be generated by the Proposed Action is
estimated at 10 vehicles per day with 2 or 3 of these being fueling delivery vehicles as
indicated by the Applicant. These vehicles will be distributed over the course of the
day and on various routes with the majority to be approaching the site to and from
Interstate 684 and most of these deliveries are expected to occur during off peak
hours. The U.S. Route 9 corridor would also be used as an alternative route for truck
deliveries to the site. The site has been designed to adequately accommodate
movements of trucks to and from the State Highway system including lane widths
and entry and exit radii at the Costco main access intersection with NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202. A further discussion on truck trips generated by the site is
provided in Section III.I of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS
Appendix G. Trucks currently traveling to the Cortlandt Town Center, Walmart, BJ s
or other uses along the corridor including other existing gas stations are expected to
continue as they do today. The improvements currently being constructed by
NYSDOT and as well as the Applicants separately proposed traffic mitigation
measures, would improve traffic operating conditions along thethr corridor, including
providing more efficient processing of truck traffic destined to locations along or
near the NYS Route 35/U.S. 202 corridor.

Furthermore, the improvements along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 between the
Bear Mountain Parkway Extension and Old Crompond Road currently being
constructed by NYSDOT as well as the separately proposed Applicant sponsored
improvements between Old Crompond Road and Strang Boulevard will improve
traffic flow through the area as indicated in the Revised Traffic Impact Study
contained in Appendix G. In fact, turning movements, including movements for
school buses on and off the Taconic State Parkway, will be enhanced as a result of
these improvements. It should also be noted that the proposed Costco warehouse
store would not open until 10:00 AM, which is after the morning school bus traffic.
While the Costco fueling facility would be open during the morning rush hour, the
majority of the trips generated by the site during this time period are expected to be
trips that are already on the roadway system (i.e. existing commuter traffic) passing

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-65

the site along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and/or the Taconic State Parkway.
Therefore, these trips would not be new to the roadway system. (See Revised Traffic
Impact Study Section III.B for a further discussion of pass-by/diverted link trips) The
Applicant has asserted that the proposed improvements at the site access, and the
Taconic State Parkway ramp intersections will accommodate this traffic without
significantly impacting vehicle flow along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202.

The existing Costco fueling facility in Nanuet is available to non-members at all
times. Observations of the fueling facility and the store during peak times support the
trip generation estimates used in the original DEIS Traffic Impact Study contained in
DEIS Appendix E. The Sensitivity Analysis, which is discussed in more detail in
Section III.J of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G
accounts for potentially higher trip generation estimates for the proposed Costco store
and fueling facility than used in the DEIS. As indicated in the Revised Traffic Impact
Study, the results of the Sensitivity Analysis do not change the conclusions of the
original traffic analysis conducted in the DEIS. The Sensitivity Analysis was
considered as part of the design of the roadway improvements to accommodate
turning movements to and from the Site and to and from the Taconic State Parkway.
These improvements proposed to be completed by the Applicant are projected to total
approximately $3.0 million and would be completed at the sole expense of the
Applicant. As part of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in Appendix G
(See Section III.A), other development traffic was accounted for, including traffic
from the synagogue proposal on the property located on Mohansic Avenue south of
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202.

It should be noted that the Applicant intends the proposed Yorktown Costco fueling
facility to serve Costco members only.

Comment III.K 12 - (Document 59.2, Steven B. Kaplan), (PH1, Steven B. Kaplan):


You may all remember when we were told that road improvements would make
riding to and shopping at Cortlandt Town Center easy. The truth is that we have more
traffic; further widening the roads will only serve to increase the load on our
resources for ongoing traffic and sewage infrastructure. The DOT suggestions,
according to the traffic report on the Yorktown website, are predicted to improve
traffic operations but there will be more traffic flow.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-66

Response III.K 12:

The improvements presently under construction by NYSDOT and those that the
Applicant would be constructing separately along the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202
corridor as described in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K are designed
to improve existing conditions and to accommodate future traffic flow in the area of
the Proposed Action including the trips generated by the Proposed Action. This is
further discussed in Section III.H of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in
FEIS Appendix G.

Comment III.K 13 - (Document 3.2, Steven Steeneck):

It should be noted for the record, that even the City of Yonkers, has ONLY ONE
Wholesale Club. The City of Yonkers is just that a city with much larger
population and ROADS that can handle the massive traffic that would ensue if
another Wholesale Club would bring to the small and narrow roads of the Town of
Yorktown. The Town of Yorktown already has a BJ s Wholesale Club. Is it the true
intention of Yorktown to become the next Wholesale Club Capital, all the while
adding massive traffic to an already strained road system that are SINGLE lanes
in each direction. Please note that Yonkers had roads in excess of THREE lanes in
each direction, which is three times the capacity of the roads of the Town of
Yorktown, Please dont forget that Yonkers with their THREE times the capacity of
roads ONLY has one Wholesale Club, not two. This decision for the Planning Board
could very well have lifelong ramifications for the current and future residents of the
Town of Yorktown. Is it the real intention of the Planning Board and Planning
Department to make the Town of Yorktown a clone of Yonkers and Port Chester?
Lets not forget without the capacity of the roads.

Response III.K 13:

Comment noted. The proposed roadway improvements being funded and constructed
by the Applicant are designed to accommodate movements to and from the Project
Site and to alleviate existing capacity constraints in the vicinity of the Project Site.
See Introductory Response to this FEIS III.K for more details.

Comment III.K 14 - (Document 76.1, Jane Schneider):

Can you imagine the impact on traffic? It appears that the improvement discussed
will only impact our current problems.

Response III.K 14:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-67

See the Introductory Response to this FEIS Section III.K regarding improvements
proposed by the in the vicinity of the Project Site to mitigate the additional traffic
flow as well as alleviate existing congestion.

Comment III.K 15 - (Document 78.2, John S. Martin):

Emergency services have a tough job on Route 202 and COSTCO will only make it
worse. Weekend traffic is a nightmare as it now stands and would only be
increasingly worse.

Response III.K 15:
. See updated analysis contained in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in
FEIS Appendix G. As indicated in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K,
improvements would be completed by the Applicant in the vicinity of the Project Site
to mitigate the additional traffic flow as well as alleviate existing congestion. In
addition, signal timing improvements have been recommended at other area
intersections including Lexington Avenue and NYS Route 132 to mitigate traffic
impacts at the more remote intersections along the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202
corridor. The Applicant would coordinate these signal timing improvements with
NYSDOT as part of the Highway Work Permits for the proposed development.

Comment III.K 16 Form Letter E (Document 42.2, Residents of Yorktown), (Document
39.1, Gia Diamond):


- The developers traffic analysis estimates Costco would generate additional 758
vehicle visits per hour. While as per 1994 Study of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation manual estimate impact of such projects is at least 1,076
more cars an hour, thats a total of 10,000 cars a day!!!

Response III.K 16:

The traffic generation by the Proposed Action based on the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) data is 1,034 vehicles total (517 entering/517 exiting) during the
highest peak hour on a Saturday. Many of these trips would be pass-by and/or
diverted-link trips and therefore would not be new to the roadway. Based on the ITE
data, approximately 776 vehicles (388 entering/388 exiting) would be new vehicle
trips during the Saturday peak hour. The volume would be less on a weekday as
indicated in Table 1 of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix
G. As discussed in FEIS Response III.K 6, the roadway improvements being funded

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-68

and constructed by the Applicant are designed to accommodate both existing and
future peak hour traffic conditions. The daily trip generation of the site, based on ITE
data, is estimated to be approximately 3,162 entering and 3,162 exiting vehicles on a
typical weekday and 4,075 entering and 4,075 exiting vehicles on a typical Saturday.
Considering passby and diverted link trips, these volumes would be approximately
2,371 entering and 2,371 exiting on a weekday and 3,056 entering and 3,056 exiting
on a Saturday. The traffic generation is not the 10,000 vehicles per day referenced in
the comment. Furthermore, these volumes are spread out over approximately a 10-
hour day with lower volumes occurring in off-peak hour periods. These other time
periods will also be accommodated by the improvements.

Comment III.K 17 - (Document 42.8, Yorktown Smart Growth):

TRAFFIC: FROM BAD TO WORSE

Rte. 202/35 cannot handle the added congestion Costco would generate.

When citizens were polled a decade ago on which improvements theyd like
the Comp Plan to address, traffic congestion topped the list. Its worse today.

Adding a Costco to our busiest artery (a two-lane road) would increase traffic
jams on Rte. 202/35 from Katonah to Peekskill, and Bear Mountain Parkway.
The three-island fueling station would cause still more traffic back up and
idling engines as cars wait to fuel up.
The developers traffic analysis estimates that Costco would generate an
additional 758 vehicle visits per hour. But that doesnt include the trucks
delivering goods to Costco at night and early morningall on a two-lane road.
Since developers often understate traffic estimates, the impact is likely to be
even greater. Such supercenters typically generate an average of 42-
percent more traffic than the rate listed in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation manual used to estimate the impact of such
projects. This means to 1,076 more cars an hour, rather than 758, totaling
more than 10,000 a day.

A Major Bottleneck and More

Adding a lane on either side of the road between the Taconic ramps and
Costcos entrance, as the developer has promised, would help funnel traffic on
and off the Taconic, but the rest of Rte. 202/35 would remain two lanes,
backing up traffic in both directions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-69

Because the Taconic doesnt allow commercial traffic, trucks would have to
travel on Rte. 35/202 from 1684 or Rte. 9. Rte. 6 would also see more traffic.
Traffic will increase through residential neighborhoods as people seek to
bypass Rte. 202/35 and the Taconic. Many local roads are already in bad
condition; additional traffic will accelerate deterioration.

Increased Likelihood of Traffic Accidents and Emergency Vehicle Delays

The Hudson Valley Hospital and Yorktown Police are located on Rte. 202/35.
The response time of ambulances, fire engines, and other emergency vehicles
along this route would be compromised, with possibly disastrous results.
More traffic means more collisions. Drivers trying to turn left off Rte. 202/35
at crossroads without traffic lights would be at particular risk.

Response III.K 17:

See FEIS Responses III.K 1 through III.K 6 as well as Response III.K.16 relative to
trip generation, traffic impacts, impacts on emergency services and the Sensitivity
Analysis addressing higher traffic volumes. Also See FEIS Response III.K.8, which
addresses traffic increases through other residential neighborhoods, which indicates
that the traffic increases on the residential streets will not be significant.

Comment III.K 18 - (PH1, Paul Moskowitz):

If Costco is going to put a thousand cars per hour, five hundred trips going, five
hundred trips coming in the one hour period, State Land can be expected to put one
third more because it is one more -- one third more retail space. Yet, I read through
the ninety pages of the section in the Costco DEIS, that's section K on traffic.

And although they mention State Land, they take into account only the former
proposal, an eight year old proposal for Pulte Homes to put thirty houses on that site.
They do not mention the two -- the traffic to be generated by two hundred thousand
square feet of additional retail space, whose proposal is now before the Town Board,
just as the Costco proposal is before you, the Planning Board.

In addition I find it very strange that the traffic analysis in the state -- the Costco
DEIS does not mention the state land retail plan, because it was the same company
that did the traffic analysis for both, J ohn Collins Engineers. They did the State Land
proposal and they did the Costco proposal.

So, at the very least there has to be some updating of the Costco DEIS, because they
do not take into account what two hundred thousand square feet of additional retail

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-70

space on Route 202 will do. [PH1, page 71, lines 12-25] , [PH1, page 72, lines 1-18]

Response III.K 18:

See FEIS Response III.K 5a for a discussion of the State Land development.

Comment III.K 19 - (Document 80.1, Scott Carson):

Cortlandt has lots of big box stores, but they are all on a 4-lane highway. When that
4-lane road turns to 2 lanes at Mohegan Lake, the traffic is unbearable. Already the
traffic during peak times is unbearable on 202. It will be more unbearable and more
often whenever 202 turns back into a 2-lane highway.

Response III.K 19:

See the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K which describes in detail the
NYSDOT improvements currently under construction as well as the Applicants
separately proposed mitigation associated with the Proposed Action. The NYSDOT
construction project will result in two through lanes in each direction and a center
turn lane between Old Crompond Road and the Parkside Corners shopping center.
West of the Parkside Corners shopping center NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 will
remain as one through lane in each direction. However, this section of roadway is not
comparable to the Mohegan Lake section of U.S. Route 6 referred to in the comment.
The Section of U.S. Route 6 referred to in the comment (i.e. between Lexington
Avenue & Strawberry Road in Mohegan Lake) has many more curb cuts that exist on
both sides of the roadway, resulting in frequent stops for vehicles making left turns.
The NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor west of Parkside Corners generally only
has curb cuts on the south side of the roadway and, unlike U.S. Route 6, has wide
shoulders which can be used to bypass stopped left turn traffic as is currently done
today at many of these curb cuts.

In addition, as summarized in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K as
part of the Highway Work Permit process, the Applicant will coordinate with
NYSDOT to implement signal timing and phasing improvements at several other area
intersections including Lexington Avenue, NYS Route 132, Springhurst Street,
Granite Springs Road, Baldwin Road and Commerce Street/NYS Route 118. These
signal timing and phasing improvements were identified in the Revised Traffic
Impact Study (contained in FEIS Appendix G) to improve the efficiency and overall
operation of these intersections as well as to improve traffic flow along the NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-71

Comment III.K 20 NOT USED

Comment III.K 21 - (Document 94.1, Alan Weger), (PH2, Alan Weger):


However, I dont think that the proposed location at the intersection of Route 202 and
the Taconic Parkway is appropriate for a store of this size, because the traffic on
Route 202 is already excessive, and will not be remediated by the planned
improvements described at the previous meeting.

I already experience the traffic on Route 6 on a daily basis, and there is no doubt that
the Cortlandt Town Center contributed to the very bad traffic situation on Route 6.
Adding more traffic to Route 202 will likely make the traffic on Route 6 even worse,
as people try to find ways to avoid Route 202.

Unfortunately, the east-west roads in this area have not kept pace with the growing
population. We need to bite the bullet and invest in long-term infrastructure, such as
the Mohegan Lake bypass for Route 6 and the Bear Mountain parkway extension to
the Taconic Parkway. Until we do these things, I dont think it makes sense to add a
significant traffic burden to the area.

Response III.K 21:

See the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K, which provides a detailed
discussion of the NYSDOT improvements, which are currently under construction,
as well as a discussion of the separately proposed Applicant funded mitigation to the
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor. In addition future long term plans by
NYSDOT for the Bear Mountain Parkway Extension are discussed in the
Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K. Based on the updated capacity analysis
contained in the Revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS Appendix G), traffic conditions
along the corridor will be improved due to the under construction NYSDOT
improvements and the separately proposed Applicant funded improvements. Based
on this, it is not expected that there will be any significant diversion of traffic from
the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor to the U.S. Route 6 corridor.

Comment III.K 22 - (Document 97.1, Greg Kravtsov):

As representative of Yorktown Taxpayers Subsidy Committee Not-for-Profit
Homeowners Organization designed to find alternative sources of revenue to reduce
highest taxes in Westchester County, I would like to put on record results of our

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-72

Organizations extensive polling of Yorktown residents regarding Costco traffic
aggravation. As was presented by holder of Doctorate Degree in Urban Planning
which claim credit for solving terrible problem with traffic congestion on Route 6
at Lexington Ave., same company to solve future Costco traffic problem. An
overwhelming majority of respondents to our poll expressed dissatisfaction especially
with blocking alternative left turn from Locust Ave. onto Bear Mountain Extension
which frustrated drivers who were able to take it before and not being able to take
now.

Response III.K 22:

Comment noted. The improvements and modifications to turning movements
referenced above are in the Town of Cortlandt and therefore were not within the
jurisdiction of the Town of Yorktown, including the Planning Board.

Comment III.K 23 - (Document 100.2, Steve Winkel):

Have I mentioned the traffic?

Costco is a magnet retailer... It is going to pull people from at least 20 miles in every
direction. Reports I read indicate a minimum expectation of an additional 750
cars/hour along 202/35. What does that mean?... Figure the average size and spacing
between cars.. .thats another three and half miles of traffic every hour. We have all
seen traffic backed up along 202/35 from the Taconic all the way back to 132 and to
the high school. Rush hours, when school gets out... weekends. This little two lane
road can barely handle the load were putting on it now...

Whats it going to be like.. .what is the quality of life going to be like when hundreds
or thousands of additional people every day are traveling along 202/35 from points
east and west? Anyone else worried that this eternal traffic jam would lie between
most of Yorktown and the closest emergency room? One could argue that the traffic
isnt going to affect ambulances with lights and sirens. But how many times have you
or your family gone to the closest emergency room? Did you go in an ambulance or
did you go in your car? Would an additional 15 minutes have mattered to you that
day?

I work down in Elmsford and take the Taconic back and forth every day. At night, I
get off at the Yorktown exit and make a right and a left and Im home. Ive always
felt for the people who were making the left to go toward Peekskill. Westbound is
backed up all the way from Lexington. The proposed changes, funded by the state and
by Costco would do a lot to fix those problems.. . as they presently exist... but the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-73

additional traffic shown in their own surveys seem to indicate that the net problem
gets worse.

In my driving lifetime, Id never seen lines for gas until recently. Now that we all
have, my question is did the traffic survey really not take into account the additional
traffic for the gas station? Because clearly its significant. How many additional car
trips/per hour would this generate and how does that affect the impact to 202/35?

It was also alleged that the traffic survey didnt take into account the end of the
recession and future increased occupancy along 202/35. This sounds like it would
result in a flawed baseline. Can you please address this?

Response III.K 23:

See the Introductory Response to Section III.K, which provides a detailed discussion
of the NYSDOT improvements, which are currently under construction, as well as a
discussion of the separately proposed Applicant funded mitigation to the NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 corridor. See also FEIS Response III.K 5 regarding emergency
services response times and FEIS Response III.K 6, which addresses the fueling
facility trip generation and accounting for the recession and future occupancy of
vacant spaces along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202.

The improvements proposed to be constructed by the Applicant in the vicinity of the
Taconic State Parkway Interchange will provide additional capacity along NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 to accommodate existing and future traffic volumes. Providing this
added capacity will allow for additional green time to be provided for the northbound
left turn from the Taconic State Parkway Ramp and to better accommodate overall
traffic volumes through these intersections especially during the PM Peak Hours.

In addition, it is expected that as a result of the NYSDOT improvements at the
intersection of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and the Bear Mountain Parkway
Extension, which includes an acceleration lane onto NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202
westbound, that much of the traffic destined to Peekskill and Cortlandt will divert to
this alternate route and therefore reduce delays at the Taconic State Parkway
northbound off ramp and adjacent intersections.

The trip generation of the Proposed Action is addressed in FEIS Response III.K.6 and
the baseline traffic conditions have been validated as discussed in Section II.A of the
Revised Traffic Study contained in FEIS Appendix G.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-74

Comment III.K 24 - (Document 109.2, Julian Charnis):

Right now traffic is not too much of a problem here. Having a mega store stuffed into
the proposed area will add so much more traffic to rt. 202 at the 2 intersections that
lead to Mohansic Ave and Old Crompond Rd. This will create a nightmare of traffic
congestion at the times when commuters are coming home from work and parents are
driving their kids back and forth to extra curricular activities. There is no way of
getting to my house from all areas east of the Taconic without having to use rt.202.
Although adding another lane will make room for more traffic, this will not solve the
problem. More traffic means waiting longer at the intersection for an arrow to make
the left turn from 202 onto Mohansic Ave. At present it takes many lights and arrows
before I get my chance to make the left turn. Putting Costco here will be the
beginning of turning rt. 202 into something like Central Ave in Yonkers. There are no
left turns permitted there and cars must travel farther and wait longer to access the
special intersections built specifically to make left turns.

From the construction phase of the project, to its completion, it will all have a severe
negative effect on everyday life in Yorktown.

Response III.K 24:

As indicated in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K, the improvements
proposed to be constructed by the Applicant along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 in
the vicinity of the Taconic State Parkway Interchange and Mohansic Avenue will add
an additional westbound through lane and an additional left turn storage lane in the
eastbound direction at the Taconic State Parkway northbound ramp intersection,
which would increase the left turn lane storage length from approximately 100 ft.
under existing conditions to approximately 360 ft. This widening would also result in
an improvement in the westbound left turn lane storage distance, which would be
increased in length from approximately 100 ft. to 330 ft. (See FEIS Exhibit A-4). In
addition to these geometric improvements, phasing, timing and coordination
improvements are also proposed for the traffic signals between Strang Boulevard and
Mohansic Avenue. The updated capacity analysis contained in the Revised Traffic
Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G indicates that these intersections will
operate at similar or better Levels of Service compared to the Existing and No-Build
conditions. More specifically, the westbound left turn from NYS Route 35/U.S. Route
202 onto Mohansic Avenue will experience a similar Level of Service when
compared to the existing conditions.

Comment III.K 25 - (Document 117.2, Megan S. and John M. Flynn):

TRAFFIC STUDIES

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-75

A professional planner, working independently of the applicant, presented testimony
at the public hearing critical of the DEIS assessment of traffic impacts of the
proposed development, specifically in the areas of no-build analysis, trip generation,
and level of service. While we claim little expertise in traffic engineering, reviewing
this report leads us to believe the DEIS has failed to provide critical information to
the Planning Board. Specifically:

What volume of traffic will be present on roads surrounding the proposed
development if the businesses and vacant commercial land uses not covered in
the DEIS are accounted for?

What number of trips will the proposed warehouse/store generate by itself?
What number of trips will the proposed fuel station generate by itself?
(Presenting these statistics to the Planning Board separately will help resolve the
independent planners claim that the DEIS fails to account for fueling station
generated trips.)

Please present a side-by-side comparison of the traffic impacts of both
facilities (store and fuel station) as measured using High Capacity and Synchro
software.

Response III.K 25:

1. As discussed in FEIS Response III.K.6 Item 1, the historical traffic count database
which was used in the DEIS traffic report includes references to traffic data from
NYSDOT, the Sustainable Development Study and other studies that had
previously been completed in the Town. Much of the database was collected
between the early 2000s and 2010, a period when many of businesses and
currently vacant commercial land uses, including the majority of those listed by
Tim Miller Associates (TMA) in their comment letter dated October 15, 2012,
were occupied. The specific major developments that were known to be occupied
at the time of these previous traffic data surveys include the Emigrant Savings
Bank, Bed Bath & Beyond, Ernestos Grill, Currys Auto Sales, Bella Vita
Trattoria, Charlie Browns, Bagels and More, Yorktown Physical Medical and
Rehab, Printing and Copying, Yorktown Delicatessen, Seek A Geek, Heights
Bakery and Caf, Blooms Delicatessen and Food Emporium
2
. Others on the list
contained in the TMA comment letter may also have been occupied at the time of

2
The Bed Bath & Beyond store that had moved to Cortlandt from the BJ s Shopping Center now requires that
residents of Yorktown or other points from the east or south travel along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 or U.S.
Route 6. Since the store has relocated, many of those trips are still present on the area roadways but now are longer.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-76

the various surveys.

Furthermore, the traffic volumes contained in the DEIS traffic report for existing
conditions used the highest historical base traffic volumes for the various
intersections studied, a conservative estimate that reflects the most traffic-
intensive recent uses of the surrounding properties. Thus, any traffic from these
properties has already been considered in the base traffic volumes used in the
DEIS traffic analysis.

In addition, in ascertaining background traffic conditions in areas as large as the
Town of Yorktown, there are typically some vacant spaces as a result of normal
turnover. However, the accepted methodology for establishing the base traffic
data, which was utilized in the DEIS Traffic Study, employed historical data to
account for traffic that could be generated by the reuse of currently vacant
properties. Furthermore, as specified in Section III.A of the Revised Traffic
Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G a separate growth factor of 2% per
year was applied to these base traffic volumes to account for background growth
and other miscellaneous traffic increases in the area when projecting the existing
traffic volumes to the anticipated Design Year.

2. Based on the information obtained from the Applicant and surveys of other
existing Costco facilities conducted by its traffic consultant, Maser Consulting,
P.A. (formerly J ohn Collins Engineers, P.C.), the Applicant asserts that the trip
generation rates in the DEIS represent typical operating conditions. Table No. 1 of
the Revised Traffic Impact Study (contained in FEIS Appendix G) is an update of
Table No. 1 from the original DEIS Traffic Study (DEIS Appendix E) and now
shows the estimated trips used in the DEIS Traffic Study for the proposed Costco
store and fueling facility separately. The Applicant asserts that many of these
trips to the site would be dual purpose trips that would visit both the proposed
Costco store and fueling facility in the same trip. The DEIS projections may
therefore be considered conservative because many of these dual trips would
occur even in the absence of the fueling facility. Moreover, to the extent that trips
made solely to the fueling facility are included, such trips would presumably
otherwise have been made to gas stations elsewhere in or around Yorktown.
Consequently, the DEIS Traffic Study and the Revised Traffic Impact Study
analysis contained in FEIS Appendix G, can be viewed as overstating the traffic
that would be generated by the Project.

In addition, J acobs Engineering (the Towns Traffic Consultant reviewing the
Proposed Action) had requested consideration of potentially higher trip generation
volumes based on other suggested data. A separate Sensitivity Analysis using the
higher trip generation estimates referenced in the TMA comment letter is

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-77

contained in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G. A
separate trip generation table (Table No. 1-S) for this Sensitivity Analysis is also
included in the Revised Traffic Impact Study. This table also shows the number
of trips estimated to be generated by the proposed Costco Store and fueling
facility separately. The results of this analysis, which are discussed in herein and
summarized on Table No. 2-S of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in
FEIS Appendix G, confirmed the results of the DEIS analysis and indicate that
with the improvements that would be constructed by the Applicant, the traffic
associated with the Proposed Action would be mitigated to reduce significant,
adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable. As indicated in the table, it is
expected that the intersections in the vicinity of the Taconic State Parkway
Interchange will operate at similar or in some case improved levels of service,
when compared to existing conditions, after completion of the project and
associated mitigation measures. See also FEIS Response III.K.6, Item 2.

3. The DEIS Traffic Study provided detailed analysis of the impacts of the
Proposed Action, including both the Warehouse Store and the fueling facility,
using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology and the Synchro software. An
update of this analysis using the latest version of the Synchro software, which also
incorporates the latest Highway Capacity Manual methodology, is provided in the
Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G. In addition, as
mentioned above, a Sensitivity Analysis using the potentially higher trip
generation estimates presented by Tim Miller Associates is also included in the
Revised Traffic Impact Study, which confirmed the results of the DEIS analysis.

Comment III.K 26 - (Document 117.3, Megan S. and John M. Flynn):

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS

In correspondence to the Planning Board, dated October 11, I outlined the findings of
research into the public health impacts of automobile-dependant land uses that are
relevant to the proposed action, yet not examined in the DEIS. Moreover, the
Yorktown Comprehensive Plan recognizes the costs of such development in
discussing C-3 Zones as excluding auto-oriented uses that attract heavy volumes of
traffic. Requiring upwards of 600 parking spaces and nearly eight acres of paved
surface and likely generating nearly 1,000 daily auto trips (estimates of the
projects trip generation were disputed by applicant and non-applicant
professional experts at the hearing), the proposed development clearly rises to the
level of increasing both Yorktowns dependence on automobile travel and the
associated public health risks described in this research. Therefore, if the Planning
Board was to approve such development in a C-3 zone, it would be reasonable to seek
to manage the negative impacts of the projects emphasis on automobile

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-78

transportation using the same public policy approach currently applied in the areas of
recreation, traffic, and the environment for example, such remedies as
contributions of park land, street widening, and wetland enhancement. And so, we
offer the following questions:

Does the applicant accept the findings of recent research on public health
impacts of auto dependent development? If not, please explain why. Can the
applicant provide data refuting this research?

Is the applicant willing to subsidize the Westchester County bus system in
order to provide consumers and employees mass transit service directly to the
Costco store? If no, please explain how the applicant intends to encourage use
of mass transportation in Yorktown.

Is the applicant willing to subsidize construction of the proposed bike path
linking Yorktown Heights and its project via FDR Park? If no, please explain
how the applicant intends to encourage bicycle transportation in Yorktown.

Is the applicant willing to construct a pedestrian bridge over the Bear
Mountain Parkway, linking the towns northern trail system to its site? If no,
please explain how the applicant intends to encourage pedestrian access to this
site.

Response III.K 26:
1. In the Yorktown Comprehensive Plan, the Town Board determined that the
development of a retail use with a regional draw which by its nature depends
largely on automobile access in suburban areas like Yorktown is an appropriate
use for the project site and is consistent with public health and safety. Refer to
Yorktown Comprehensive Plan ES-7. The Town of Yorktown Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning designates the project site as C-3 zoning; therefore the proposed
project is permitted as-of-right and is consistent with the Towns long-term
vision. Refer to DEIS at Section III.A10-11 and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 4,
III.A 5 and III.A 8. Thus, the Town Board has determined that this land use is
consistent with the public health and welfare, and thus it the Applicants view on
the public health studies noted in the comment are not within the purview of this
EIS.

Moreover, to the extent the Proposed Action provides a local shopping option for
consumers that currently frequent the Costco stores in Danbury and Yonkers, it
may reduce vehicle miles traveled and enable more residents to access Costco via
public transit and other non-automobile-dependent transportation. As discussed
in greater detail in Item 2 below, the Proposed Action would provide extensive

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-79

improvements to sidewalks, pedestrian walkways and roadway shoulders,
promoting the use of alternative means of transportation and addressing the public
health concerns referenced in this Comment.

2. The Applicant had proposed providing a dedicated bus stop location directly in
front of the Site along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202. However, the Westchester
County Department of Transportation has indicated that this would not be
permitted at this time considering the proximity to the nearest existing bus stop
located at the Strang Boulevard intersection, located on both sides of NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202. As part of the offsite improvements to Route 202/35, the bus
stop at Strang Boulevard will be improved in coordination with Westchester
County and a sidewalk will be constructed from Strang Boulevard to the Costco
entrance. The site plan has been designed to allow that bus line to be routed
through the Site if warranted by future ridership and if desired by the Westchester
County Department of Transportation.

Moreover, the pedestrian connection to the Site that would be constructed by the
Applicant as part of the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 improvements associated
with the Proposed Action would provide a pedestrian connection to the bus stops
at Strang Boulevard for use by both customers and employees accessing the site.
The proposed pedestrian signal to be installed at the Strang Boulevard intersection
would provide access to the bus stop on the south side of NYS Route 35/U.S.
Route 202. In addition, based on the requirements of the NYSDOT, pedestrian
crossings of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 from Mohansic Avenue and the
existing Mobil Station would also be included as part of the Applicant funded
roadway reconstruction. Such improvements to public transportation access
would lead to reductions in traffic congestion and air emissions. See also FEIS
Response III.K.7.

3. As explained in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K, the offsite
improvements that would be constructed by the Applicant would also provide a
minimum shoulder width of 5 ft. in each direction along NYS Route 35/U.S.
Route 202 through the Taconic State Parkway Interchange area to accommodate
bicycles as per Section 17.4.1 (Bicycle Facilities Design Policy) of the NYSDOT
Highway Design Manual. This will complement the ongoing NYSDOT
improvements, which will also provide a shoulder in each direction along NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202 from Old Crompond Road to the project limits near the
existing Snap Fitness building.

4. As explained in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K, the offsite
improvements that would be funded and constructed by the Applicant would

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-80

include a new sidewalk on the north side of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202
between Strang Boulevard and Old Crompond Road consistent with the
recommendations of the Town of Yorktown Comprehensive Plan (Policy 3-20)
and the Sustainable Development Study (Chapter V.C.4: Pedestrian and Bicycle
Considerations). The Applicants proposed improvements would provide a
signalized pedestrian crosswalk at the Strang Boulevard intersection to provide
safe and convenient access to both FDR State Park and to the existing
Westchester County Bee-Line bus stop located on the south side of NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 at this intersection. Signalized pedestrian crosswalks would
also be provided for the crossings of the Taconic State Parkway northbound on-
ramp and southbound off-ramp. At the intersection of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route
202 and Mohansic Avenue/Costco Site Access, signalized pedestrian crossings
including all required ADA ramps would be provided on all four approaches. A
sidewalk connection would also be provided between the Costco store front and
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 via a sidewalk along the main access driveway.
(See FEIS Exhibit A-4).

The sidewalk, which would be constructed by the Applicant, would continue west
of the proposed site access driveway along the site frontage and would connect to
the new sidewalk currently being constructed as part of the NYSDOT
improvements, which will begin on the west side Old Crompond Road as
described above. A crosswalk for pedestrians crossing Old Crompond Road
would be provided as part of the Applicant sponsored improvements to connect
the two sections of sidewalk. Thus, between the NYSDOT project and the
improvements proposed to be constructed separately by the Applicant, a
continuous sidewalk system would be provided from Strang Boulevard/FDR Park
west to the Parkside Corners shopping center, a distance of approximately 5,800
feet. In addition, sidewalks will be constructed along Stony Street in the area of
the existing Chase Bank as part of the NYSDOT project. This sidewalk will
provide connection to a trail that will be constructed by NYSDOT on the west
side of the Bear Mountain Parkway Extension providing connection to the
Towns northern trail system.

Finally, the Applicant is not proposing to subsidize the Westchester County Bus
system to provide additional bus stops for the proposed action due to the location
of the nearby bus stops at Strang Boulevard. The Applicant is also not proposing
to subsidize the construction of a bikeway or build a bridge over the Bear
Mountain Parkway as suggested in this Comment..

Comment III.K 27 - NOT USED


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-81

Comment III.K 28 - (Document 119.1, Olivia Bell Buehl), Document 178.11a, Henry
Steeneck):

Traffic
In the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), the applicant says there will only be
an additional 758 cars per hour on Route 202. But thats an average.
Lets look at the peak time of Saturday afternoon and compare the impact of this
development to that of existing traffic. At that time we already have 2,200 cars per
hour on Rte. 202. With a 50 percent increase per hour of 1,100 cars, the new number
is 3,300per hour. By the way, these are the developers numbers, not mine.

Nor does the DEIS state that the Department of Transportation has already rated
almost all of the intersections in the immediate vicinity with an F, the worst
possible rating. The rating cannot get worse, but the waiting time can!

But even that average of 758 cars per hour is incorrect.
An independent traffic consultant has shown that the actual increase in traffic will be
far greater. Also, according to the developers projections on page 23 of the
Appendix, the filling station alone will bring in an average of 3,300 cars a day. How
do I get that number? The DEIS states the site will receive up to five oil trucks daily,
at 10,000 gallons per truck, a total of up to 50,000 gallons a day. Assuming an
average of 15 gallons per car, that adds up to more than 3,300 cars per day. Again,
these are the developers numbers, not mine.

Interesting, the developers traffic report shows only 100 cars at 8 a.m. This is
impossible based upon its projections for the gas station alone at that time.

Response III.K 28:

FEIS Response III.K.1 discusses the expected increases of traffic volumes along
different segments of the roadway system. As shown in the Table III.K.1 contained in
FEIS Response III.K.1 the segment of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 immediately
east of the Site will see the largest increase in traffic volumes as a result of the
Proposed Action at approximately 360 vehicles during the PM Peak Hour. However,
as shown by the table, the volumes generated by the Proposed Action are well
distributed onto the roadway network benefiting from the Sites location. In addition,
the improvements to the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor in the vicinity of the
Site, which would be constructed by Applicant, are planned to address existing
deficiencies along the roadway as well as to mitigate the additional traffic volumes
generated by the Proposed Action.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-82

FEIS Response III.K 6 Items 2 and 3 discuss the potentially higher trip generation
estimates presented by Tim Miller Associates, which are mentioned in this Comment.
The Applicant has stated that typically there will be 2-3 daily fuel deliveries to the
Site, which would equate to approximately 2,000 daily vehicle trips generated by the
fueling facility. The fueling facility will be open from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM (15 hours
per day). Therefore the fueling facility will average approximately 135 trips per hour,
however the Applicant asserts that as much of 35% of these trips will be dual purpose
trips that will also visit the proposed Costco store in the same trip.

The trip generation estimates used in the DEIS analysis, which included the AM Peak
Hour estimate of approximately 100 AM Peak Hour Trips, are based on data collected
at other existing Costco Facilities and Table No. 1 of the Revised Traffic Impact
Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, has been updated to show the trips for the
fueling facility and the proposed Costco store separately. As indicated in the table the
proposed Costco store is estimate to generate 12 AM Peak Hour Trips (8 entering/ 4
exiting), 398 PM Peak Hour Trips (199 entering/199 exiting) and 686 Saturday Peak
Hour Trips (343 entering/343 exiting). The fueling facility is estimate to generate 76
AM Peak Hour Trips (38 entering/38 exiting), 81 PM Peak Hour Trips (41entering/41
exiting) and 90 Saturday Peak Hour Trips (45 entering/45 exiting). It should be noted
that these estimates include dual purpose (internal) trips as well as pass-by/diverted
link trips attracted from the existing traffic volumes along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route
202. In addition, data collected by Maser Consulting, P.A. (formerly J ohn Collins
Engineers, P.C.) and provided by the Applicant, indicates that the trip estimates used
in this analysis are consistent with volumes generated by other existing Costco stores
in the area. In any event, to address comments from J acobs Engineering (the Towns
traffic consultant) and from Tim Miller Associates, a separate Sensitivity Analysis
using the potentially higher Tim Miller Associates trip generation estimates has been
conducted. This analysis is discussed in Section III.J of the Revised Traffic Impact
Study contained in FEIS Appendix G and the results, which are summarized in Table
No 2-S of the Revised Traffic Impact Study, confirmed the results of the DEIS
analysis and indicate that the roadway network, with the completion of the Applicant
proposed improvements, is capable of accommodating these potentially higher traffic
volumes.

Comment III.K 29 - (Document 119.3, Olivia Bell Buehl) , (Document 178.11c, Henry
Steeneck):

Current Department of Transportation (DOT) and Costco Improvements
The developer says that the DOT will spend $5.5 million dollars to improve Rte. 202
and that Costco will also make improvements.
The real facts are that the DOT was going to make improvements whether or not
Costco comes to Yorktown. In any case, the DOT is only going to repair the section

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-83

from Pine Grove to just west of Old Crompond Rd. And Costco is only going to
upgrade from Strang Blvd. west to Old Crompond Rd. Neither the DOT nor Costco
will improve Rte. 202 from Pine Grove west to the Bear Mountain Parkway, and from
the Taconic east to the center of Yorktown Heights. Of course, this is not
acknowledged in the DEIS.

Response III.K 29:

The New York State Department of Transportation is currently constructing
improvements to the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor between Old Crompond
Road and the Snap Fitness/Thyme Restaurant, which commenced at the end of April
2013. These improvements are described in detail in the Introductory Response to
FEIS Section III.K.. The final cost of the NYSDOT improvements, which are
scheduled for a Summer 2014 completion, is expected to be in excess of $11 million.
The improvements to be undertaken separately by the Applicant along NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 in the vicinity of the Taconic State Parkway Interchange and
Mohansic Avenue would add an additional westbound through lane and an additional
left turn storage lane in the eastbound direction at the Taconic State Parkway
northbound ramp intersection, which would increase the left turn lane storage length
from approximately 100 ft. under existing conditions to approximately 360 ft. This
widening would also result in an improvement in the westbound left turn lane storage
distance, which would be increased in length from approximately 100 ft. to 330 ft.
(See FEIS Exhibit A-4). The Applicant estimates that these improvements will cost
the Applicant in excess of $3.0 million. In addition, the Applicant has, as part of the
Highway Work Permit process with NYSDOT, also proposed to coordinate the
completion of signal timing and phasing improvements at other signalized
intersections east and west of the site including at Lexington Avenue, NYS Route
132, Baldwin Road and at the Triangle intersection. Other potential geometric
improvements (i.e., additional auxiliary turning lanes) that could be completed at area
intersections to better accommodate existing traffic volumes have also been identified
in the DEIS (Section III.K.3.e) including a second northbound left turn lane exiting
the Taconic State Parkway northbound at NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and a
separate right turn lane southbound on NYS Route 132 at its intersection with NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202. The analysis of the additional northbound left turn lane on
Taconic State Parkway exit ramp was requested by the Town of Yorktown while the
southbound right turn lane on NYS Route 132 was identified in the Town of
Yorktown Comprehensive Plan, Policy 3-4 - Table 3-1, however, as indicated by the
analysis provided in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix
G, these are not required to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed
development and are not proposed to be completed by the Applicant.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-84

Comment III.K 30a - (Document 119.4, Olivia Bell Buehl), (PH2, Olivia Buehl) ,
(Document 178.11d, Henry Steeneck):


Future DOT Improvements
The developer says the DOT will also do a lot of work on the Bear Mountain Parkway
Bypass.
The reality is that there is no budget, no money and no plans to do anything. For
confirmation, look at the DOTs projected work list at
https://www.dot.ny.gov/projects.

1. Traffic. This data should look at filling station versus store data so we can
measure and analyze the traffic impacts of a no-filling-station alternative.
a. What are the real increases of both the filling station and store traffic,
including the impacts on intersections from Strang Blvd. to Stony St.?
b. What is the additional number of cars on Rte. 202 at peak morning and
afternoon hours, as well as on Saturday?
c. How much of this traffic will be generated by the gas station and how
much by the store itself?

Response III.K 30a:

1. Table No. 1 of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix
G summarizes the trip generation estimates for the proposed Costco Store and the
fueling facility separately. The total trips shown on this table indicate the number
of additional trips that will be present on NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 in the
immediate vicinity of the site during each of the peak periods. It is estimated that
approximately 35% to 40% of these trips will be dispersed to the Taconic State
Parkway, as indicated on Figures No. 15, 15A, 16 and 16A of the Revised Traffic
Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G.

In addition, as discussed in FEIS Response III.K.6, a Sensitivity Analysis has
been conducted as part of the Revised Traffic Study using the potential higher site
trip generation estimates indicated by Tim Miller Associates. The trip generation
estimates used in the Sensitivity Analysis are summarized in Table No. 1-S of the
Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G and also shows the
trip estimates for both the proposed Costco Store and fueling facility separately.
The analysis confirms the results of the DEIS analysis and indicates that the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-85

potentially higher trip generation volumes can be accommodated on the roadway
network after the completion of the currently under construction NYSDOT
improvements and the separately proposed Applicant sponsored improvements.

Comment III.K 30b - (Document 119.4, Olivia Bell Buehl), (PH2, Olivia Buehl):

Department of Transportation

a. Has the DOT budgeted for and provided a PIN number for the road
improvements cited in the DEIS?
b. Further, are start dates scheduled, and if so, when? Which are scheduled
but presently have no start date?

Response III.K 30b:

4. As discussed in the Introduction to DEIS Section III.K and the Introductory
Response to FEIS Section III.K, the improvements to be completed by NYSDOT
on NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and the Bear Mountain Parkway Extension
commenced in April (2013). NYSDOT has assigned PIN 856134 to this project.
The improvements are scheduled for a Summer 2014 completion. Also, NYSDOT
has identified the Bear Mountain Parkway Extension project as a future project on
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and does not currently
have an associated PIN number. It should be noted that as part of the State Land
development, right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated to NYSDOT for the
purpose of constructing the future roadway.

Comment III.K 31- (Document 122.4, Al Boutross):

Claus.


Nor will the construction of additional lanes actually speed the flow of traffic.
For example, the Garden State Parkway has five lanes in some areas, intended to ease
congestion, but they still fill up and jam traffic bumper-to-bumper during high use

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-86

times.

Response III.K 31:

As indicated by the results of the capacity analysis contained in the Revised Traffic
Impact Study that can be found in FEIS Appendix G, the additional travel lanes
currently being constructed by NYSDOT and the separately funded Applicant
sponsored improvements would provide additional capacity along the corridor and are
expected to result in improved operating conditions as compared to existing
conditions (See Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K for a description of
these improvements). In association with Applicant sponsored improvements, traffic
signal coordination improvements are also proposed for the traffic signals along NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202 between Strang Boulevard and Mohansic Avenue. These
coordination improvements are expected to provide improved flow of traffic through
the corridor.

The comparison to the Garden State Parkway made in the comment is not valid due to
the significant differences in the types of roadways and the number of vehicle trips
respectively accommodated.

Comment III.K 32- (Document 122.7, Al Boutross):

Commercial trucks, especially the eighteen wheelers, should not be allowed
on route 35 which is a winding, two-lane country road and is not designed to handle
such traffic. Furthermore, we should wish to preserve the bucolic nature of route 35,
as the County has done by acquiring the Lasdon Estate to preserve the environment
years ago. Nor is the Taconic overpass at route 202 adequate to accommodate all
large trucks.

Response III.K 32:

NYS Route 35 and U.S. Route 202 are both designated truck routes and have been
designed to accommodate all appropriate truck sizes. Commercial vehicles cannot be
prohibited from using these roadways and will continue to use them as they do today.
In addition, while most of the deliveries to the site will use I-684 and NYS Route 35
to access the site there is also an alternate truck route using U.S. Route 9 to the west
of the site, which is also a designated truck route.

Comment III.K 33 - NOT USED

Comment III.K 34- (Document 124.1, Paul A. Moskowitz):


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-87

What are the effects of traffic to be generated by the 200,000 sq. ft, retail center
proposed by the State Land Corporation combined with the Costco traffic on the total
traffic for the Route 202 corridor, Route 202 intersections and the roads in the region
around it? When the State Land Traffic is included, what are waiting times at the
intersections on Route 202 from Route 132 to Lexington Avenue?

Traffic, Section K of the DEIS, does not take into account traffic to be generated by
the 200,000 square foot retail center planned for the State Land site. This is especially
surprising since both the Costco and the State Land applications include a traffic
analysis by the same company, J ohn Collins Engineers.

Response III.K 34:

As discussed in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K and in FEIS
Response III.K.5a, the application for the State Land project, which requires a
rezoning, is required to be addressed as part of the SEQRA review for the State Land
development. The traffic studies for that development have and will be required to
incorporate the traffic to be generated by the Proposed Action as well as the other
reasonably anticipated developments in the corridor. The expected timeframe for that
project, if the rezoning is approved, is 2016 or beyond, which is after the projected
opening date for the Proposed Action., The Environmental Impact Statement for the
State Land project would be required to consider and address all cumulative impacts,
including those generated by the Proposed Action, and thus are required to be
addressed in the State Land SEQRA process and not as part of this FEIS.

Comment III.K 35 (Document 131.1, Patricia Peckham):

I have reviewed documents in the DEIS and elsewhere regarding the planned
project for a Costco warehouse store on Rte. 202/35. I request that the
following comments be entered into the proposed development DEIS public
hearing record so that they might be satisfactorily addressed in the projects
Final Environmental Impact Statement.

My business on Baptist Church Rd. is one of four local agribusinesses likely to be
adversely affected by the Costco development. My business was established 25
years ago and I have been in Yorktown for 10 and a half years. Customer loyalty
drives my business, but my clients will not put up with inconvenience. More than
half of them travel from east of Rte. 684 to my farm using Routes 35/202
through Yorktown Heights. Others use the Taconic Parkway. Both groups were
very annoyed by the traffic problems caused by the construction on the
Veterans Bridge this summer but realized its importance and put up with it as a
temporary inconvenience. However the additional traffic from Costco on both

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-88

the Taconic Parkway and Rte. 35/202 will cause irreparable harm to my
business, as my customers will go to a more convenient competitor and new
customers wont bother driving to me. It is unlikely that I am the only specialty
business that will be negatively impacted.

Additionally, drivers seeking to avoid Rte. 202/35 will almost certainly use
secondary and tertiary roads like Hunterbrook Rd. and Baptist Church Rd.,
compounding local traffic problems. Already, Baptist Church Rd. is used as cut-
through during rush hour people, when people speed along this narrow, winding
road to the Taconic Parkway. Likewise, Hunterbrook Rd. is a north/south cut
through to Rte. 1 29, used to avoid traffic on the Taconic and Rte. 35/202.

With the DOTs plans to improve intersections from Old Crompond Rd. to Stony
St. (please see attached letter) and Costcos plans to add a lane from Strang
Blvd. to Old Crompond, the impact on traffic during construction will be
dreadful. Specifically:

What mitigation is planned to deal with traffic on Rte. 35/202 during the
construction phase?

What will be the impact of drivers using secondary and tertiary roads to
avoid Rte. 35/202 during the construction phase, meaning how many more cars
per hour during peak and nonpeak hours, as well as on weekends? These roads
include but are not limited to Baldwin Rd., Rte. 11 8, Rte. 1 32, Underhill Rd.,
Baptist Church Rd, Hunterbrook Rd., Strang Blvd., Stony Street, and both sides of
Old Crompond Rd.

What will be the impact on these same roads once Costco is operational,
again meaning how many more cars per hour during peak and nonpeak hours, as
well as on weekends?

Further, what will be the impact on the Triangle Shopping Center,
intersection, and the intersections of Rte. 11 8 and Rte. 35/202, Underhill Ave and
Rte. 11 8, Baldwin Rd. and Baptist Church Rd., Hunterbrook Rd. and Rte. 129,
and Baptist Church Rd. and Hunterbrook Rd.?

Thank you for your attention to these key issues not adequately addressed in the
current DEIS. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.

Response III.K 35:

1. The impacts of construction traffic, which are temporary impacts, are

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-89

discussed in detail in FEIS Response III.K.70. The Applicant asserts that in
general, the amount of traffic that will be generated by the Site during the
construction phase will be less than what will be generated after completion of the
Project. The Applicant also asserts that, it is not expected that the peak
construction period generated traffic will coincide with the peak hours of the
roadway since construction hours generally begin and end prior to these peak
periods. Finally, the Applicant asserts that construction of the roadway
improvements to be constructed by the Applicant will generally occur outside of
the travel lanes of the roadway and therefore will not significantly impact traffic
along the corridor. The Applicant will be required to prepare appropriate
Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Plans as part of the NYSDOT Highway
Work Permit to control traffic during this reconstruction and the construction of
these improvements will be completed prior to the opening of the Proposed
Action.

2. The Applicant has asserted that there will be no significant impact to traffic
along the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor during construction of the
proposed development and related Applicant sponsored roadway improvements
(See further discussion provided in FEIS Response III.K70 below). Therefore, the
Applicant asserts that the diversion of traffic to other area roadways including
those listed in this Comment will not increase significantly above current
conditions.

3. As indicated by the capacity analysis results summarized in Tables No. 2 and
2-S of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, the
Applicant asserts the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor in the vicinity of the
site will experience similar or even improved Levels of Service during each of the
peak hours after completion of the NYSDOT improvements currently being
constructed and with the separately proposed Applicant sponsored improvements,
which would be constructed by the Applicant as part of the Proposed Action. The
Applicant asserts that these improvements will reduce queues along the corridor
and overall delay

4. As indicated by the site generated traffic figures (Figures 17 through 19A of
the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G), and
summarized in FEIS Table III.K.1 contained in FEIS Response III.K.1, the
Applicant asserts that the intersection of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202/NYS
Route 118/Commerce Street will experience an increase of between 60 and 120
vehicles during peak hours as a result of the project. When compared to the
existing traffic volumes at this intersection, this equates to an approximately 3%
to 5% increase in traffic volumes. The Applicant asserts that the increase in traffic
volumes at the other remote intersections such as NYS Route 118 & Underhill

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-90

Avenue, Baldwin Road & Baptist Church Road, and the other roadways
referenced in the comment will be even less and therefore there will not be any
significant impact to these intersections. Therefore, the Applicant asserts that
there will be no significant increase in diverted traffic to the roadways listed in
this Comment on top of what is currently diverted today. For a further discussion
of diversions to other area roadways see FEIS Response III.K.8

Comment III.K 36 (Document 135.1, Ann and Bob Harper):

We are concerned citizens of Yorktown who feel Costco will negatively impact our
town.

Our question: What are the effects of traffic to be generated by the 200,000 sq. ft.
center combined with the Costco traffic or the already problematic Rt. 202 corridor,
intersections, and the roads in the region around it? We live on Rt. 202 and already
have problems with traffic from Somers and Katonah. What will this do to our home
values?

Response III.K 36:

As discussed in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K and FEIS Response
III.K.5, the application for the State Land Project requires a rezoning and is being
addressed as part of the SEQRA documents for the State Land Development. The
traffic studies for that development will be required to incorporate the traffic to be
generated by the Proposed Action as well as the other potential developments in the
corridor. The expected timeframe for that project, if the rezoning request is approved
by the Town, is 2016 or beyond which is after the projected open date of the
Proposed Action. The application for the State Land Development, which will be
required to address the cumulative impacts of all developments along the corridor,
will be considered as that application progresses through the SEQRA process.

Comment III.K 37 (Document 136.1, Richard E. Stanton, Law Offices of Richard E. Stanton):

RE: Widening of NYS Route 202/35 in Yorktown, NY and Changes to Taconic
Parkway Ramps

I have been representing a substantial number of stakeholders in Yorktown NY. They
are concerned about certain assumptions, and omissions, in information being
submitted to the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to
support a Project Applicants request for discretionary NYSDOT approvals for their
Project. The discretionary approvals upon which their project relies include the
finding and approving of certain widenings of route 202/35 in Yorktown, the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-91

alteration of approximately five intersections to facilitate a proposed Costco
Superstore and fueling station, and the proposed curb cut for the facility entrance into
the State Highway.

Local stakeholder concerns about traffic, flooding, property damage, environmental
impacts to wetlands, and the impairment of the regional water supply, have led them
to retain two professional engineers, and a wetlands expert, to evaluate the technical
assumptions in the DEIS documents. The third party retained professionals are
identifying that the Project includes the following potential significant adverse
environmental impacts:

1. adding traffic loads that will result in up to four minutes delay at
intersections in regionally critical transportation routes; and

2. imposing dangerous queuing into State Highways as the result of
inadequate parking, and overburdened intersections; and

In that NYSDOT is an involved agency under SEQRA, who should be actively
participating in a coordinated review of the Project, and who will ultimately be
responsible for their own Findings Statement under SEQRA, as well as to the public
for the impact of their own actions, the local stakeholders are seeking the ability to
have their experts review their findings with your agency. A brief discussion of the
concerns is set forth below.

1. The Project Threatens to Overburden Portions of Route 202/3 5
deemed Critical to Three Municipalities.

The area the Project assumes the ability to substantially alter, was a primary area of
concern in the Route 202/35/6 Bear Mountain Parkway Sustainability Study because
if its critical importance to the County and three separate municipalities (City of
Peekskill, The Town of Cortland, and the Town of Yorktown). The entire Route
202/35 corridor was previously studied jointly between the three municipalities,
NYSDOT, the USDOT, and Westchester County and resulted in an adopted Plan
which was designed to protect the natural resources threatened by the Project, and
open up traffic flow through the very same location the Project adds significant
delays.

Professional Engineers with Tim Miller and Associates, Inc. reviewed the traffic
assessment in the submitted DEIS. Their report is submitted as an attachment to this
correspondence. The professional engineers at Tim Miller and Associates identified
that the accepted DEIS Traffic Study grossly underestimates new traffic that will be
introduced to the already overburdened stretch of Route 202/35. The review of the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-92

proposed Project by the third party engineers projected new traffic against the
assumed Traffic in the DEIS in the table reproduced below.


The projected consequence of the introduction of the new traffic along the Route
202/35 corridor, determined based upon adoption of nationally accepted standards, is
that if Costco were to open with current road configurations 13 intersections would
have a level of service F and delays would be increasing at ten of those. The Project
also threatens spillback into Route 202/3 5 during peak shopping seasons because
of insufficient site parking.

The Project assumes receiving discretionary NYSDOT approval for the widening of
Route 202/35 as well as physical alterations to numerous State Roads including the
Taconic Parkway exit onto 202/35. Even the curb cut into the highway is
discretionary and must be assessed under SEQRA, and the NYS Highway Law
Section 52 which provides in relevant part that:

With respect to driveway entrance permits, the regulations shall take into
consideration the prospective character of the development, the traffic which
will be generated by the facility within the reasonably foreseeable future, the
design and frequency of access to the facility, the effect of the facility upon
drainage as related to existing drainage systems, the extent to which such
facility may impair the safety and traffic carrying capacity of the existing
state highway and any proposed improvement thereto within the reasonably
foreseeable future, and any standards governing access, non-access or limited
access which have been established by the department of transportation.

Preliminary review of the limited published details of the road widening in the Project
Applicants plans assumes at least one intersection improvement will be undertaken
by NYSDOT (Route 202/35 at Stony Creek) into the buffer zone of stressed federal
wetlands. Even assuming funding, and the feasibility of the alterations, which has not
been assessed, the Project would still result in grossly failing Levels of Service in the
critical corridor. The Projected Levels of Service with the requested corridor

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-93

alterations, which do not appear feasible to the local stakeholders, are below


Even if the alterations listed in the DEIS were feasible, the intersections would still be
failing, with several delays in excess of three minutes, and the long term capacity of
the corridor critical to three or more municipalities would be squandered.

The traffic impacts alone require an active coordinated municipal and State agency
review of the Project, with input from the community stakeholders. That is why the
community stakeholder are requesting NYSDOT become actively involved in the
Project now, and address the concerns of the third party engineers. Unfortunately,
attempts to schedule an NYSDOT review of Mr. Millers firms findings with the
authors of the report has not been facilitated to date.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-94

2. Conclusion, and Next Steps

My clients and I, fully understand the workload of NYSDOT staff, and the
importance of NYSDOT review of this of this Project. Mr. Miller was requested to
share his review of the DEIS with the Department. This was done in the spirit of
trying to insure that you had all the facts to assist you in making a fair and balanced
analysis. As the stakeholders professional consultant attempted to state to the
Yorktown Planning Board, before he were cut off due to a 5 minute time limit, the
traffic study in the DEIS is flawed and falls short of providing proper traffic
mitigation. In fact, the applicant relies on the DOTs future plans for the Route
202/35 corridor to mitigate the impacts from the additional traffic at several off site
intersections, which according to recent reports of NYSDOT, are not likely to occur
in the near future.

My clients are concerned that the Yorktown Planning Board, as lead agent, as well as
the DOT and all other SEQR involved agencies, look at the all the off-site and
regional impacts of the Project in a fully coordinated, and open public manner. We
have identified that the DEIS your agency has been asked to reply upon is
fundamentally deficient in following the Scoping Document, and in analyzing the
significant adverse impacts of the Project. Unfortunately the curtailment of public
comment by the Lead Agency, and the refusal of government agencies to meet with
stakeholders, can frustrate the ability of the required processes to address the
concerns which have been raised, and will continue to be raised.

By virtue of this letter my client group is requesting that the NYSOT [sic] staff make
themselves available to review Mr. Millers concerns with him, so that we can be
assured they are fully understood. I have found there is often a more effective
exchange of information without lawyers in the room, and see no need to participate
directly in the exchange of technical information. Accordingly, I would request the
NYSDOT staff feel free to contact Mr. Miller directly, so that the identified issues
may be understood, and addressed.

Response III.K 37:

See the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K as well as FEIS Responses III.K
1, 2, 3 5 and 6 for more specific information responding to these comments and Mr.
Millers traffic analysis. In addition, it should be noted that NYSDOT is an Involved
Agency for this project under SEQRA and all documents have been forwarded to the
NYSDOT Region 8 office for their review and comment. NYSDOT is also involved
in the Highway Work Permit Process for the Applicant sponsored improvements in
the area of the Taconic State Parkway interchange and the signal timing

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-95

improvements at the other remote intersections along the corridor as indicated in the
Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K.

Any impacts to existing wetlands or buffers associated with the NYSDOT project at
the intersection of Route 202/35 and Stony Street, as referenced in the Comment,
were addressed and permitted prior to the beginning of construction. The approvals
and permits are part of the public record. The referenced wetlands are located west of
the Project Site and are unrelated to the Proposed Action.

The potential future completion of the Bear Mountain Parkway Extension bypass
roadway is still listed as a potential future development on the New York State TIP
however there is no timetable for this project. The Applicant is not relying upon
future improvement plans by NYSDOT to mitigate adverse impacts caused by the
Proposed Action as noted by the Comment. The Applicant has assumed
responsibility for its own mitigation efforts to address traffic impacts in the vicinity of
the Taconic State Parkway as discussed in detail in the Introductory Response to
FEIS Section III.K. Furthermore, the Applicant has proposed signal timing changes
that would be provided as mitigation for the increased traffic volumes at the more
remote intersections along the corridor. These signal timing improvements would
continue to be coordinated by the Applicant with NYSDOT as part of the Highway
Work Permit Process.

Comment III.K 38 - (Document 60.1, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

We have been retained by Richard Stanton, an attorney representing a number of
Yorktown Citizens, to review certain aspects of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on the subject matter.

Our comments focus primarily on the traffic analysis.

We have uncovered many issues with the analysis and believe it is critical that the
Planning Board assure itself that the traffic review is properly done. At this time, it
appears as though that has not yet occurred.

The no-build analysis is flawed and underestimates future background conditions.
The trip generation does not properly account for traffic from the gas station, and the
level of service calculations have many flaws, including the use of software that does
not account for queuing impacts, spillback and lane geometric issues in the network.

This project cannot be accommodated in the local network as proposed, without
massive traffic delays. It is inconsistent with every planning study in the region.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-96

Specific commitments on traffic mitigation measures - that is, who will implement
them and when, has not been presented. The project will not be in compliance with
SEQRA, until these matters are fully vetted and resolved.

Attached are our preliminary comments.

Response III.K 38:

Comment noted. See the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K as well as FEIS
Responses III.K 1, 2, 3 5 and 6 for more specific information regarding the Revised
Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, which reflects ongoing
NYSDOT traffic improvements and improvements that have been separately
proposed by the Applicant to mitigate Project impacts as discussed in detail in the
Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K .

Comment III.K 39 - (Document 60.3, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.4,

3. The traffic study is erroneous and understates the impacts of the project.

4. The projected future No Build traffic analysis in the DEIS fails to take into
consideration more than 55 vacant commercial buildings in the area. These buildings
represent substantial commercial activity, thousands of square feet of available but
unoccupied space, and have been specifically identified in the DEIS marketing study.
Yet the traffic from their future occupancy has not been accounted for in the DEIS.

5. Project generated traffic used in the Build Condition is incorrect and severely
underestimates the traffic from this project. The fueling facility has not been properly
assessed relative to traffic impact. Using well established factors, this project will
generate 220 a.m. peak hour trips, 420 p.m. peak hour trips and 450 Saturday trips in
excess of the volumes presented in the DEIS.

6. The traffic impacts of the project will result in failing intersections, long queues,
and excessive delays. These impacts will not be mitigated by the measures offered by
Costco.

7. Road and intersection capacity in the area will be fully utilized impacting quality of
life, decreasing safety and adversely affect, schools, residents and other retail and
commercial facilities in the corridor.

10. There is no analysis for the weekday early afternoon peak traffic when the site
and schools have their peak traffic. This is needed to ascertain impacts on school

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-97

traffic.

Response III.K 39:

See FEIS Response III.K.6 for the specific responses to these traffic related
comments. The adequacy of on-site parking is addressed in the Introductory
Response provided in FEIS Section III.L. As discussed in Section II.B of the Revised
Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, during the early afternoon
hours, the combination of background traffic including school traffic together with
the traffic generated by the Proposed Action is expected to be similar to or less than
the total volumes on the roadway during the PM Peak Hour. Therefore, the results
are expected to be similar to or slightly better than those shown for the Weekday Peak
PM Highway Hour. See also FEIS Response III.K 73.

Comment III.K 40 (Document 139.15, Jonathon Nettelfield):

The conclusion The Applicant asserts that, with these improvements, safe and
efficient access to the proposed Costco will be provided without any significant
negative impact on traffic operations in the vicinity of the site. does not take into
account traffic generated in areas not covered in the traffic study. For example there
is no analysis of traffic flows west of Pine Grove Court on Rt. 202/35, cut-through
traffic on Hunterbrook Road and other likely cut-through routes and not even on
likely ramp back-ups on the Taconic Parkway. Currently at busy times there are back-
ups on the northbound exit ramp on
the Taconic Parkway as traffic tries to turn left onto Rt. 202/35. This situation is
likely to be greatly amplified by Costco traffic. We dispute the assertion that there
will no negative impacts in the vicinity of the site and furthermore we do not believe
the traffic study has taken into account the entire systemic impact of the additional
traffic.

Response III.K 40:

The traffic impact analysis contained in the DEIS and the Revised Traffic Impact
Study contained in FEIS Appendix G analyzed the impact of traffic along the NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor from Lexington Avenue to the west of the site and
east through the triangle intersection. Also, the Applicant asserts that it does not
expect that there will be any significant cut-through traffic on any other area
roadways such as Hunterbrook Road since traffic conditions along the NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 corridor, according to the analyses prepared by the Applicant
contained in this FEIS, are expected to be improved as a result of the improvements
presently under construction by NYSDOT as well as those proposed to be constructed
separately by the Applicant. (See also Response III.K.8 for a further discussion of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-98

cut-through traffic on other area roadways).

In addition to providing additional capacity along the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202
corridor, the NYSDOT improvements are expected to improve access to the roadway
for traffic from the Taconic State Parkway destined to areas to the west (i.e. Peekskill,
Cortlandt, etc.). This will be accomplished with the free flow acceleration lane from
the Bear Mountain Parkway Extension (BMPE) onto NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202
westbound. The current delays on the southbound approach to NYS Route 35/U.S.
Route 202 from the BMPE discourage drivers from using this route to get to points
west. Instead, many drivers exit the Taconic State Parkway at the northbound off
ramp to NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 near Strang Boulevard where there are
significant existing delays during PM Peak Hours. The analyses presented in the
DEIS and the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G indicate
that after completion of NYSDOT improvements, much of the existing traffic
volumes that exit at this location and continue west along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route
202 towards Peekskill will use the Bear Mountain Parkway Extension in the future,
thereby reducing delays on the northbound off-ramp in the future. This is expected to
occur regardless of the Proposed Action.

Comment III.K 41 (Document 140.1, Daniel E. Hogan):

1. The traffic study is dated August 2012, yet the study states that Costco is to be
completed in 2013, which is unrealistic. It appears that the traffic study should
include traffic projections to a later year such as 2015 to provide a more realistic
appraisal of future traffic conditions.

Response III.K 41:

While the original traffic study contained in DEIS Appendix E references a 2013
completion for the Proposed Action, which Applicant now projects to be 2014, the
analysis accounted for traffic volume growth from other projects that have not yet
been completed making the analysis representative of conditions beyond 2014. In
fact, as indicated in the Revised Traffic Impact Study (Section II.B) contained in
FEIS Appendix G, based on the more recent traffic counts collected in November
2013, the traffic projections in the original Traffic Impact Study (contained in
Appendix E of the DEIS) are conservatively high since actual growth has been less
than the 2% annual growth applied to the base traffic volumes. Therefore, the
Applicant asserts that it is likely that they are representative of conditions of at least
2016. As stated previously in FEIS Response III.K.5, if the rezoning for the State
Land project is approved, it would not be constructed until 2016 at the earliest.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-99


As most Yorktown residents, I am very familiar with the gridlock that occurs
every weekday afternoon and evening on Route 202 heading west towards
Peekskill. It can take 30 minutes or more to go from Granite Springs Road to the
Bear Mountain Parkway in Cortlandt, and sun glare is not a contributing factor
for the backups, as the traffic study indicates (note that the sun isnt an issue
on cloudy days or during winter months when the sun has set by 4:30 pm, yet
the backups are the same as on sunny days). Traffic in the opposite direction
(heading to the east) moves very well during weekday evenings. Therefore, I
question why the traffic counts show similar eastbound and westbound traffic on
Route 202 during the weekday peak pm hour (see Figure No. 4, 2010 Existing
Traffic Volumes, Weekday Peak PM Hour). For example, at the Route 202 and
Old Crompond Road intersection, Figure No. 4 shows 1139 cars heading west and
a similar number (1164) heading east. Is the similarity because the westbound
traffic is so slow-moving that the true amount of traffic is not being captured in
the hour-long time period? If so, the true amount of traffic should be used in the
traffic study which will probably result in more realistic (worse) results.

Response III.K 42:

As noted in FEIS Response III.K.6 Item 1, the existing traffic volumes used in the
analysis are based on both recent traffic volume data collected at the study area
intersections as well as historical data available from other studies completed between
2000 and 2010. These volumes were also compared to traffic volume data available
from NYSDOT, including those volumes used in the study for the NYSDOT Pine
Grove Court improvement project. Together these volumes were used to create a
complete record of the existing conditions along the corridor and the highest volumes
from all the available data was used in determining the existing traffic volumes used
in the analysis contained in the DEIS and the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained
in FEIS Appendix G. It should be noted that traffic volumes that may not be able to
travel through one intersection during the peak hour due to queuing on a particular
approach are accounted for by balancing traffic volumes between adjacent
intersections.

In addition, recent traffic volume data collected during November 2013 by Maser
Consulting, P.A. (the Applicants Traffic Consultant) were compared to the existing
traffic volumes used in the traffic analysis. As indicated in Table EX-1 of the Revised
Traffic Impact Study, the recent 2013 traffic volumes were found to be lower than the
volumes used in the traffic analysis contained herein. This is a result of balancing of
traffic volumes on the network and using historical traffic volumes including counts
collected when some currently vacant stores, including the Food Emporium and Bed

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-100

Bath and Beyond, as well as others (see FEIS Response III.K.6c), were previously
occupied. Thus, the volumes considered for the existing traffic volume conditions are
somewhat higher than current observations and therefore the Applicant asserts that
they are a conservatively high representation of base traffic volumes.

Furthermore, while sun glare may not be a direct factor causing delays during all
times of the year it has been noted as a contributing factor during afternoon peak
periods during certain times of the year. Sun glare has also been noted as a
contributing factor for accidents along the corridor as noted in the Highway Safety
Investigation completed for the corridor in the area of the Taconic State Parkway
interchange. This Highway Safety Investigation is included in the Revised Traffic
Analysis contained in FEIS Appendix G. At the request of the NYSDOT, the
Applicant will install back plates to the westbound approach of the traffic signals to
reduce the effects of sun glare. It should also be noted that sun glare does not affect
the traffic volumes at the area intersections and the delays and queues along the
corridor are typical regardless of environmental conditions. The afternoon westbound
delays are also a result of existing bottlenecks along the corridor, especially at the
Pine Grove Court and Bear Mountain Parkway Extension intersections, which are
being addressed by the NYSDOT improvement project. In addition, existing
bottlenecks in the area of the Taconic State Parkway interchange, especially relative
to queuing for left turn movements would be addressed by the separately proposed
Applicant sponsored improvements.


On page 39, the traffic study states that an overall Level of Service D or better
is currently experienced during the Weekday Peak AM, Weekday Peak PM and
Saturday Peak Hours at the Route 202/BJ s intersection. As noted in comment 2
above, there is gridlock in the westbound direction during the peak pm hour,
yet the study indicates that the AM, PM and Saturday hours are all operating
acceptably which is inconceivable given the actual conditions during the evening
rush hour.

Response III.K 43:

According to the analyses presented in the DEIS and the Revised Traffic Impact
Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, operating conditions experienced at the
intersection of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and BJ s/Stony Street are generally
impacted by queuing in the westbound direction resulting from the existing operating
conditions at the Pine Grove Court and Bear Mountain Parkway Extension
intersections. The Applicant expects these existing bottlenecks at Pine Grove Court
and at BJ s to be addressed by the NYSDOT improvement project, which is presently

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-101

under construction. The Applicant also asserts that the bottleneck at the Taconic
State Parkway ramps will be improved by the Applicants planned improvements as
described in Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K.


On page 19, in the site generated traffic volumes section, the report notes that a
25 percent credit has been taken for passby/diverted link trips to Costco. This
appears too high as Costco is a members-only facility and most of its customers
trips would be planned, destination-type trips, not trips from customers that just
happen to be passing by the store on Route 202. Using such a high percentage
understates the amount of Costco traffic on the roadways.

Response III.K 44:

Based on data provided by ITE pass-by/diverted link trips for retail developments can
range between 40 to 70%. Therefore the 25% pass-by/diverted link trip credit used in
the analysis can actually be considered conservative. In addition, as acknowledged in
the report prepared by Tim Miller Associates, Inc. dated October 15, 2012 the use of
the 25% pass-by rate is likely reasonably accurate.


The traffic study includes future NYSDOT improvements to Route 202 as
part of the mitigation for the impact from Costcos traffic and states that these
improvements will begin later this year and be completed before Costco opens.
As of today, the improvements have not yet begun and given the States fiscal
condition and funding problems, the improvements may not be done for several
years. Therefore, the Costco study should quantity what the traffic conditions
will be in the future at each intersection without the NYSDOT improvements
using the no-build and build traffic volumes.

Response III.K 45:

The traffic analysis contained in the DEIS had considered the impacts to each of the
study area intersections under No-Build and Build conditions both with and without
the NYSDOT improvements. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table
No. 2 of the Traffic Impact Study contained in Appendix E of the DEIS. However,
since the time of the DEIS submission, the plans for the NYSDOT Pine Grove Court
improvements have continued to progress. The NYSDOT contract for the project
began construction in April 2013) and is scheduled for a Summer 2014 completion,
which will be prior to the opening of the Costco facility. For consistency, the Revised

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-102

Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G also analyzes each of the study
area intersection both with and without the NYSDOT improvements under No-Build
and Build conditions. However, the analyses without the NYSDOT improvements are
no longer applicable since these improvements, which are now under construction,
will be completed prior to the opening date of the Costco facility.


Table 2, the Level of Service Summary shows that the Costco traffic will have
an impact unless the NYSDOT improvements are constructed. At the Route 202/
BJ s intersection, the PM Build delays in the westbound direction will be higher
than the No-build delays even after the suggested timing improvements are
implemented, Although the poor traffic conditions on Route 202 are an existing
problem, the Costco traffic will make conditions noticeably worse at locations
other than the ones adjacent to their development (where they are proposing to
pay for improvements) and the applicant should identify what measures will
be taken beyond timing changes to address this issue until all of the NYSDOT
improvements ate constructed.

Thank you for your time and consideration and I look forward to receiving responses
to my concerns.

Response III.K 46:

The DEIS Traffic Study provided an analysis of conditions both with and without the
NYSDOT improvements since at the time of the study, the NYSDOT improvements
were still in development and did not have full funding. The DEIS analysis indicated
that several of the intersections to be improved by NYSDOT are currently operating
at poor Levels of Service and would operate at similar Levels of Service without the
improvements. However, since the acceptance of the DEIS, the NYSDOT
improvement project has progressed and construction of the improvements
commenced in April 2013 and are projected to be completed in Summer 2014. For
consistency, the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G also
analyzes each of the study area intersection both with and without the NYSDOT
improvements under No-Build and Build conditions. However, the analyses without
the NYSDOT improvements are no longer applicable since these improvements will
be completed prior to the opening date of the Costco facility.

As indicated by the analysis contained in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained
in FEIS Appendix G, the NYSDOT improvements and the separately proposed
Applicant sponsored improvements will provide significant improvements in
operating conditions along the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 between Strang

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-103

Boulevard and the Bear Mountain Parkway Extension. For the study area
intersections outside of this area, signal timing and phasing improvements have
generally been recommended by the Applicant to improve overall operating
conditions. These traffic signal timing improvements will be coordinated by the
Applicant with NYSDOT as part of the Highway Work Permit process. In addition,
other improvements not proposed to be completed by the Applicant have also been
identified, such as the construction of a southbound right turn lane on NYS Route
132, which was previously identified in the Town of Yorktown Comprehensive Plan
(Policy 3-4, Table 3-1) or the construction of a formal left turn lane on NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 at Baldwin Road. These improvements were identified by the
Applicant as recommendations for the Town to consider as future improvements, but
are not required to mitigate the traffic impacts of the Proposed Action.

Comment III.K 47 (Document 162.1, Ellen Dolan):

I live in Mohegan Lake and take my children to Yorktown for piano lessons after
school. While they are in their lessons I go to Mrs. Greens, Turcos and sometimes
stop for takeout. I then sit in terrible traffic on 202/35. During the day it takes me
about 15 minutes to get home but after school between 4-5 pm I crawl along 202/35
and it takes me about 30-35 minutes.. The lights are slow, there is so much traffic on
where the proposed site for Costco is I cannot imagine how it would be after it is
built. J ust travel it yourself with 3 kids in the car and you will see!

Response III.K 47:

According to the analyses presented in the DEIS and the Revised Traffic Impact
Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, operating conditions experienced along the
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor are generally impacted by queuing in the
westbound direction resulting from operating conditions at the Pine Grove Court and
Bear Mountain Parkway Extension intersections. These existing bottlenecks at Pine
Grove Court and at BJ s are expected to be addressed by the NYSDOT improvement
project, which is presently under construction. In addition, the existing bottleneck at
the Taconic State Parkway ramps, which results in delays in the westbound direction
extending back as far as NYS Route 132 during peak hours would be improved by the
Applicants planned improvements as described in Introductory Response to FEIS
Section III.K. In addition, signal timing improvements have been identified to
mitigate traffic impacts at the more remote intersections east and west of the Project
site area and will be coordinated by the Applicant with NYSDOT as part of the
Highway Work Permit process.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-104

Comment III.K 48 (Document 165.1, Stephanie DeLano, Public Involvement Coordinator,
NYSDOT), (Document 131.2, Stephanie DeLano, Public Involvement Coordinator,
NYSDOT):

The project letting (or bid opening) date is scheduled for J anuary 10th and the project
is typically awarded 30 45 days after that. The contractor must begin work within
10 days after award (so by March of 2013). We anticipate the project finishing in
December of 2014.

The project does include work along the existing alignment of the Bear Mountain
Parkway Extension starting at the Taconic State Parkway and continuing to Route
35/202.

This project includes two intersections west of the intersection of Stony Street and
Route 35/202. The projects western-most limits are 2300 feet west of the intersection
of Bear Mountain Parkway Extension and Route 351202. The easternmost limits are
at the intersection of Route 35/202 and Old Crompond Road, west of the Taconic
State Parkway bridge over Route 35/202. This project does not include plans to
improve Route 202 east of the Taconic State Parkway.

Funding for the entire job has been secured and includes a combination of state and
federal funding.

There will be a public informational meeting (likely in February or early March once
the contractor is on board) to make people aware of any lane closures associated with
the construction and similar issues. I will include you on that invitation.

Response III.K 48:

This letter was apparently written to Olivia Buehl in response to her request for
information. Also see Ms. Buehls request for DOTs schedule of improvements in
FEIS Comment III.K 30. This NYSDOT letter confirms the status of the funding and
schedule for the completion of their project and in fact the NYSDOT project is
scheduled to be completed by Summer 2014.

Comment III.K 49 (Document 169.1, Mark H. Linehan):

Will the upgrade of Route 202/35 be performed by NYSDOT or by Costco? If there
is any delay in the upgrade of the road infrastructure on Route 202, will the Costco
store be permitted to open before the roadwork is completed? In that case, will Costco
be required to pay for traffic control officers to manage the traffic until the road
construction is finished?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-105

Response III.K 49:

As discussed in Section III.K of the DEIS and the Introductory Response to FEIS
Section III.K, the NYSDOT improvements will consist of adding additional
eastbound and westbound travel lanes as well as a turn lanes between Old Crompond
Road and the Parkside Corners Shopping Center. Construction of these improvements
began in April 2013 and are scheduled for a Summer 2014 completion, prior to the
currently expected opening date for the Proposed Action. The Applicant sponsored
improvements, would complement the NYSDOT improvements by extending the
additional westbound travel lane to the Strang Boulevard intersection as well as
providing an additional eastbound storage lane for traffic turning left onto the Taconic
State Parkway northbound ramp which would increase the left turn lane storage
length from approximately 100 ft. under existing conditions to approximately 360 ft.
This widening would also result in an improvement in the westbound left turn lane
storage distance, which would be increased in length from approximately 100 ft. to
330 ft.. (See FEIS Exhibit A-4). These improvements, which are discussed in detail in
the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K, would be completed by the
Applicant prior to occupancy of the Costco facility. Based on the analysis provided in
the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, these modifications
would improve the traffic movements getting onto the northbound and southbound
ramp and would help reduce delays to vehicles continuing to the east and west past
the interchange area.


I am concerned about traffic backup on westbound Route 202/35, waiting to turn
north on the Taconic. At present, this backup is often sufficient to fill the available
queuing space and block regular westbound traffic. Why should the applicant not be
required to pay for an additional turning lane for cars turning north from Route 202
onto the Taconic?

Response III.K 50:

It appears that the Comment is actually referring to queuing in the eastbound
direction along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 as a result of vehicles turning left onto
the Taconic State Parkway northbound ramp. As indicated in the Introductory
Response to FEIS Section III.K, in response to comments obtained from J acobs
Engineering and NYSDOT, the Applicant is now proposing to provide an additional
left turn storage lane in the eastbound direction along NYS Route 202/U.S. Route 35
approaching the northbound Taconic State Parkway Ramp. This improvement, which
is shown on FEIS Introductory Exhibit A-4, would increase the left turn lane storage

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-106

length from approximately 100 ft. under existing conditions to approximately 360 ft.
This widening would also result in an improvement in the westbound left turn lane
storage distance, which would be increased in length from approximately 100 ft. to
330 ft.. (See FEIS Exhibit A-4). These modifications would be provided to improve
overall operating conditions on the eastbound and westbound approaches as well as to
address existing queuing issues in the area of the Taconic State Parkway interchange.


The traffic study proposes signal timing improvements for most of the traffic signals
along Route 202. Has the state DOT agreed to these timing improvements? Will
Costco pay for whatever costs are associated with these improvements?

Response III.K 51:

The Traffic Impact Study including the Synchro analysis has been submitted to
NYSDOT for their review of the project as well as for their review of the proposed
signal timing and phasing improvements that have been recommended for many of
the intersections along the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor. Correspondence
letters between NYSDOT and the Applicants consultant dated J anuary 24, 2013,
February 14, 2013 and April 5, 2013 are included in the Revised Traffic Impact Study
contained in FEIS Appendix G. Signal timings are typically completed by NYSDOT
on an ongoing basis based on actual volumes at that time. The traffic signal timing
changes recommended in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS
Appendix G for each of the intersections listed in the Introductory Response to FEIS
Section III.K will be coordinated between the Applicant and NYSDOT as part of the
Highway Work Permit process and any potential costs associated with these signal
timing changes will be paid for by the Applicant.

During the design process, the Applicant has had continued coordination of the
highway and signal design improvements with the NYSDOT. The improvement will
be funded by the Applicant and the improvement plans are included as part of this
FEIS. Also refer to FEIS Appendix G for correspondence from the NYSDOT
regarding these improvements.


The DEIS says that the NYSDOT improvements to Route 202/35 in the BMP
extension/Pine Grove Court/Stony Street area are supposed to start in late 2012. In
fact, they have not started. Will these improvements be completed before Costco is
opened, and if not should Costco be required to delay its opening until the
improvements are done?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-107

Response III.K 52:

See Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K regarding the timing of the
NYSDOT improvement project, which is currently under construction and scheduled
for a Summer 2014 completion prior to the projected opening of the proposed Costco
facility.


Given that NYSDOT is apparently not providing additional traffic capacity on Route
202/35 west of Snap Fitness, or east of Strang Blvd, and given that these roads are
already rated as F during peak usage hours, does it make sense at this time to add
more traffic associated with Costco?

Response III.K 53:

As discussed above in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K, the timing
and phasing improvements for the intersections west of Snap Fitness and east of
Strang Boulevard are expected to provide similar or improved overall operating
conditions as compared No-Build Conditions at each of the intersections identified as
indicated in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in Appendix G. In addition,
as shown in Table III.K.1 contained in FEIS Response III.K.1, the volumes generated
by the Proposed Action will dissipate further away from the Site location. Therefore,
the impacts on these intersections will be significantly less than at those closer to the
site where the Applicant would complete the improvements as described in the
Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K to mitigate the impacts of added traffic
in the interchange area.

Comment III.K 54 (Document 174.26, Stephen Steeneck):

Please address how the DEIS assumes a 750+Average Additional Per Hour Claim of
adding Cars in Traffic to the Project area will eliminate additional traffic?

Response III.K 54:

Based on the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in Appendix G, the Applicant
Sponsored improvements along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 will provide
additional capacity through the interchange area as a result of the added westbound
lane and left turn lane storage improvements for movements onto the Taconic State
Parkway ramps. This will provide additional capacity of over 1,500 vehicles per hour
through the interchange area to accommodate both existing traffic volumes as well as

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-108

the additional traffic volumes to be generated by the Proposed Action. In addition, the
NYSDOT improvements currently under construction are expected to alleviate
existing bottlenecks in the area of Pine Grove Court and the Bear Mountain Parkway
Extensions and based on the Revised Traffic Impact Study, the traffic to be generated
by the Proposed Action is not expected to impact operating conditions at the
intersections being improved by NYSDOT. It should be noted that, as discussed
previously, the Applicant asserts a significant portion of the trips generated by the
Proposed Action will not be new to the roadway system as they will be pass-
by/diverted link trips attracted from the existing traffic volumes already present along
the roadway.


Please state how adding additional Traffic Light will eliminate a FAILING ROAD
SYSTEM and improve the traffic flow?

Response III.K 55:

The Applicant sponsored improvements, which are described in detail in the
Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K, are not proposing to add any new
(additional) traffic signals to the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 Corridor but will
upgrade and replace existing traffic signals. The NYSDOT improvements, also
discussed in detail in the Introductory Response, will add a new traffic signal at the
intersection of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and Pine Grove Court, which is an
existing bottleneck location along the corridor. The addition of this traffic signal will
be complemented with additional eastbound and westbound through lanes along the
corridor as well as auxiliary turning lanes at the intersection of Pine Grove Court. As
indicated by the analysis contained in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in
FEIS Appendix G, these NYSDOT improvements will significantly improve traffic
flow through this area.


Please provide a full and complete TRAFFIC Study of the North bound turning lane
on Route 202, NOT a Traffic Study that aims to state an increase in Traffic. In
fact, a Traffic Study, as to how many vehicles (cars) would be using a turning
lane to go North on the Taconic State Parkway. This study should show how
many cars per hour is expected to use a North Bound turning lane getting onto
the Taconic State Parkway. This should be independent and NOT as something
marked refer to this or that page in the DEIS. This is an Independent Study by an
outside agency, neutral and not biased, in which the Costco/Breslin Group would
pay for and provide for such research. As a lifelong resident and living within

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-109

1/2 mile of the area, I have not seen people heading west on route 202 to turn
North onto the Taconic State Parkway. Therefore, this study should be provided.

Response III.K 56:

The eastbound left turn lane to the Taconic State Parkway northbound has been
studied fully as part of the analysis contained in section III.K of the DEIS as well as
the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G. The existing
volume of traffic making a left turn from NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 to the
Taconic State Parkway northbound, which are shown on Figures No. 3, 4 and 5 of the
Revised Traffic Impact Study, indicates that as many as 275 vehicles per hour during
the highest one hour period make this turn. As shown on the Site Generated Traffic
Volume figures (Figures 17, 18 and 19 of the Revised Traffic Impact Study) the site
is expected to add up to 70 vehicles to this movement during any of the highest peak
hour periods. As indicated in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K, to
address comments provided by both J acobs Engineering in their J une 2013 report and
NYSDOT, the Applicant sponsored improvements now propose to construct a
separate left turn storage lane on this approach to accommodate both the existing
queuing as well as the future traffic to be generated by the Proposed Action.

Comment III.K 57 (Document 174.34, Stephen L. Steeneck):

The Town of Yorktowns own Comprehensive Plan states the zoning is NOT for a
high traffic added area. Whereas the DEIS does state an Average number of increased
traffic flow of 750+Cars per hour, AVERAGE. What the normal person does not
understand is the true length of a Car. The average car is 20 feet long. Adding 20 feet
per car to 750 cars is 15,000 feet of traffic. A mile is 5,280 feet. if you divide 5,280
feet into 15,000 feet, you will get 2.84 miles of traffic. The Traffic will be backed up
almost 3 miles in either direction, just because we now will have a Costco. No matter
what you do, we still have 1 lane of direction of traffic each way and you cannot
change that now. This project is a CLEAR VIOLATION of The Town of Yorktowns
own Comprehensive Plan NOT to add additionally traffic to that area. As per under
Zoning CL and C-3, of course stated above.

Response III.K 57:

In the Yorktown Comprehensive Plan, the Town Board determined that the
development of a retail use with a regional draw which by its nature depends
largely on automobile access in suburban areas like Yorktown is an appropriate use
for the project site and is consistent with public health and safety. Refer to FEIS
Response III.A 17


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-110

The presumption that the additional traffic to be generated by the Proposed Action
will result in 3 miles of queues in either direction is incorrect and unfounded. This
assumes that all the traffic to be generated by the facility will be on the roadway at
the same time. In fact, the traffic generation estimates are for the peak ONE HOUR
periods and are spread out over the hour. Also, the Comment assumes that all traffic
generated by the site will be either entering or exiting at the same time. This is also
inaccurate, since approximately half of the total trips generated by the site will be
entering and half will be exiting during the one hour time period.

The analysis contained in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS
Appendix G does not support the conclusions made in this Comment about queuing
along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202. As indicated by the analysis, the queues along
the corridor are expected to be significantly reduced as a result of the currently under
construction NYSDOT improvements and the separately proposed Applicant
sponsored improvements.

Comment III.K 58 (Document 175.1, Henry, Steeneck):

Request to declare DEIS for Costco project as deficient or to hold public review
period open until all answers are received.

In the letter from Ray Dominguez, PE (J acobs) dated 4/20/12 (see attached); he states
that a comprehensive technical review will be conducted subsequent to clarification
on open issues and comments, and the Planning Boards acceptance of the Costco
application as complete.

The response in letter dated 5/9/12 from Phil Greely, (J ohn Collins Engineers-see
attached) on page 4 under B. Other Technical Comments is The remainder of the
items in the memo are referred to the preliminary technical comments received and
will be addressed in more detail as part of the FEIS but our initial responses are noted
below.

We feel that this puts both the writer of the memo and the public in the position of not
being able to properly review and comment.

REQUEST We ask that the DEIS be declared deficient

Response III.K 58:

The comments provided by Ray Dominguez, P.E. of J acobs Engineers, the Towns
Traffic Consultant, in his letter dated April 20, 2012 were on the completeness of the
DEIS and also included more technical items that the Applicant considered to be

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-111

outside of the information required by the original scoping document for the Project
and therefore were not required for completeness of the DEIS. (The DEIS was
accepted by the Lead Agency as complete on September 12, 2012.) It was agreed
that these comments would be fully addressed in the FEIS where it is appropriate to
address technical comments on the DEIS. These comments have been responded to in
FEIS Responses III.K 65 through III.K 74.

Comment III.K 59 (Document 175.2, Henry. Steeneck):

Section Trip Generation - Comment 4 (J acobs Memo): Provide a table detailing the
split between trips generated by the refueling component and the warehouse.

Their (Collins) Response: On page 7, Comment 4 - The trip generation represents a
total trip generation. We do not have a breakdown between fueling and warehouse
trips. That information will be provided in the FEIS.

This information is needed during the review period in order to do a proper analysis
by the public and by any professional retained to assist in this review. Failure to
provide in the DEIS, and in subsequent requests, in our opinion should make the
DEIS declared deficient.

REQUESTwe ask that the DEIS be declared deficient

Response III.K 59:

This information on the split of trips generated by the fueling facility versus the
warehouse was not required as part of the original scoping document for the Proposed
Action. Item III.K.3.a of the Final Scope required the Applicant to Estimate traffic
generation from the Proposed Action using Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)
methodology with data available from Costco, including the radius in which the store
is expected to draw customers from the surrounding area. This information was
provided in Sections III.K.3.a and III.K.3.b of the DEIS. The Final Scope did not
require a separate breakdown trips related to the Costco store as compared to those
for the fueling facility. Therefore, it was not necessary that this information be
provided for completeness of the DEIS. The issues raised in this Comment, which is
considered a technical comment on the DEIS, has been substantively addressed in this
FEIS. See FEIS Responses III.K.6 and III.K.69 as well as additional information
contained in the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-112

Comment III.K 60 (Document 138.4, Wayne Jeffers, Barrier Motor Fuels, Inc.):

Thank you for considering my concerns which also include the already unbearable
traffic in the subject area and the ability of first responders to traverse the major east
west corridor in emergency situations. As the Chief Driver for Town Ladder 78 in the
Tarrytown Fire Department, I am often frustrated by traffic jams on Route 9 due to
the Tappan Zee Bridge.

Response III.K 60:

See FEIS Response III.K.5 which addresses the ability of emergency services vehicles
to traverse through the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor.

Comment III.K 61 (PH2, James Garofalo, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

Now, there is a couple of things that I do want to provide to you, one is a letter from
the Planning Board October 26, which lists a whole series of different things which
the town does not have, information that the town does not have, information the
DOT has or DOT does not have.

One of the important things is the traffic counts themselves. The traffic counts are
along with the peak hour factor, I am not going to explain that to you

But, those two items are foremost among the data that is required for the capacity
analysis. You do not have them -- you do not have them, J acobs Engineering doesn't
have them, I don't know if the DOT has them to look at them. But, ask for them, get
them and then you can do the analysis. When is that going to be available to the
public also to analyze? [PH2, page 49, lines 9-25], [PH2, page 50, lines 1-4]

Response III.K 61:

The existing traffic volume counts are not typically included as part of the DEIS
unless specifically required by the scoping document. The scoping document for the
Proposed Action did not require that this information be provided. The DEIS includes
Table I-1 and Table I-2, which provide a summary of the dates of collection for the
manual turning movement counts and machine counts collected by J ohn Collins
Engineers, P.C. (now Maser Consulting, P.A.). The specific machine count data
collected for the corridor was also provided. This was provided specifically in
response to completeness comments provided by J acobs Engineering. In any event,
all existing traffic volume data collected by Maser Consulting, P.A. and available
from NYSDOT has now been provided in Appendix H of the Revised Traffic Impact
Study contained in FEIS Appendix G. It should be noted, that as mentioned in FEIS

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-113

Response III.K.6, these existing traffic volumes were compared to available historical
information, including data from NYSDOT, to compile a complete historical record
of traffic volumes along the corridor. The highest traffic volumes from this
comparison were used to determine the existing traffic volumes used in the analysis.

Furthermore, additional traffic volume data was collected during November 2013 by
Maser Consulting, P.A. and were compared to the existing traffic volumes used in the
traffic analysis. As indicated in Table EX-1 of the Revised Traffic Impact Study, the
recently collected 2013 traffic volumes were found to be lower than the volumes used
in the traffic analysis contained in the original DEIS Traffic Impact Study (DEIS
Appendix E) as well as the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS
Appendix G. This is a result of balancing of traffic volumes on the network and using
historical traffic volumes including traffic counts that were collected when some
currently vacant stores, including those such as the Food Emporium and Bed Bath
and Beyond, and others were previously occupied (See FEIS Response III.K.6c for
full list of vacant stores that were previously occupied during times of historical
traffic volumes). Thus, the volumes considered for the existing traffic volume
conditions in the original Traffic Impact Study (DEIS Appendix E) and the Revised
Traffic Impact Study (FEIS Appendix G) are somewhat higher than current
observations and therefore are a conservatively a high representation of base traffic
conditions.

Comment III.K 62 (PH2, James Garofalo, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

The other bit of information that I am going to give you is a disc. This disc has the
synchro-analysis, which is software which is somewhat similar to what is in the
DEIS, with somewhat similar results. However, what does this give you is
information on queuing where you have oversaturated situations, where you had spill
back, where turning lanes are being blocked.

This becomes very critical information, DOT recognizes that in cases such as this,
looking at queuing is a very important part of the puzzle. The town does not have the
software, J acob Engineering should have it, the Edwards and Kelsin (sic) who they
purchased and has looked and worked on the development study use the synchro as
part of their analysis.

So, hopefully they have the most up-to-date version of synchro and they can look at
this and report back with a summary, what are the implications of the queues and the
spill back and the blocking of lanes which can turn what looks like a perfectly normal
turning lane into something that is not functioning simply because the vehicles can't
get into it.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-114

So, I ask that you pass this on to J acobs Engineering and have them look at it.
Unfortunately, this information is riddle [sic ]with some of the same problems as the
analysis in the DEIS, including failure to use the lane utilization, and other problems
which I won't get into, but have been reported to you.

They need -- you know, when are they going to be corrected, both, for you and for
DOT, so that any mitigation that is provided will meet the needs that are going to be
developed based on what is going to happen. [PH2, page 50, lines 5-25], [PH2, page
51, lines 1-20]

Response III.K 62:

The analysis provided in the DEIS used the latest available (at the time of study) HCS
software to conduct the capacity analysis. The HCS files were generated from a
Synchro analysis that was conducted for NYSDOT. As part of this FEIS and in
response to this and other technical comments, the DEIS traffic analysis has been
updated using the latest Synchro software (version 8). This analysis is incorporated in
the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G and the results are
summarized in Table No. 2 of the Revised Traffic Impact Study. The sensitivity
analysis, contained in the Revised Traffic Impact Study, was also conducted using the
same software. The revised analysis also accounts for all appropriate factors including
current lane geometry and traffic signal timings as discussed in FEIS Response
III.K.6e. The Revised Traffic Impact Study also includes a summary of the queuing
results provided by the Synchro analysis as shown on Tables No. 3 and 3-S of the
revised study contained in FEIS Appendix G. These tables summarize the queuing
results under the No-Build, Build and Build with Improvements scenarios for the
intersections in the area of the Taconic State Parkway interchange, where the
Applicant is proposing to make their improvements. As summarized in these tables,
with the completion of the Applicants improvements in the area of the interchange,
there will be sufficient storage area to satisfy the queuing needs for each of the
turning movements at these intersections. Furthermore, the results of the analyses
contained in the Revised Traffic Impact Study confirmed the results of the DEIS
analysis and indicate that the roadway network can accommodate the projected traffic
volumes expected to be generated by the Proposed Action with the completion of the
NYSDOT improvements and the separately proposed Applicant sponsored
improvements.

Comment III.K 63 (PH2, Patricia Peckham):
Specific questions, specific. It was my understanding that the Planning Board
approved an independent traffic study. My question is, has this been done, and if it is
not, I will request that the DEIS not be considered complete until this independent

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-115

traffic study has been done, submitted and time enough for the public to comment on
it, to examine and comment on it. So, that is the first thing.

Also, as a business person in Yorktown, I am one of four aggregate businesses within
the probably two mile radius to Costco and -- my clientele are loyal to me, but
convenience is very important to them. I would request that the DEIS address the
traffic impact on routes 35, 202, east of the triangle shopping center. Over fifty
percent of my business come from east of 684. [PH2, page 66, lines 11-25], [PH2,
page 67, lines 1-5]

Response III.K 63:

The DEIS for the Proposed Action included a complete traffic study for the study area
identified in the scoping document adopted by the Town of Yorktown. This study was
prepared by the Applicants consultant and has been reviewed by J acobs Engineers,
the Towns Traffic Consultant. Please refer to FEIS Responses III.K. 8 and III.K.35
for specific information on impacts to roadways outside the identified study area.
Also refer to Response III.K 35.

Comment III.K 64 (PH2, Stephen Steeneck):

Third, now you are going -- don't shoot me for this, but -- and I know it's traffic, but it
is not the traffic that you are talking about. I live on 202 -- on 132, if you go there
and you go past the Taconic they what -- from what I saw, and correct me if I am
wrong, but they want to have a turning lane to go north. Well, I would like a traffic
study.

For that portion alone, not for further down the line to see how many people actually
go north, because I didn't see one, unless I am mistaking.
[PH2, page 86, lines 9-25], [PH2, page 87, lines 1-2]

Response III.K 64:

Please refer to FEIS Response III.K.56 for specific information regarding the analysis
of the left turns onto the Taconic State Parkway northbound from NYS Route 35/U.S.
Route 202.

Comment III.K 65 - (Document 182.5, Ray Dominguez, PE, JACOBS):

In addition, attached is a list of issues and recommendations which should be
addressed with the traffic consultant prior to our detailed review of the technical
analysis. In particular, a recent traffic study performed for a proposed Costco

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-116

Wholesale facility in a similar location indicated a higher trip generation rate (See
Preliminary Comments Trip Generation section). This discrepancy in the trip
generation analysis should be addressed prior to the review of the detailed
capacity analysis. In addition, considering the location of the proposed project site,
and its proximity to schools in Yorktown (Yorktown High school, Mildred E
Strang Middle School, Mohansic Elementary School), analyses should be conducted
during the afternoon school peak period to assess safety conditions and traffic
operations.

Response III.K 65:

A Sensitivity Analysis was completed for the Proposed Action using the potentially
higher trip generation rates provided by Tim Miller Associates. This Sensitivity
Analysis is discussed in greater detail in FEIS Response III.K.6 as well as Section
III.J of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G. The results
of the analysis, as discussed in Section III.K of the Revised Traffic Impact Study,
indicate that the conclusions of the DEIS are not changed and that the area roadways
can accommodate these potentially higher traffic volumes with the completion of the
NYSDOT improvements and the separately proposed Applicant sponsored
improvements.

Discussion of the afternoon school peak period is provided in FEIS Response III.K
73.


Trip Generation

1. Page 18 of the traffic study identified the existing travel patterns and trade area
data as tools to develop the trip distribution methodology. How was trade area
data utilized for trip distribution? How were generated trips distributed
throughout the network? Was zip-code information utilized in the analysis?
Can Costco provide customer home zip code information at a similar wholesale
location that would show the split between local and non- local customers at a
similar location? This information may help provide a more accurate trip
distribution percentage (or confirm the distribution included in the analysis).

Response III.K 66:

The estimated traffic volumes to be generated by the Proposed Action have been
applied to the roadway network using the arrival and departure distributions shown on
Figures No. 15, 15A, 16 and 16A of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-117

FEIS Appendix G. As indicated in Section III.B of the Revised Traffic Impact Study,
these distributions were developed based on a review of existing travel patterns in the
area of the Site as well as a review of the trade area information provided by the
Applicant, which consisted of the trade area map that is provided in Appendix G of
the DEIS Traffic Impact Study (Appendix E of the DEIS) and is also provided in
Appendix I of the Revised Traffic Impact Study (contained in FEIS Appendix G) for
ease of reference. The trade area map indicates that the Proposed Action is expected
to draw customers from the Town of Yorktown as well as many neighboring towns in
northwestern Westchester County and southern Putnam County.


Trip Generation - Please provide a table detailing the split between trips
generated by the refueling component and the warehouse.

Response III.K 67:

Table No. 1 of the Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G
provides a breakdown of the estimated trips generated by the proposed Costco
wholesale store and fueling facility separately. It should be noted that the volumes
shown for the fueling facility included internal trips to the proposed Costco wholesale
store. Refer to Response III.K.25 for a further discussion of the breakdown of trips
generated by the proposed Costco store and the fueling facility.


Accident/Safety Analysis - It appears that only locations between Stoney Street and
Strang Boulevard on Route 202 were included in the accident analysis. It is
recommended that the analysis should be expanded to include traffic study
intersections, particularly those proximate to the Yorktown School District.

Response III.K 68:

In addition to the Highway Safety Investigation that was completed for NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 in the vicinity of the Taconic State Parkway Interchange and the
Site as part of the NYSDOT Highway Work Permit review process, accident data for
the intersections of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 with Springhurst Street and
Granite Springs Road were also obtained from NYSDOT. These data are summarized
in Table A contained in Appendix F of the Revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS
Appendix G). A review of the data indicates that there were a total of 72 accidents in
the vicinity of these intersections between J uly 1, 2008 and April 18, 2013. It should
be noted that these accidents include accidents east and west of the Springhurst Street

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-118

and Granite Springs Road intersections that are not directly associated with the
intersections. The most common contributing factors for these accidents were found
to be drivers following too closely and sun glare and approximately 40% of the
recorded accidents occurred during the school exit hours at these intersections. The
Applicant does not expect the Proposed Action to contribute to the existing accident
history in the vicinity of the Springhurst Street and Granite Springs Road intersection;
however, the signal timing improvements proposed by the Applicant for these
intersections would help to improve traffic flow through the area and therefore reduce
the potential for future accidents.


After reviewing your response to J acobs' previous memo dated April 20, and our
follow up conversations thereafter, I would like to summarize and confirm various
open items related to the Transportation chapter of the Costco DEIS. In order to
ensure the completion of my final review in a timely manner, please provide a
status update and/or estimated time of submission for review of the following
(comment references from original memorandum in parenthesis):

Sensitivity Test
In our previous conversation, as a response to comments regarding Trip Generation
(completeness #3, Trip Generation #2, #5), J ohn Collins committed to performing
a sensitivity analysis to confirm that the surrounding traffic study area can handle
the potentially higher trip projections.

Response III.K 69:

Based on the information provided by the Applicant and from surveys of other
facilities conducted by Maser Consulting, P.A. (formerly J ohn Collins Engineers,
P.C.), the Applicant asserts that the trip rates in the DEIS represent typical operating
conditions. Additional temporal data provided by the Applicant after the completion
of the DEIS is contained in Appendix B of the Revised Traffic Impact Study
(contained in FEIS Appendix G). The Revised Traffic Impact Study also provides an
updated table showing the estimated trips used in the DEIS Traffic Study for the
Costco store and fueling facility separately (see Table 1 contained in FEIS Appendix
G). The Applicant asserts that many of these trips to the site will be dual purpose trips
that will visit both the Costco store and fueling facility as part of the same
combined trip. This was reflected in the trip generation estimates for the fueling
facility used in the DEIS analysis as well as those used in the Revised Traffic Impact
Study.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-119

In addition to the information provided by J acobs Engineering in its April 20, 2012
comment letter, FEIS Comment III.K.6 by Tim Miller Associates (TMA) also
referenced trip generation estimates for the proposed Costco Store and fueling
facilities. In response to these comments, a Sensitivity Analysis has been completed
using the potentially higher trip generation data which was referenced in the TMA
report. The Sensitivity Analysis is discussed in detail in Section III.J of the Revised
Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G. The results of this analysis,
which are summarized in Table No. 2-S of the Revised Traffic Impact Study, confirm
the findings of the DEIS that with the completion of NYSDOT improvements
presently under construction together with the separately proposed Applicant funded
improvements identified in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K, these
traffic volumes can be accommodated without creating a significant negative impact
on the existing operating conditions in the traffic study area.


Construction Period Assessment
As a response to comment #1 in the "completeness" section regarding the impacts
of construction, J ohn Collins indicated that construction workers would typically
leave the site between 3:30 and 4:30 PM. After reviewing ATR data available on
NYS DOT's website, traffic within the study area between the hours of 3 and 5 PM
are similar, and in some cases higher than the stated PM Peak Highway Hour. For
example, traffic volumes are higher during the mid-week days between the hours of
3 to 4 and 4 to 5 PM when compared to the stated peak hour. J acobs' recommends
performing a construction period traffic screening assessment at a minimum and
detailed construction period analysis, if necessary.

Response III.K 70:

The NYSDOT Machine Count Traffic Volume data for NYS Route 35/U.S. Route
202 in the vicinity of the site is contained in Appendix H of the Revised Traffic
Impact Study (contained in FEIS Appendix G) and also summarized in Table TS-1 of
the Revised Traffic Impact Study. A review of this information indicates that the peak
hour identified by the NYSDOT data occurs between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM;
however, the traffic volumes for the period from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM are very
similar. In fact, the 3:00 to 4:00 PM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM hour are approximately 95%
to 98% of the peak hour. It should also be noted that the peak hour identified in the
DEIS and Revised Traffic Impact Study occurred between 5:00 and 6:00 PM.

Based on the current schedule for the NYSDOT improvement project, the geometric
and signalization improvements along the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor
will be completed in Summer 2014 and therefore will be in place prior to the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-120

commencement of construction of the Proposed Action. The Applicant asserts that
construction workers for a site like this tend to arrive before the AM Peak Hour of
traffic and when leaving tend to be very spread out and as such, construction traffic
would not significantly impact any specific time periods.

The Applicant asserts that an additional analysis for the construction periods is not
required since the Applicant expects that the trips generated by the site during
construction would be significantly less than the trips generated by the site after
occupancy of the Proposed Action and those studied in the DEIS and Revised Traffic
Impact Study PM Peak Hour analyses. As indicated in Section III.Q of the DEIS, the
Applicant asserts that the project will create approximately 350 temporary full-time
equivalent (FTE) construction jobs at the project site. It is not expected that all 350
employees will be present at the site at any one time. However, although not likely
based on typical construction site activities, if it is assumed that all 350 employees
were to leave the site during the 3:30 to 4:30 PM period, it would be similar to trip
estimates studied in the DEIS for the PM Peak Hour, which assumed 320 exiting
trips. Note that the PM Peak Hour analysis also included 320 entering trips which
would not be present during the exiting construction period. Also, the Sensitivity
Analysis discussed in Section III.J of the Revised Traffic Impact Study, assumed 530
trips exiting the site during the PM Peak Hour as well as 530 trips entering the site.
The results of the Revised Traffic Impact Study and the Sensitivity Analysis, which
confirmed the results of the DEIS analysis, indicate that the trips generated by the
site, and therefore the construction period generated trips, can be accommodated on
the roadway network. Also note that construction activities including hours of work
will be finalized with the Town as part of the site plan approval process.


Employee Trip Generation
Comment #3 of the "completeness" section requested temporal distribution
information for Costco employees. J ohn Collins indicated that information may
be available from Costco. Please provide information as this would assist in
solidifying the project trip generation assessment.

Response III.K 71:

Temporal distribution data based on hourly transaction counts has been provided by
the Applicant for Costco warehouses located in Nanuet, NY and Brookfield, CT.
These data are summarized in Table TD-1 of the Revised Traffic Impact Study
contained in FEIS Appendix G. While the transaction data cannot be directly
correlated to the number of trips generated by the site, it does provide a close
approximation. Therefore the data indicates that the trip estimates contained in the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-121

DEIS analysis and the Revised Traffic Impact Study analysis are within the range of
hourly transactions for both the Weekday and Saturday Peak Hours. Regardless, a
Sensitivity Analysis was completed, which analyzes potentially higher trip generation
estimates for the site. As mentioned previously, the results of this analysis, which are
summarized in Table No. 2-S of the Revised Traffic Impact Study, confirms the
findings of the DEIS that with the completion of the proposed Applicant sponsored
improvements and the separate NYSDOT improvements currently under
construction, these additional traffic volumes can be accommodated without
significantly impacting the traffic study area intersections.


Transit (Bee Line Service)
Comment #4 of the "completeness" section requests additional details regarding
transit conditions and the ability of the existing transit network to accommodate
project generated transit trips. J ohn Collins stated that bus line(s) service servicing
the area have "sufficient reserve capacity." Please provide information indicating
such. If it is not anticipated that Costco will generate a significant amount of
transit bus riders, please state in FEIS.

Response III.K 72:

The Bee-Line Route 15 bus is the bus that stops the closest to the site at the
intersection of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and Strang Boulevard. Observations
made by the Applicant of the operation of this bus line have indicated that the bus is
underutilized during all times of the day. The Applicant stated that it does not expect
that the Proposed Action will generate a significant number of transit riders since it
expects that those who do use this bus route to access the site will be employees of
the store. Note that no credit for the reduction in vehicles as a result of public transit
usage was taken in the traffic analysis.


Midday Peak/School Period Analysis
Comment #1 in the "existing conditions" section questions the need for an
additional midday analysis hour. J ohn Collins indicated in their response that the
highest peak of Costco occurs between 1 and 3pm. However, NYSDOT count
recorders indicate similar to higher hourly traffic volumes on Route 202 proximate
to the project site (station 870987 on BMP and 870100 on Rt 202) between the
hours of 1 and 4 when compared with the project PM Peak Hour (5-6 PM). As
such, an analysis of an additional time period is recommended, or a temporal
distribution should be provided that identifies that the peak time period was

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-122

analyzed.

Response III.K 73:

As indicated in FEIS Response III.K 70 the NYSDOT Machine Count Traffic
Volume data for NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 in the vicinity of the site is contained
in the Appendix H of the Revised Traffic Impact Study (contained in FEIS Appendix
G) and also summarized in Table TS-1 of the Revised Traffic Impact Study. The table
indicates that the traffic volumes along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 between 1:00
PM and 4:00 PM are between 75% and 95% of the peak hour traffic volumes.
Furthermore, the Taconic State Parkway northbound off-ramp volumes during this
period are only 70% to 85% of the peak so the combination is significantly less than
during the 5:00 to 6:00 PM peak period. The temporal data provided by the Applicant
and summarized in Table TD-1 of the Revised Traffic Impact Study indicates that the
Costco Peak generally coincides with the PM Peak Hour of the roadway, however the
Applicant expects that similar trip totals will be generated during the midday/school
period hours. Since the background traffic volumes during the midday/school period
hours are lower than the background traffic volumes during the peak hour period, the
PM Peak Hour period analysis is considered the critical time period and was
analyzed.


As a follow up to our conversation, I would like to clarify a few items regarding our
comments on the Transportation Section of the Costco EIS. To make clear, although
my last e-mail request (dated Nov 26, 2012) outlined several topics of concern, we
still expect all comments to be addressed from the original memo dated April 20,
2012. Particularly Comment #2 (Build Section) of the comment memo addressing
the need to further examine queuing issues along the eastbound approach of
Crompound Road between Mohansic Avenue and the Taconic State Parkway. A
queuing analysis should be conducted and improvements measures should be
explored if necessary. Please refer back to the original comment from the memo. In
addition, please provide the latest available timetable for DOT improvements. If you
have any additional questions, feel free to contact my office.

Response III.K 74:

Based on the updated Synchro analysis contained in the Revised Traffic Impact Study
contained in FEIS Appendix G, which includes the vehicle queuing information, and
other comments from NYSDOT, an additional eastbound storage lane is now
proposed to be added on NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 to accommodate traffic
turning left at the northbound Taconic State Parkway entrance ramp, which satisfies

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-123

the expected queues on this approach. The Introductory Response to FEIS Section
III.K provides a detailed discussion of this improvement, which would be
construction by the Applicant. Note that this will also improve the queue storage
length for left turn traffic onto the Taconic State Parkway southbound ramp.

Finally, the NYSDOT improvement project began in April 2013 with a scheduled
completion date of Summer 2014.

Comment III.K 75 (Document 172.4a, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society):

The proposed development will substantially increase vehicular traffic. How does the
Planning Board define heavy volumes of traffic and does the proposed
developments estimated number of vehicles per hour fall into this definition?

Response III.K 75:

The traffic projections for the Proposed Action are shown on Table No. 1 of the
Revised Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G. The Applicant has
proposed significant roadway improvements to not only accommodate existing traffic
volumes, but also the increased traffic generated by the Proposed Action. The
improvements, which would be completed by the Applicant, are described in detail in
the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K. These improvements have been
designed to complement the work currently being completed by NYSDOT as part of
the Pine Grove Court/Bear Mountain Parkway Extension improvements, which are
also discussed in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K.


D: As Item C clearly defines TRAFFIC. The grade of the road is currently graded
F, yes that means the road surrounding the Project on Route 202 are currently
FAILING. Item C clearly show and proves the true intent of the Town of
Yorktowns very own Comprehensive Plan. In fact, this ONLY proves and solidifies
the fact that the roads cannot take an additionally supply of over 750+Cars per hour
average. Please remember this is stated in the DEIS and as such is ONLY an average
number. For the record, I live less than .7 of a mile of this Project and I tried to
travel west on Route 202 just this past Friday. I left my house on Old Yorktown Road
at 4:25pm and it took me 15 minutes just to reach the on ramp of the Taconic
Parkway. I sat in traffic wondering how much worse it could be and WILL BE,
should there be an additionally 750+Cars per hour placed on the road. How would
people travel these roads? The DEIS speak of adding traffic lights, well what does a
traffic light do? It is an attempt to create control of flow on a given road point. It will

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-124

not and it is NOT designed to eliminate any traffic. In fact, the light is both red and
green, respectfully. So, half the time the light is green and half the time the light is
red. If we currently have massive congestion on the road (Route 202) how does
adding a traffic control device, (a light), attempt at all to eliminate traffic? As such,
all a traffic light does is attempt to control the traffic and make it orderly. Let me be
very clear, the true intent of The Town of Yorktowns Comprehensive Plan was to
keep the Project area from adding additionally traffic to an area of Route 202 that is
clearly in FAILURE CURRENTLY. This is another reason why this Project should
be halted and stopped in its entirety.

Response III.K 76:

The Applicant sponsored improvements are not proposing to add any new
(additional) traffic signals to the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 Corridor, but will
update and improve existing signals. The separate NYSDOT improvement project is
adding a new traffic signal at the intersection of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and
Pine Grove Court, which is an existing bottleneck location along the corridor. This
new traffic signal will be complemented with additional eastbound and westbound
through lanes along the corridor as well as auxiliary turning lanes at the intersection
of Pine Grove Court. As indicated by the traffic analysis provided in the Revised
Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G, these improvements will
significantly improve traffic flow through this area. NYSDOT is also installing a new
traffic signal at the intersection of Stony Street and the Bear Mountain Parkway
Extension to address safety issues at the intersection. The NYSDOT improvements
are discussed in more detail in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K.

Furthermore, as described in more detail in the Introductory Response to FEIS
Section III.K, the Applicant proposes upgrades and/or replacement of existing traffic
signals including improved signal coordination, which together with the added lanes
will improve traffic flow in the area of the Taconic State Parkway interchange.

Comment III.K 77 - (Document 84.3, Martha Patterson), (Document 178.8d, Residents of
Yorktown):


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-125


Response III.K 77:

The DEIS subjects referenced in this Comment were addressed in the DEIS Sections
as follows: Section III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes, and Geology, Section III.F
Wetlands, Groundwater and Surface Water Resources, Section III.J Solid Waste,
Section III.K Traffic and Transportation, Section III.M Air Quality, and Section III.N
Noise. Responses to specific comments are addressed in the corresponding sections of
this FEIS.

Comment III.K 78 - (Document 145.3, No Costco Petitions (8)):


As concerned citizens and taxpayers who live in the White Hill/ Mill Pond area,
the undersigned wish to state our opposition to the proposed the Costco warehouse
store for many reasons.

Rte. 202 is already a traffic nightmare before the addition of 758 cars an hour.
It is difficult for us to turn on to or off it coming and going from our homes.
Plus local residents will use Hunterbrook Road and other local arteries, which
cannot handle the extra load, to avoid Rte. 202.



_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-126


Response III.K 78:

Refer to DEIS Section III.K Traffic and Transportation. Responses to specific
traffic related comments are addressed in this Section III.K of FEIS. The
Applicant asserts the use of local roads, such as Hunterbrook Road, to avoid Route
202 will not be significant. Refer to FEIS Response III.K 8.

Comment III.K 79 - (Document 146.1, Concerned Citizens):

Planning Board Members,

Costcos plan to open up a store on the (already busy) two-lane Road 202 instead
of on the side of an (already busy) interstate prompts this Top Ten list:

Traffic Will Be So Bad That...

10) You will now be able to have tailgate parties on 202

9) The town will now have to budget for rest stops and Port-o-J ons

8) Stretching and jumping jacks will be permitted

7) The second most profitable business in town will be the squeegee men

6) You can now listen to complete Giant or J et games


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-127

5) You will be able to experience Christmas mall traffic everyday

4) Every couple of hours youll alternate driving with your passenger(s)

3) You can see the same red light change for a record of fifteen times

2) Upon arriving at your sons J V game, he will no longer be age eligible

and our number one:

1) You should keep current pictures of your family in the car because they might

look different by the time you get home

When looking back, most of us will long for the days of 202 B.C. (Before Costco).

Response III.K 79:
This Comment expresses general opposition to the Proposed Action based on
traffic impacts. Refer to FEIS Responses III.K.1, III.K.6.2, and traffic analysis
data contained in Appendix G.1 and G.2 of the FEIS, which show that the Project
would not have any significant adverse traffic impacts.

Comment III.K 80 (Document 157.1, Michael Matero):

I have been a resident of Yorktown since J uly 1971. As you know this town has
grown quite a bit since then.

Yorktown is still a nice place to live, but it is gradually becoming another ugly
Long Island eg: overdeveloped, traffic jams, pollution and strip malls.

My wife and I are against the plan to build a Costco warehouse store because of
the traffic problems it will add to the already existing traffic problems this town
already has. As you all know, NY RT 35, NY RT 202, NY RT 6, and Yorktown
Triangle area just to name a few are a traffic nightmare. Why add more traffic
problems.

Response III.K 80:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.K.1, III.K.6.2, and traffic analysis data contained in
Appendix G.1 and G.2 of the FEIS, which show that the project would not have
any significant adverse traffic impacts.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-128


... Also, say NO to the massive almost 3 mile long traffic that will occur with this
Project.

Response III.K 81:


Comment III.K 82 (Document 180.5, Gia Diamond):
It is extremely important that you consider the long-term impacts and not just
promises of short-term gains.

You must be socially responsible to fight for better quality of living for us,
Yorktown residents and our neighbors, especially those living along the Rte 202
corridor that is a critical roadway. That is the essence of your charge as Members
of the Yorktown Planning Board.

I trust that your decision will be science-based and future-conscious!!

Response III.K 82:


Comment III.K 83 (PH2, Stephen Steeneck):

We all know seven hundred fifty cars, we all know two and a half miles of traffic.
We all know that, I live there, I live a half a mile from that area, I go down it
everyday.

I said to the poor lady at the bagel store, I am sorry I am not going to be able to
come here anymore, and she is like, why not? I said, I am not going to battle that
traffic to come down here. She says, what do you mean? I said, every Friday I go
to the Country Cafe to get my tuna wrap with lettuce. I walk in and they are
already making it for me. If you don't think so, come with me on a Friday and you
will see.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-129

But anyway, I said to her, I am sorry I am not going to battle the traffic, and she
said well, I don't know what to tell you, I am sorry. She says, nobody told me,
which leads me to my point. The Chamber of Commerce, they are all for this, I
guess in a closed door meeting, makes you wonder. Closed door back door
meeting on that. [PH2, page 82, lines 4-25], [PH2, page 83, line 1]

Response III.K 83:


Comment III.K 84 - (Letter 39a.04, The Concerned Residents of Yorktown), (42.1c, The



Response III.K 84:

This Comment expresses opposition to the project, in part, because of traffic impacts.
Appendix G. of the FEIS, which show that the project would not have any significant
adverse traffic impacts. Refer to DEIS Sections III.M, C, F, D, J and N regarding air,
soil, water resources, hazardous and solid wastes and noise respectively.

Comment III.K 85 - (Document 45.4, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and

Costco is the first viable development proposal with a developer willing to listen to
our concerns and spend money on improvements that will protect or enhance our
quality of life as well as that of the site.

Mr. Breslin continues to demonstrate his commitment to a high quality project, and
has been responsive to suggestions from local residents who would be affected by the
development and from the Town. Among these, the developer is exploring ways to
help the Town address regional storm water issues, and has committed to make traffic

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-130

amelioration improvements on Route 202, at no cost to the Town. In fact, the
developer has hired a highly respected team of experts who have successfully
interfaced with the NYS DOT for approval to do work that would otherwise not be
possible for upwards of a decade or more.

Response III.K 85:

This Comment expresses support of the Proposed Action, in part, based on proposed
traffic improvements.

Comment III.K 86 - (Document 45.6, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and

We have heard the concerns of opponents of the proposal regarding the potential
traffic impact. As the most immediately impacted neighbors, we believe the efforts
the Breslin team has made and the money they are willing to invest in roadway
improvements and traffic amelioration tactics will make a big difference in traffic
flow in the area. We have also object to the scare tactics opponents of Costco use
regarding traffic impacts. While they continually refer to 750+vehicles per hour,
Costcos estimated number of trips per hour in the DEIS is much lower. Please note
the different terminology. The correct measure is vehicle trips per hour (which
assumes less than one hour to shop) meaning trips in and out. The resulting potential
increase in traffic therefore much closer to half the number bandied about by the
opponents at most. This figure is also not likely to be consistent throughout the day
seven days per week, so a figure of close to 10,000 additional cars on our roads is
farfetched. The highest volumes of new traffic are also not likely to occur at peak
rush hours so impact will not be so significant at those times.

Incremental improvements have proven to make vast positive difference in the past
such as improvements when BJ s light was put in (a public private partnership that
that relieved that need for suicidal driving on the wrong side of 202 to enter OLD
CROMPOND ROAD) and dramatic traffic flow improvements when the Lexington
Avenue right turn lane was installed.

Response III.K 86:



_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-131

Comment III.K 87 - (Document 48.3, Marketa Esaili):

The location is great: Enter and exit from Taconic is right there. If Costco will
participate on solution for immediate already in rush hour troubled traffic area
there should not rise problems around possibly increased traffic. (The traffic in
area is troubled during rush hours only) I dont see any dramatic traffic increase in
the future caused by Costco
Response III.K 87:

This Comment expresses support of the Proposed Action, in part, based on location
and ease of access from the Taconic State parkway and proposed traffic
improvements.

Comment III.K 88 - (Document 62.2, Rose Marie Panio), (PH1, Rose Marie Panio):

How often do we have a partnership of private and public money for the massive
and necessary road improvements to a major State road, and a link to our
neighboring communities? Heretofore, weve gotten the traffic, but none of the
benefits.

Response III.K 88:


Comment III.K 89 - (Document 66.2, Domenick Mascioli), (PH1, Domenick Mascioli):

Costco is progress for this area, giving the people in this town choice and value
when they shop. With progress you got to expect more traffic and less traveling
for the average person.

Response III.K 89:

This Comment expresses support of the Proposed Action in light of the project-
related traffic and notes a positive impact for local shoppers which will not be
required to travel long distances.

Comment III.K 90 - (Document 68.1, William Rubin):

My name is William Rubin and I have been a Yorktown resident for 23 years,
and a Costco member for 20 years. Like many local Costco members, I am

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-132

tired of having to drive to Port Chester, Brookfield and Nanuet to do my
Costco shopping

Ive read claims that Costcos delivery trucks will clog the roadways at all
hours of the day, yet no one can explain why this isnt even remotely true for
BJ s or the other stores in Staples Plaza, not to mention the UPS depot and
large stores in town.

They claim that traffic will be terrible as a result of Costco, yet they ignore the
millions of dollars that the state and Costco will be funneling into fixing the
traffic situation, which has been around for decades and which the state has
never done ANYTHING to fix. I still remember the Homart shopping center
proposal 17 years ago, which the anti-development people opposed and which
the town foolishly rejected, saying well wait for the state to fix the traffic
problem first. What was the result of that? Home Depot and other retailers
went to Cortlandt. They got the property and sales tax revenue, Yorktown got
the traffic and Route 202 never got fixed. And as you know, even with the state
finally making improvements on Route 202 theyre still doing nothing to fix
the bottleneck getting past the Taconic, Unlike the state, Costco has plans to
address that. This is our opportunity to finally fix a problem which has plagued
Yorktown for decades.

The same people who are complaining about traffic and environmental issues
which they claim that Costco will cause tell us that what is called for in the
Comprehensive plan is smart and should be built there. As I understand it, the plan
calls for an office building, with all of its resident arriving and leaving during rush
hour, when traffic on 202 is at its worst can be good, while Costco is bad? And
wouldnt everything being built there create environmental issues similar to what its
being claimed that Costco will cause? How smart is that?

Response III.K 90:


Comment III.K 91 - (PH1, Joseph Visconti):

Is Costco gonna solve all our problems? Of course not. Is it gonna solve all
the traffic problems in Yorktown? Of course not, but it is a good start.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-133

Response III.K 91:


Comment III.K 92 (Document 121.2, Christopher D. John):

I recognize that the major concern is increased traffic. I believe that, with Costcos
financial support, greater improvements can be made to an area that already is in
great need.

Response III.K 92:


Comment III.K 93 (PH2, Barry Levine):

I've been living off of Mohansic Avenue, behind BJ s, I welcome the road
improvements that were made on Route 202. Of the road that -- of the roadwork
that was done a meandering bridge of how DOT can do things when they are
willing to take a chance. [PH2, page 69, line 7-13]

Response III.K 93:


Comment III.K 94 (PH2, Pete, Pergola):

I mean the traffic there

Comes from the McDonalds south towards Peekskill.

I see a back up near the Taconic. [PH2, page 100, lines 9-17]

Response III.K 94:

any significant adverse effect on traffic.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-134

Comment III.K 95 - (Document 93.9, Ben Falk), (PH2, Ben Falk):

And we have also heard the concerns of opponents of the proposal regarding the
potential traffic impact. As the most immediately impacted neighbors, we believe
the efforts the Breslin team has made and the money they are willing to invest in
roadway improvements and traffic amelioration tactics will make a big difference
in traffic flow in the area. These improvements will be on top of the improvements
the State is making to the Bear Mountain Parkway intersections at Stony Street and
at 202. (In fact, we remember the results of the survey undertaken as part of the
Sustainable Development Study which found a very significant percentage of
traffic passing along the 202 corridor from at least Lexington Avenue to the
Taconic was through traffic not originating in Yorktown and not stopping
in Yorktown. This seems to indicate that once the States improvements are in
place that through traffic will use the Bear Mountain Parkway rather than the
Route 202 exit, in itself an improvement.) We object to the scare tactics opponents
of Costco use regarding traffic impacts. While they continually refer to 750+
vehicles per hour, Costcos estimated number of trips per hour in the DEIS is much
lower. Please note the different terminology. The correct measure is vehicle trips
per hour (which assumes less than one hour to shop) meaning trips in and out. The
resulting potential increase in traffic is therefore much closer to half the number
bandied about by the opponents, at most. This figure is also not likely to be
consistent throughout the day seven days per week, so a figure of close to 10,000
additional cars on our roads is farfetched. The highest volumes of new traffic are
also not likely to occur at peak rush hours so impact will not be so significant at
those times.
Incremental improvements have proven to make a vast positive difference in the
past - such as improvements when the BJ s light was put in (another public private
partnership that relieved that need for suicidal driving on the wrong side of Route
202 to enter Old Crompond Road) and dramatic traffic flow improvements when
the Lexington Avenue right turn lane was installed.
WE UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK YOU TO
APPROVE THE APPLICATION IN A TIMELY MANNER.

Response III.K 95:
The comment expresses support of the Proposed Action, in part, based on proposed


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-135

Comment III.K 96 - (Document 93.12, Agin and Cyme Mujaj), (Document 93.12, Barbara

Mr. Breslin continues to demonstrate his commitment to a high quality project, and
has been responsive to suggestions from local residents who would be affected by
the development and from the Town. Among these, the developer has
committed to make traffic amelioration improvements on Route 202, at no cost to
the Town. In fact, the developer has hired a highly respected team of experts who
have successfully interfaced with the NYS DOT for approval to do work that
would otherwise not be possible for upwards of a decade or more.

Response III.K 96:

The comment expresses support of the Proposed Action, in part, based on proposed

Comment III.K 97 - (Document 60.5a, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.6, Tim
Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates
Inc.):

The State Land Corporation has presented plans for a 140,000 square foot retail
project also on Route 202 that has not been considered in the DEIS and is also
inconsistent with master plans and inter-municipal and interagency plans. Attempts to
develop large scale retail in the past have failed and it is unclear, given the work that
has taken place to address traffic and other issues in this corridor, why either project
is actually under consideration by the Town.

Response III.K 97:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.K 5, Item 1 III.K 6c, Item 1, and III.K 34 with regard to
the State Land development.

The Proposed Action, which this Comment classifies as large scale retail, is
consistent with the Towns zoning and Comprehensive Plan. Refer to FEIS III.A


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-136

Comment III. K 98 (Document 178.9a, Henry Steeneck):


Article 9. Current and future traffic issues.

The first Concern, I have is related to the current and projected traffic from the
Intersection of RT 202/35/118 in Yorktown (Commerce Street). If anyone has ever
travelled from that intersection up RT 202 towards Peekskill especially during
the afternoon hours (4pm-7pm) You will experience horrific traffic with extensive
delays which in my experience have been upwards of 30 minutes possibly even
longer when the school buses are operating. Currently, Route 202/35 cannot handle
the traffic flow and is according to the NYS DOT classified as in FAILURE
RATE. The DEIS projects an additional 750-900 cars an hour. Some have
suggested that RT 202 with the financial support of Costco will be widened from
these points to alleviate the traffic congestion and improve traffic flow. I assure
you this is not the case. This is a strong misconception As the current and future
RT 202/35 project #8561.34 does not address the entire RT 202 roadway. Among
researching this project via the Internet and with speaking directly with NYS DOT
reps. I have found only a very limited amount of work proposed. This would
include the placement of a traffic light and the intersection of route 202 and Pine
Grove CT. And minor improvements near the Bear Mountain extension area which
includes a traffic easeway and traffic light at Stoney Street. Upon speaking to
Susan, a representative with the NYS DOT It was stated that even with a plan
submitted today the projected work would not be completed for maybe 20 years.

Again, this information is available directly on the NYS DOT Website, with a
contact number for questions. Believe me I have thoroughly looked into the traffic
concerns. Speaking with some of the residents and taxpayers living behind the area
of the Mobil gas station off route 202 a crossed from 3200 Crompond road so
many major concerns were raised regarding delays in traveling to their homes and
other major concerns such as fire, police & ambulance calls, that they have signed
a petition against the development of the Costco project.

It was felt, that Even if Costco does get built and does fore fill [sic] its obligation
to contribute to widening Rt 202 it is planned to only do it from Stang blvd to their
store. It is feared that the financially strapped NYS DOT, will not fore-fill [sic]
its obligation because their main concern is raising funds for the New Tappan
Zee bridge project. Speaking with the Representatives from The NYS DOT I have
confirmed the concerns that the state does not currently nor in the near future. Plan
to go forward with any other improvements other than what is stated for it 8561.34

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-137

A roadway already in Failure Rate and which will not change from failure rate
even with the SUGGESTED improvements, this according to the DEIS. Again,
with the projected increase of 750-950 vehicles per hour, The horrendous traffic
conditions will not improve but get even worse especially for those residents living
in the RT 202 Mohansic avenue area. The increased in traffic without adequately
addressing these traffic issues will only cause additional bottleneck conditions on
route 202 the entire length from the center of Yorktown into the city of Peekskill.
Do the residents really want to sit in traffic any longer than necessary?

Response III.K 98:


The existing major bottlenecks along the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor
occur in the area of Pine Grove Court and at the Taconic State Parkway Ramps,
which results in congestion and extensive delays, especially during the PM Peak
Periods. As described in Section III.K.3.e of the DEIS, during this time period
traffic queues from the Taconinc State Parkway ramps in the westbound direction
can extend as far east as the Yorktown High School & Middle School and beyond.
The proposed NYSDOT Improvements along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 in the
vicinity of Pine Grove Court and the Bear Mountain Parkway Extension
connection to NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 (PIN 856134), which are described in
detail in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K, are expected to alleviate
the existing bottleneck in the area of Pine Grove Court. Construction of these
improvements was commenced in April 2013 and are expected to be substantially
completed by Summer 2014, which will be prior to the completion of the Proposed
Action. As indicated in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K, the
Applicant sponsored improvements will match into the roadway section being
constructed by NYSDOT in the area of Old Crompond Road, which will result in
the provision of two westbound through lanes beginning at Strang Boulevard and
continuing west to the Parkside Corner Shopping Center and two eastbound travel
lanes will also be provided beginning at Parkside Corner to Mohansic Avenue. The
Applicant funded improvements will also provide an additional left turn storage
lane will also be provided for traffic entering the Taconic State Parkway
northbound. This improvement will not only handle the Project generated traffic
but is also expected to address the existing stacking problem at this location. Thus,
the Applicant funded improvements, which include an upgraded signal system,
along with the NYSDOT improvements are designed to alleviate the existing
bottleneck at the Taconic State Parkway Ramps and accommodate the proposed

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.K-138

Project generated traffic, resulting in significantly improved safety and mobility
along this area of the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor.

The Applicant also asserts that the additional 750-900 vehicles per hour referenced
in this Comment would only be experienced in the immediate vicinity of the
Project site, where the Applicant funded improvements would be completed.
Outside of this area the Project generated traffic would disperse on to the major
area roadways included NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 eastbound & westbound
and the Taconic State Parkway northbound and southbound. In addition, a
significant portion (as much as 35%) of the trips generated by the Project would be
attracted from the existing traffic streams along the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202
corridor and therefore, according to the Applicant, would not be new to the
roadway system thereby reducing the number of new trips along the corridor. For
example east of NYS Route 132 during the PM Peak Hour, the number of new
trips expected to be generated by the project is approximately 105 eastbound trips
and 105 westbound trips, not the 750-900 referenced in the comment.

Finally, for the areas and east of Strang Boulevard, other signal timing
improvements have been identified to accommodate existing and future traffic
volumes at the area intersections. Future improvements to the NYS Route 35/U.S.
Route 202 corridor for areas west of Parkside Corners are part of the NYSDOT
long term Traffic Improvement Program and would be implemented by NYSDOT
as funding becomes available.

Comment III.K 99 (Document 178.10, Henry Steeneck):


Article 10. Approved NYS DOT traffic improvement project.

Response III.K 99:


The referenced Article is from the NYSDOT website which provides a Project
Update as of October, 2011. The project is identified as Project I.D. No 8561.34
Route 35/202 at Pine Grove Court Intersection Improvements. The Applicant
notes that construction of this DOT Project began in April 2013.

III.L PARKING
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.L

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Parking

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-1

Section III.L Parking


Yorktown Parking Code
The Project proposes no departure from the Towns Parking Code. Chapter 300-182
of the Yorktown Zoning Code regulates the parking requirements for developments
within the Town of Yorktown. Paragraph A lists the development uses (e.g., retail,
wholesale, etc.). For uses that do not fall into the listed land use categories,
Paragraph B of the Chapter authorizes the Planning Board to determine the
reasonable and appropriate parking required for that use. The Code states as follows:

Reasonable and appropriate off-street parking requirements for
structures and land uses which do not fall within categories listed above
(paragraph A) shall be determined in each case by the Planning Board,
which shall consider all factors entering into the parking needs of each
such use.

Costco is a Wholesale Discount Club, for which this specific use is not listed in
Paragraph A. The Applicant asserts that, for purposes of calculating parking needs,
Costco is neither exclusively retail nor wholesale, but a unique combination of both.
Costco sells mainly in bulk; it meets the needs of the local business community by
providing bulk goods to mom and pop retail shops. Therefore, the typical parking
calculation for either category is not well suited for Costco.

Discount Clubs or Wholesale Clubs, as they are often called, are relatively new in the
retail/wholesale industry and many municipal zoning codes have not been updated to
include this category, as in the case of the Yorktown Code. However, professional
organizations such as ITE recognize a Discount Club as a distinct land use (Land Use
857) having particular parking requirements. For example, the 4
th
Edition of the ITE
Parking Generation (page 26) indicates a 3.93 85
th
percentile parking ratio for a
Discount Club (also refer to DEIS page III.L-3).

In addition to Discount Clubs having specific parking demands, the Town of
Yorktown recognizes there is a reduced parking demand within commercial uses. On
J anuary 8, 2013 the Yorktown Town Board adopted an amendment to the parking
requirement in Chapter 300-182 of the Towns Parking Code. The Amended Code
reduced the parking requirement, within specified commercial zones including C-3
(in which the Project Site is located), to 4 parking spaces per thousand square feet of
building. In support of this change to the parking requirement, the Yorktown

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-2

Planning Board stated the following in their December 18, 2013 memorandum to the
Town Board:

The Planning Board believes the reduction of the parking requirement
from 5 per 1000 to 4 per 1000 (parking spaces per square foot of gross
building floor area) in commercial districts is adequate. This is based on
current published data from professional organizations and trends in local
municipal legislation around the country. The proposed requirement of 4
spaces per 1000 sf is often recommended in such publications and is
currently reflected in many local municipal regulations.

(It is noted that the amended Town Code provision does not apply to the Project Site,
as the Application was already under review by the Yorktown Planning Board.)

BJ s Wholesale Club An Example of the Lower Parking Demand
An example of public recognition of the reduced parking demand is illustrated by the
ongoing decreased parking requirement for the BJ s Wholesale Club, located in the
BJ s/Staples Shopping Plaza approximately 1/4 mile west of the Project Site. The
original shopping center (commonly known as Whites) was constructed in 1969 and
had a parking ratio of 8 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of building, as required
by the C-1 district regulations in place at that time. In 1993, as part of the approval to
construct BJ s, the Yorktown Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) granted a parking
variance of 5 spaces per 1000 square feet for the entire shopping center. During the
review of this variance, in a memo to the ZBA dated April 1, 1993, the Planning
Board noted that similar parking variances are becoming the rule rather than the
exception and the Board recommended the requirements be reviewed and
appropriately addressed as legislative changes to the zoning codes. As a result of this
recommendation, in September 1993 the Planning Department introduced a proposed
local law to reduce the required parking ratio in the C-1 zone to 4.5 parking spaces
per 1000 square feet of building. After discussion and two public hearings, on April
5, 1994 the Town Board adopted a local law that reduced the parking ratio in all of
the commercial zones to 5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of building, matching
the variance granted for BJ s. Finally, following the above mentioned 2013 decision
of the Town Board to reduce the required parking ratio in all commercial districts to 4
parking spaces per 1000 square feet of building, the Planning Board considered and
approved an amended BJ s/Staples Plaza Shopping Center site plan to reconfigure
parking in the southwest corner of the shopping center using the new parking
requirement. It is also worth noting that the current BJ s/Staples Plaza Shopping
Center site plan includes 84 conservation parking spaces, which are spaces included

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-3

in the required parking count that have not been constructed and are only to be built
should the Planning Board determine the shopping center needs more parking.

DEIS Presents Several Discussions in Support of the 4 per Thousand Parking Ratio
Because a Discount Club is not listed as a specific use in paragraph A of the Code,
the Planning Board is granted the responsibility to determine the appropriate parking
requirement. In light of this, the Applicant presented several approaches to justify the
proposed 610 parking spaces, a ratio of 4.04/1000 square feet of gross building floor
area. These approaches were presented in Section III.L.2 of the DEIS to provide the
Planning Board with sufficient information to make their determination of the
reasonable and appropriate parking requirement for the Proposed Action. These
discussions included the following:

ITE Analysis recommends 3.93 parking ratio for discount clubs, or 594
spaces
NYS DEC Recommendation for Parking Area Reduction recommends 3.97
parking ratio, or 600 spaces
Costco Historic Data (Based on door counts) maximum 600 parking spaces
utilized
Retail Floor Area Calculation supports assertion of 610 parking spaces

The Applicant proposes no departure from Chapter 300-182 of the Towns Zoning
Code. No variance is requested as the Planning Board is authorized to determine the
reasonable and appropriate parking requirement for the Proposed Action.

DEIS Parking Demand Analysis (Based on Costco Historic Data)
The Parking Demand Analysis within the DEIS, demonstrates that the parking
utilized for a Costco facility does not necessarily relate in direct proportion to the
building floor area. Within Section III.L.2.d of the DEIS, the Applicant presented a
parking analysis for 5 Costco facilities located within the region. The parking
analysis was performed during the November/December 2012 Holiday period and
was based on membership door counts rather than parking counts. (Each membership
group was assumed to represent one occupied parking space.) The peak parking
demand and building floor area were graphed (FEIS Graph III.L.A) and the parking
ratio was calculated as summarized in Table III.L.C.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-4

Graph III.L.A

(1) The Yorktown Costco proposes 610 parking spaces.
Table III.L.C
Parking Demand Summary
Costco Location Size (SF) Parking Demand Parking Demand
Nanuet, NY 120,510 576 4.78
Brookfield, CT 126,387 591 4.68
New Rochelle, NY 136,902 533 3.89
Yonkers, NY 143,312 600 4.19
Port Chester, NY 146,703 453 3.08

As shown in Graph III.L.A and Table III.L.C, the trend generally reflects that the larger
the building floor area, the less the parking ratio. Based on building size (as shown on
Graph III.L.A), the projection of the parking spaces required for the Yorktown store
would be approximately 500 on the best fit line, far fewer spaces than the Applicant has
proposed. Since the data point for the Port Chester store tends to skew the curve (Graph
III.L.A), to be conservative, a second graph (Graph III.L.B), eliminating the Port Chester
store, was developed. The best fit line in Graph III.L.B (without Port Chester) indicates
that the peak demand for the remaining stores would be approximately 575 parking
spaces. No store had a parking demand in excess of 600 spaces.

Yonkers
Brookfield
Nanuet
NewRochelle
PortChester
Proposed
Yorktown(1)
300
400
500
600
700
800
110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
(
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
M
e
m
b
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
)
BuildingArea(sf)
ParkingDemandvs.BuildingArea
Basedon"DoorCounts"fromExistingCostoFacilities
fromDEISTableIII.L.3
BestFit

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-5

Graph III.L.B

Therefore, the Applicant asserts that whether or not the data from Port Chester is
included, the Applicants DEIS parking analyses indicate that the 610 spaces
proposed for the Yorktown Costco will be adequate.

FEIS Parking Utilization Study
Several public comments to the DEIS were submitted questioning the Applicants
assertion that the proposed 610 parking spaces would be adequate. As such, on
behalf of the Applicant, _TRC Engineers, Inc. performed a Parking Utilization Study
to provide additional support for its assertion. The Study was performed at two
nearby comparable Costco facilities having similar amenities including tire service
centers and fueling facilities. Other nearby Costco facilities were not studied as they
did not have fueling facilities. In order to account for the peak parking season
demand, the Study was performed during the Holiday season.

The studies were performed at the New Rochelle, New York and Nanuet, New York
Costco facilities. The surveys were conducted at each of these facilities from 10:00
AM to 6:00 PM on Friday, November 23, 2012, Saturday, December 1, 2012, and
Sunday, December 2, 2012. The Friday count was performed on Black Friday. It
is noted that parking design convention does not design to include the absolute
Peak period, as this would result in significant excess pavement and unused parking
Yonkers
Brookfield
Nanuet
NewRochelle
Proposed
Yorktown(1)
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
(
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
M
e
m
b
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
)
BuildingArea(sf)
ParkingDemandvs.BuildingArea
Basedon"DoorCounts"fromExistingCostoFacilities
fromDEISTableIII.L.3
BestFitLine

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-6

spaces for the remainder of the year. However, to be conservative, these Holiday
parking times were studied.

The Parking Utilization Study with the supporting data is contained in its entirety in
Appendix H of this FEIS. However, a summary of findings is presented as follows.

Table III.L.B
Holiday Shopping Season
Peak Day Parking Summary
Store Size (s.f.)
Peak Parking
Demand
Parking Ratio
New Rochelle, NY 136,902 541 3.95
Nanuet, NY 120,510 520 4.31
Proposed Yorktown, NY 151,092 610 4.04

Table III.L.A
Holiday Shopping Season
Peak Daily Parking Summary
Store
Friday
November 23, 2012
Saturday
December 1, 2012
Sunday
December 2, 2012
New Rochelle, NY 407 541 510
Nanuet, NY 425 520 515

As indicated in Table III.L.A the peak parking demand at either of the facilities was
425 parking spaces occupied on Black Friday, 541 parking spaces occupied on
Saturday, and 515 parking spaces occupied on the Sunday. Table III.L.B indicates
the peak parking demand for the New Rochelle store was 541 spaces and 520 spaces
for the Nanuet store. Even during the peak Holiday season, the maximum number of
occupied parking spaces was 541 spaces, approximately 70 parking spaces less than
those proposed at the Project, and this peak parking demand lasted for only a duration
of approximately 30 minutes.

The parking ratio for both studied facilities was around 4 parking spaces per thousand
square feet of building floor area (Table III.L.A), which is consistent with the above
mentioned references (i.e. ITE, DEC and Historic data). This is also consistent with
the recently amended requirement in Chapter 300-182 of the Towns parking code,
which reduced the parking requirement within commercial zone C-3 to 4 parking
spaces per thousand square feet of building. Also note that, consistent with Graph

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-7

III.L.A, the larger store (New Rochelle) has the lower parking ratio. The proposed
parking ratio of the Yorktown store is supported by the Applicants analyses.

Comment III.L 1 - (Document 41a.3, Paul Moskowitz, Yorktown Energy Advisory
Committee):

The DEIS indicates that there will be a storage area available for ten bicycles of
employees. Is this a sufficient number? Will there be bicycle racks provided for
customers?

Response III.L 1:

The Applicant proposes 10 bike parking spaces. The bike parking will be available
for employees and/or patrons. The Applicant asserts that there will be limited use of
bicycles to access the Project Site and would mainly be utilized by employees, as
patrons would have limited ability to transport purchases by bicycle. Based on other
Costco facilities (see accompanying table), where bike racks are provided a 10 space
rack is sufficient, except in the Manhattan location, which is highly urbanized.
Therefore, the Applicant asserts that a 10-space bike rack will be sufficient. If the 10
spaces prove to be insufficient, space is available to support additional bike parking
which can be added later.

Bike Parking Racks at Other Costco Locations
Costco
Warehouse
Location
Bike Rack (10 space) Observed Use
Brooklyn Yes Rarely used
Commack No -
Holbrook No -
Lawrence No -
Manhattan
(116
th
Street)
Yes 2 Used heavily on weekends
Melville No -
Nanuet No -
Nesconset Information not available -
New Rochelle Yes Rarely used
Port Chester No -
Queens Information not available -
Rego Park Yes Used daily

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-8

Staten Island Yes Rarely used
Westbury Information not available -
Yonkers No -
Note: Information provided by Costco Management.

The bike parking racks are shown on FEIS Modified Site Plan Introductory Response
Exhibit 1.

Comment III.L 2 - (Document 60.7, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim


The DEIS argues that parking should be reduced from Yorktown code requirements
from 756 parking spaces (5.0 parking spaces per 1000 square feet) to 610 parking
spaces (4.04 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet). Table 1 summarizes parking
standards and expected demand. Based on Table 3, 756 spaces are needed and an
additional 76 spaces (10%) should be land banked.
1

1
Tables 1 and 3 are the Commenters summary and are tables taken from Document 60.7, FEIS
Appendix A.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-9

Response III.L 2:

The Applicant asserts that the Proposed Action does not propose a departure from
Chapter 300-182 of the Towns Zoning Code. No variance is requested. As stated in
Section III.L.2.a of the DEIS, according to subsection B of Chapter 300-182, the
Planning Board is given the authority to determine the parking requirements in
consideration of all factors for this specific use. Refer also to FEIS III.L Introductory
Response.

The Applicant asserts that, for purposes of calculating parking needs, Costco is
neither exclusively retail nor wholesale, but a unique combination of both. Costco
sells mainly in bulk; it meets the needs of the local business community by providing
bulk goods to mom and pop retail shops. Therefore, the typical parking calculation
for either category is not well suited for Costco.

The Applicant asserts that the projected site trips presented in the Comments Table
No. 1 represent combined trips in and out of the Project Site and do not represent
parking demand. Also, the traffic volumes do not account for dual purpose trips that
will visit both the fueling facility and the Costco warehouse store in the same trip. In
addition, the Applicant notes that vehicles visiting the gas station alone will not
require additional parking spaces as these trips will enter the Project Site, queue in the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-10

fueling facility area and exit the Project Site without occupying any of the provided
parking spaces. A further discussion of the expected trip generation is provided in
Response III.K.6.c of this FEIS.

The 756 spaces noted in this Comments Table 3 is based on the Zoning Code
requirement for retail uses (use of 5.0 parking spaces per 1000 square feet), which the
Applicant asserts does not apply to Costcos mixed retail/wholesale operations. See
DEIS at III.L.2. The Towns Code does not require land banked parking spaces in
addition to the Planning Boards determined required number of spaces for the site.

The Applicant asserts that the 5.42 parking index and 819 spaces listed in the
referenced Table 3 under ITE are not correct. According to the Applicant, ITE lists
the 85
th
percentile ratio for a discount club as 3.93 parking spaces based upon surveys
performed during the higher months (4
th
Edition of the ITE Parking Generation; Land
Use 857, Discount Club, page 261 is included in Appendix H; and also refer to DEIS
page III.L-3). ITE indicates the 85
th
percentile parking demand occurs in December,
based on sales variation data (page 258). Therefore, the Applicant asserts that the
referenced ITE data supports the its proposal for 610 parking spaces, having a parking
index of 4.04. The survey included the December holiday season, and therefore
already accounts for seasonal fluctuations. The referenced ITE data (3.93 parking
index) supports the Applicants proposal for 610 parking spaces, having a parking
index of 4.04. (Refer to Appendix H for the referenced 4
th
Edition of the ITE
Parking Generation; Land Use 857, Discount Club, pages 257 to 261; and also refer
to DEIS page III.L-3)

The Applicant asserts that the 5.17 parking index and 781 spaces listed in the Table 3
under Costco Historic is incorrect. The Applicant further asserts that this Comment
incorrectly applies 630 spaces for customers at the Yonkers store, added 75 additional
spaces for employees, and then expanded the total parking by a 5% factor to arrive at
781 spaces.

As described in Section III. L of the DEIS (pages III.L 4-6.), the peak parking
demand for the Yonkers Costco store of 600 spaces was based on the best available
data. The number of member groups counted at the door was taken from December
2010 data and the shopping duration was based on interviews with patrons. 630
member groups entered the store during the peak one-hour period. The average stay
for each member group was 50 minutes, which resulted in a maximum of 525 spaces
utilized by patrons at any one time within the peak hour. Another 75 spaces were
allocated for employees, bringing the peak hour parking demand to a total of 600
spaces.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-11

As part of this FEIS, a Parking Utilization Study was conducted based on parking
counts at similar Costco facilities during the peak shopping season. The Applicant
asserts that the study confirms that 610 parking spaces will be sufficient to support
the Proposed Action. Refer also to FEIS III.L Introductory Response and Parking
Utilization Study in this FEIS Appendix H.

Comment III.L 2a - (Document 60.7a, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim
Miller), (136.8a, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):


Attachment D contains a more detailed review of parking and indicates that the
Yorktown code requires too few parking spaces for a freestanding discount club.

There is no available public or on-street parking in the area to absorb overflow
parking that will likely occur if Costco is permitted to reduce its parking spaces to
610 spaces.

There are open questions concerning lack of data provided in the DEIS arguments in
particular issues regarding other parking study methodology.

The DEIS proposal requests a parking space reduction of nearly 20 percent based on
the use being retail and wholesale uses. The applicant argues that its customers and
employees on-site having different peak parking demand. However, no data has been
provided to show these uses have different peaking characteristics or that the use is
not bulk retail. That being the case, the applicant should be required to provide
parking that meets the retail parking space requirement.

The Yorktown code does not define what a wholesale business is. Typically
wholesalers sell goods that can be resold at retail. Many items are not taxed on the
wholesale level.

However, no data has been presented regarding how much if any of the customer base
is wholesale as opposed to retail in a typical Costco store.

On its face, the store appears to be more a bulk retail store. Use of the word
wholesale in a business name should not be a determining factor in the definition of
the use. If the wholesale, food dispensing, and other uses are minor accessories to the
retail business then the retail parking requirement should be used.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-12

There needs to be a full disclosure of the on site uses. ITE treats the retail, wholesale,
food dispensing, and other uses (excluding fuel facilities) as one unique use discount
club.

Response III.L 2a:

The Applicant does not request a parking reduction (see FEIS Response III.L 2 and
III.L Introductory Response).

The Applicant asserts that, based upon the analyses described in the FEIS III.L
Introductory Response, it has demonstrated that the 610 parking spaces will be
adequate for this particular use, consistent with subsection B of Chapter 300-182 of
the Yorktown Code. Furthermore, the Applicant has prepared a Parking Utilization
Study based on existing Costco stores with fueling facilities, which confirms that the
610 parking spaces will be adequate for the Project. Refer to FEIS III.L Introductory
Response and Parking Utilization Study in this FEIS Appendix H.

As noted in this Comment, ITE treats the entire use as a discount club. Table III.L.2
of the DEIS indicates the ITE peak 85
th
percentile parking ratio for a discount club as
3.93 parking spaces. This would result in a parking demand of less than the 610
parking spaces provided for the Proposed Action.

Comment III.L 2b - (Document 60.7b, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim
Miller), (136.8b, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

The 4 spaces per 1000 square feet would be appropriate for the Village Like
alternative if uses did peak together or if Costco were sharing its parking facility with
other users with substantial parking and different characteristics. A Hamlet like
alternative as recommended in the local and county plans would justify lower parking
rates. The DEIS fails to provide an alternative plan with mixed uses including
residential and commercial providing for a reduction in parking needs due to different
peak usage.

Although the Applicant may have no intention of building a mixed residential-
commercial hamlet like development, the Board needs this alternative to adequately
consider the differences in impacts from the proposed Costco and a reasonable plan
consistent with local, county and the interagency-intermunicipal plan.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-13

Response III.L 2b:

The Applicant asserts that 610 parking spaces are sufficient to meet the Projects
demands, and thus no changes to the Project design or alternative mix of uses are
required in order to justify the proposed parking rates. Refer to FEIS Introductory
Response and Response III.L 2 for justification of the proposed 610 parking spaces
for the Project.

Section IV of the DEIS contains two Alternatives (D & E) which illustrate mixed
uses. Alternative D consists of a mix of retail, restaurants and a bank. Alternative E
consists of a hotel supported by retail, restaurants and a bank. The alternatives were
prepared in conformance with the Final Adopted DEIS Scope. These two alternatives
were approved as providing a reasonable range of alternatives.

The Towns Comprehensive Plan does not include residential use for the Project Site.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for leaving the Site zoned C-3, which does not permit
residential uses. C-3 includes certain commercial uses and potentially office or
hotel/country inn uses. As such, the Project Site was intended to be developed as a
regional draw. Furthermore, the Applicant asserts that residential uses would not
be appropriate for the Project Site from a planning perspective, given its proximity to
the Taconic State Parkway, at the top of a steep hill, adjacent to commercial uses, etc.
and that an additional mixed use alternative is not warranted.

Comment III.L 2c - (Document 60.7c, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim
Miller), (136.8c, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

ATTACHMENT D
Parking

The authors of the Costco DEIS have made a number of statements regarding the
provision of parking for the subject application. These statements are misleading
through the omission of various important factors relating to parking demand.

The result is a suggestion that a lower number of parking spaces for this project
would be workable, when, in fact, based on real world projects, it would not be.

The DEIS states as follows:

1. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) - The ITE provides data on
parking demand for Discount Clubs, which indicates the peak parking demand to

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-14

have a parking index of 3.93 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. DEIS
Executive Summary page l-28.

ITE notes that none of the studies of parking demand were conducted in December.
Thus, the parking index is based on non-December demand. The 3.93 parking spaces
per 1,000 square feet is demand that needs to be seasonally adjusted to reflect higher
sales and longer in store times during December peak use. This is especially critical
as there is no on-street parking or public parking available in the area nor a pedestrian
connection into Costco even if such existed. The nearest street parking is in the
Mohansic Avenue neighborhood and Old Crompond Road.

The free standing discount stores are similar to discount clubs, only free standing
discount stores do not require a fee. Free standing discount stores have an 85th
percentile parking in December of 5.54 vehicles per 1000 square feet GFA (gross
floor area).
When the Discount club parking rate of 3.93 is seasonally adjusted using Census sales
factor of 1.38 the Discount Clubs 3.93 spaces per 1000 square feet GFA becomes
5.42 spaces per 1000 square feet GFA, similiar [sic] to the free standing discount
store at 5.54 vehicles per 1000 square feet GFA.

Also these indices are the 85th percentile demand and thus there will still be periods
where demand exceeds supply.

Response III.L 2c:

The Comment applies a seasonal adjustment factor to the parking index to arrive at an
adjusted index of 5.42 (3.93 x 1.38 =5.42.) However, the adjustment for seasonal
fluctuation is already accounted for and reflected in the ITEs 85
th
percentile parking
demand (3.93 parking index), which was based on actual parking surveys performed
throughout the year including the December holiday season (pages 257 to 261 of ITE
4
th
Edition ITE Parking Generation, Land Use: 857 Discount Club; FEIS Appendix
H). Based on sales variation data the average month parking demand occurs in May
and the peak month occurs in December. The peak month would exceed the average
month by a factor of 1.38. The 85
th
percentile reflects the parking index over the
entire study period including December. Refer also to FEIS Response III.L 2 and 2a.
(The ITE referenced pages are included in FEIS Appendix H.)

Refer to FEIS III.L Introductory Response and the Parking Utilization Study in this
FEIS Appendix H for an analysis of December peak parking requirements of
comparable Costco stores.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-15

The Comment indicates an 85
th
percentile parking index of 5.54 in December for Free
Standing Discount Stores. ITE distinguishes a Free Standing Discount Store (Land
Use 819) from a Discount Club (Land Use 857). There are several differentiating
factors, which include but are not limited to Discount Clubs having memberships and
providing many items in bulk (ITE page 257). Therefore, the parking index for Free
Standing Discount Store would not apply to the proposed Costco.

The Proposed Action also provides opportunities for public transportation, which
would potentially reduce the onsite parking demand. A bus stop is presently located
on Route 202/35 at Strang Boulevard, approximately mile east of the Site. The
Applicant proposes a sidewalk along Route 202/35 from the bus stop to the Costco
store entrance. Bicycle transportation is also encouraged as the Project includes
provision of a paved shoulder/bike lane and onsite bike parking racks. Refer to FEIS
III.K Introductory Response.

Comment III.L 2d - (Document 60.7d, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim
Miller), (136.8d, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

Using the ITE factors, 5 spaces per 1000 square feet GFA is actually too low.
the DEIS also states:

2. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) - the
DEC Stormwater Design Manual recommends reducing impervious area in
parking lots through the elimination of what the DEC refers to as unnecessary
parking stalls. They indicate the actual retail parking demand is 3.97 spaces per
1,000 s.f. of GFA. DEIS Executive Summary page l-28.

This statement is incorrect.

The DEC Stormwater Management Design Manual (2010) refers specifically to
average actual parking demand for shopping centers as is noted in Table 5.4 of the
Stormwater Manual, not retail parking nor Discount Club parking.

Average demand is average demand and if peak parking demand is not
accommodated, the parking demand will exceed the supply.

While using the 85th percentile parking is even questionably low however, the use of
average parking is not practicable in this case.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-16

The term shopping center is correctly referred to in the DEIS on page lll.L.4.
The actual average parking demand cited - 3.97 spaces per 1000 square feet gross
floor area - is close to the ITE Parking Generation (2010) Friday non-December 85th
percentile at 3.90 spaces per 1000 square feet gross leasable area.

This rate is not applicable to all weeks in December and probably most of November
when demand is higher and if not accounted for, will exceed the supply at the Costco
site.

To clarify the Gross Leasable Area (GLA) and Gross Floor Area (GFA), Parking
Generation notes For strip centers, discount stores and free standing retail facilities
usually equals GFA. This will be discussed further under Item 4.

Table D-1 shows the parking demand for shopping centers.

While DEC may discourage excessive pavement, there is no documentation presented
that indicates that the DEC actually has assessed the parking requirements for a
Discount Club and determined that its too high.

Response III.L 2d:

In Section III.L of the DEIS, the Applicant explained the bases for the proposed 610
parking spaces. One of these is that the DEC recommends reducing impervious area
by eliminating unneeded spaces. Chapter 5.2.6 of the DEC Stormwater
Management Design Manual states the following:


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-17

Many parking lots result in far more spaces than actually required. This
problem is exacerbated by a common practice of setting parking ratios
to accommodate the highest hourly parking during the peak season. By
determining average parking demand instead, a lower maximum number
of parking spaces can be set to accommodate most of the demand. Table
5.(4) provides examples of conventional parking requirements and
compares them to average parking demand.

The referenced DEC Table 5.4 recommends a parking ratio of 3.97, rather than
typical 5.0 for shopping centers in order to eliminate unneeded parking spaces. The
agency recommends providing parking to meet most of the need rather than the
peak demand.

After the Planning Board accepted the DEIS, the Applicant performed a Parking
Utilization Study, based on parking counts at similar Costco facilities. The Study was
conducted during the peak shopping season in December and on Black Friday. The
Project proposes 610 parking spaces, a parking ratio of 4.04, which is similar to the
DECs recommended use of 3.97. The Applicant asserts that the results of the Parking
Utilization Study confirm that 610 parking spaces will be sufficient to support the
Proposed Action and will not require constructing an excessive amount of impervious
area. Refer to FEIS III.L Introductory Response and Parking Utilization Study in this
FEIS Appendix H.

Comment III.L 2e - (Document 60.7e, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim
Miller), (136.8e, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

Another argument in the DEIS:

3. Costco Historic Data - the Costco Operations Group indicates that the
proposed Costco Wholesale can operate successfully with 610 parking
spaces. A comparative study based on analysis of data collected from other
existing Costco facilities in the region supports this claim. The data (provided in
Table llI.L.3) indicates that the peak seasonal high customer parking demand was
551 spaces. The Applicant anticipates that the seasonal high parking demand for
the Proposed Action would be similar and therefore, its parking index would be
3.65. DEIS Executive Summary page l-28.

The Costco Operations Group works for Costco is not an independent consultant.
Costco has full access to all of the data, yet it has not been provided. If Costco is
asking the Town of Yorktown to make parking concessions (via a variance), it is their

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-18

obligation to make their point with verifiable information.

However, their study relies heavily on interviews, not parking counts. There is no
information as to how many people were interviewed or when the interviews took
place (time of day, day of week, season, during what part of their visit, etc.) Those
eating in Costco may take much longer in store time and therefore occupy parking
spaces for longer periods making critical interview times and locations. Interviews
are often biased both in the choice of interviewee by the interviewer and the lack of
knowledge of the interviewee.

The data collection is also biased as it assumes that each member group is only one
vehicle. There was no direct count of vehicles!

ITE methodology requires actual parking lot counts.
Census sales figures clearly indicate during December there is substantially higher
sales.

Costcos estimates of parking requirements based on groups of entering members is
likely understated.

For example, the Yonkers Costco showed a 630 peak parking for customers on an
hourly basis (DEIS Appendix N page 13). Given a 138% higher sales figures in
December the longer parking time than 50 minutes should be expected.

The December period is likely to have high trip generation and the time that cars are
parked is likely to be longer than non-December periods because of the higher
volume of purchases, longer lines, longer walks to the from the building, etc. are all
increasing the parking time.

As noted above, the interview process is particularly suspect compared to actual
parking counts.

Adding 75 spaces for employees to the 630 for customers at the Yonkers Costco is
705 parking spaces demanded with 745 provided spaces or 95% capacity. The
Yonkers store is 143,312 square feet, thus for the 151,092 square foot Yorktown store
a proportional estimation of 743 parking spaces is the demand. Using a 95% capacity
would suggest for Yorktown 782 spaces are required or 5.17 spaces per thousand
square feet. This is higher than the DEIS 3.65 parking spaces per thousand square feet
or 551 parking space estimate in the DEIS.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-19

The Costco DEIS data is sufficiently contrary to other data presented above and
lacking in backup materials necessary for detailed review that it should not be relied
on.

Response III.L 2e:

The Applicant asserts that the method suggested in this Comment would result in an
excess of parking and cause unnecessary related environmental impacts (e.g.
increased impervious area and stormwater runoff, pollutant loading, etc.). The DEIS
peak parking demand of 600 spaces for the Yonkers Costco store was analyzed using
the best available data. Refer to FEIS Response III.L 2 for discussion.

The Comment states that ITE methodology requires actual parking counts. The
Applicant supplemented its parking analysis by conducting a Parking Utilization
Study based on actual parking counts at similar Costco facilities during the
November/December 2012 holiday season to validate the parking study provided in
section III.L of the DEIS. (Refer to FEIS III.L Introductory Response and FEIS
Appendix H.) The findings of the FEIS Parking Utilization Study are consistent with
the DEIS analysis based on door counts and support the Applicants assertion that
610 parking spaces will be adequate for the proposed Costco.

Comment III.L 2f - (Document 60.7f, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim
Miller), (136.8f, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

Finally, the DEIS talks about adjusting floor area as a means of justifying lower
parking requirements.

Adjusted Floor Area - Accounting for the floor area dedicated to nonretail support
functions and the additional area to accommodate large wholesale bulk items, an
adjustment to the overall floor area was made. When accounting for the nonretail area
(48,149 sf), the total floor area (151,092 s.f.) was adjusted to determine the remaining
retail area (102,943 s.f). The Applicants proposed 610 parking spaces would yield a
parking index of 5.93 if it were based on the adjusted retail floor area of 102,943 s.f.
This adjusted parking index exceeds the Towns parking index of 5.0 spaces per
1,000 sf. DEIS Executive Summary page I-28.

There is no basis in the Yorktown code for such reductions nor is this the type of
calculation by most building departments in the region. The reason for this, is a store
can expands its interior retail space simply by narrowing its aisles or using other
common areas, and the community has no knowledge of it and cannot address the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-20

implications of such for parking and traffic.

The ITE surveys are based on gross floor area (GFA) and thus take into account
similar operations with similar wide aisles, bulk items etc.

The square footage adjustment in the DEIS is deceptive and disingenuous. Certainly
there are losses related to wider aisles and corresponding gains related to higher
storage with raised ceilings however such conditions are typical of the use.

All surveys done and reported in Parking Generation use gross floor area making a
direct comparison possible. Such adjustments to floor area even if accounted for by
correspondingly increasing the indexed parking spaces per 1,000 square feet would be
difficult and intrusive to verify and enforce.

Response III.L 2f:

The Planning Board has been given the authority in Section 300-182B of the Zoning
Code to determine the reasonable and appropriate parking requirements for land uses
not listed in paragraph A of the above-referenced code provision. As such, several
approaches to justify the proposed 610 parking spaces were described in Section III.L
of the DEIS in order to provide the Planning Board with sufficient information to
make an informed decision.

One of these approaches was based on building floor area for Costco. Section III.L
of the DEIS explained that more floor area was needed for a wholesale type use than
for standard retail and that the larger building area did not necessarily increase the
parking demand.

Utilization Study to provide additional support for their assertion that 610 parking
spaces would be sufficient to support the Project. The study included parking counts
at similar Costco facilities during the peak shopping season. Based on the results, the
Applicant asserts that the proposed 610 parking spaces will be sufficient. See the
FEIS III.L Introductory Response and Parking Utilization Study in this FEIS
Appendix H.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-21

Comment III.L 2g - (Document 60.7g, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim
Miller), (136.8g, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

Yorktown Code

The DEIS attempts to make the point that the use is not included in the Yorktown
Code and thus is open to interpretation vis a vis parking. However nothing presented
in the DEIS indicates the Building Department and/or Zoning board has made such a
determination.

Both retail and wholesale uses are included in the code with respect to parking.

Town Code section 300-1 82 c.1 (below) notes that required parking for joint uses is
the sum of the uses requirements. Therefore the parking must be based on retail
requirement plus the wholesale requirement.

Table 3 in this documents section 6.0, indicated that these uses in conjunction with
food dispensing might require as much as 1558 parking spaces based on joint use.

No documentation is provided that suggests the maximum use of patrons and
employees for these uses vary with time or seasonally and therefore peak at different
times (300-182 c. 2). As the site is serving as multiple uses the requirements of each
should be met.

1) Where two or more different uses occur on a single lot, the total amount of
parking facilities to be provided shall be the sum of the requirements for each
individual use on the lot.

2) The Planning Board may approve the elimination of the construction of a
portion of such required parking and allow for the joint use of parking space by two
or more establishments on the same or on contiguous lots under the same ownership,
(the total capacity of which space is less than the sum of the spaces required for
each), provided that said Board finds that the number of spaces to be provided will
substantially meet the intent of the requirements by reason of variation in the
probable time of maximum use by patrons or employees among such establishments.

DEIS Page lll.L-2 notes the customer base is drawn from a smaller pool of club
members and thus warrants different treatment from standard retail. This is
immaterial. Anyone can be a member.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-22

DEIS Page Ill.L-2 also suggests that special treatment is needed in parking as
customers tend to make fewer visits per shopper than convenience stores. That is
obvious.

Convenience stores are for convenience shopping and have a smaller territory for the
client base and therefore may have a overall smaller client base. It is therefore not
uncommon for the mom and pop stores to have much higher turnover in parking as
the customers stay a shorter time in store.

While a discount club has a reduced number of visits to the store per shopper than a
convenience store might, discount clubs have a much longer time parked per visit.
The fact the Costco may have fewer visits per customers is not sufficient to consider
it separate in terms of parking from other retail uses.

No data is presented and compared to other retail stores to clarify Costco wholesale
operation.

The third reason put forth to separate Costco from typical retail is the areas set aside
for non-retail use such as vestibule, employee area, storage, loading and offloading,
and food preparation areas. No evidence is presented that such areas also provided in
most large retail stores is significantly different. Even smaller retail stores typically
have some of these area in smaller proportions. Moreover, the smaller stores would
tend to have less vertical storage.

What is not clear is if any food will be dispensed. If you are going to separate
wholesale and retail then additional parking should be required by separating food
dispensing areas. A food court is not unusual for a Costco store. These types of uses
should have parking spaces provided at 10 or 20 spaces per 1000 square feet per
Town Code 300-182 A. (5).

In this case, the joint use should apply the 10 or 20 spaces per 1000 square feet to
those areas and removed from the wholesale and retail. The Applicant has failed to
provide interior layout or descriptive material that would allow for calculations to be
made except to note 8,772 square feet for food preparation.

300-182 A. (5) Restaurant or place dispensing food or drink: one
space for each 50 square feet of floor area devoted to patron use,
plus one space for each 100 square feet of food preparation and
ancillary use.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-23

A more reasonable look at these would suggest that the wholesale and food
dispensing are accessory uses to the retail use.

Response III.L 2g:

This Comment alleges that the results of the parking analysis presented by the
Applicant in Section III.L.2 of the DEIS are invalid, in part because the analysis does
not cumulatively combine parking needs for individual uses within the store. The
Applicant asserts that the Proposed Action is not a mixed use site having separate and
distinct uses. Costco stores function as a single use and parking demand was
determined in this manner. The Applicant asserts that calculating parking demand
based on cumulative uses within the store would not be appropriate and would result
in more parking than what should be required (i.e. 1558 parking spaces as stated in
the Comment).

As described in III.L Introductory Response, the Town Code authorizes the Planning
Board to determine the reasonable and appropriate parking requirement for the
Proposed Action. Section III.L of the DEIS describes several approaches to justify
the proposed 610 parking spaces proposed by the Applicant. The various approaches
within DEIS Section III.L.2 included discussions touching on the membership pool
from which Costco draws, the frequency and duration of shoppers, non-retail floor
area, etc. These varied ways of viewing the parking demand were presented in order
to provide the Planning Board with sufficient information to make the necessary
determination. Refer also to FEIS Response III.L 2f.

Based on the results of Applicants Parking Utilization Study, which included
parking counts during the 2012 peak Holiday season, including on Black Friday and
on a Saturday and Sunday in November/December at two existing similar Costco
facilities nearby, the Applicant asserts that the proposed 610 parking spaces will be
sufficient. In addition, it will reduce the amount of impervious area. Refer to FEIS
III.L Introductory Response and Parking Utilization Study in this FEIS Appendix H.

Comment III.L 3 - (PH1, Evan Bray), (Document 171.3, Evan Bray), (Document 171.4,
Evan Bray):

There are two zoning variances that the applicant seeks. One, I recommend that the
Board does not endorse the zoning variance, to reduce the required number of parking
spaces.

The applicant seeks a variance to eliminate twenty percent of the required parking,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-24

they base this request on an argument that Costco serves both, retail and wholesale
communities. They try to claim that it is hard to assign a number of persons for
which the building is designed.

As a building, code and zoning consultant with an Architecture Degree from Cooper
Union, I find that insulting. The building code is clear when it comes to allowable
and proposed number of people that a structure is designed to hold. If they don't
know how many people will be in the building, how will they get them out in the
event of emergencies?

What will the certificate of occupancy read, I was hoping J ohn Winter would be here,
it is going to read retail, and I am guessing and if I am wrong, please correct.

An important note, the applicant does not account for the tire center or the gas station
in their parking calculations, it is only the actually a hundred and fifty-one thousand
square foot, retail, wholesale, hybrid membership card. [PH1, page 92, lines 1-25],

Response III.L 3:

The Applicant does not seek a zoning variance for parking. The Planning Board is
granted authority in Section 300-182B of the Zoning Code to determine the
reasonable and appropriate parking requirements for land uses not described in
paragraph A of the referenced code provision. Refer to FEIS Introductory Response
and FEIS Response III.L 2f.

The Applicants calculation of the proposed parking index (4.04) is based on the
number of parking spaces provided (610) and the Costco Store area (151,092 s.f.),
which includes the tire center floor area. However, the tire center and fueling facility
were taken into account for purposes of parking, in the Applicants Parking
Utilization Study, which provides additional support for its assertion that 610 parking
spaces would be sufficient and appropriate for the Proposed Action. The Parking
Utilization Study was performed at two nearby comparable Costco facilities having
similar amenities, including tire service centers and fueling facilities. For an
explanation and the results of the Applicants Parking Utilization Study see FEIS
III.L Introductory Response, FEIS Response III.L 18 and FEIS Appendix H.

This Comments remarks regarding the building use and occupancy refer to the
discussion of the Parking Code in section III.L.2.a of the DEIS. In the DEIS, the
Applicant attempted to explain that the proposed use is a hybrid of a retail and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-25

wholesale use and a parking calculation for the combined use is not described in the
Town Code. The statement in Section III.L.2a (page III.L-1) of the DEIS that
apparently caused confusion is:

Since the building has both retail and wholesale use, it is difficult to
assign a number of persons for which the building is designed.

The reference was to the number of persons assigned to wholesale or storage use,
not building occupancy as defined by NYS Building Code. The maximum building
occupancy pursuant to that code is not used to determine parking requirements.
Costco is required to comply with the applicable New York State and Yorktown Code
as well as requirements imposed by the Towns Building Department.

When a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the description of building use (e.g.,
retail) is based on the NYS Building Code categories. The NYS Building Code has
separate and distinct functions from the Town of Yorktowns Zoning Code. The
Yorktown Zoning Code does not establish parking requirements based on building
occupancy except in limited and irrelevant cases, such as when a particular use
allowed in a commercial zone does not attract patrons, like a public utility or private
storage building. The parking requirements for this Project will be determined by the
Planning Board in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 300-182B. Refer to
FEIS III.L Introductory Response.

Comment III.L 4 - (PH1, Andrew Fisher):

Costco, you know, estimates the number of employees they'll have, the number of
parking spots they'll need. [PH1, page 122, lines 18-21]

I know the formulas they use, and there is always an over estimated use, always,
always, hundreds of vacant spots whenever you go to a shopping center. So, you
probably have overestimated them.

But, when you talk about the number of employees in a store of large retailers like
Costco and Walmart and others like that, don't just use all their employees in their
store, they should always use the word workers rather than employees. Most major
manufacturers send their own merchandisers and sales representatives to the store to
set up the shelves, knock down the shelves, put the merchandise out on the shelves,
take care of displaying, and Costco employees are mostly running the cash registers
and stock.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-26

So, you have many other workers coming to every building everyday who are not
necessarily employees of Costco, but you need to include those in counting the traffic
trips, the number of cars and parking. [PH1, page 123, lines 4-25], [PH1, page 124,
lines 1-2]

Also the parking lot, you should allow or require that thirty percent of the spaces be
pervious surfaces not impervious surfaces. There are pavers that are made that can
reduce run off, if you look at the Mahopac Library on Route 6, they did that
throughout their parking spaces. It can still be snow plowed. They work well and
you won't have too much impervious surfaces. [PH1, page 127, lines 17-25]

Response III.L 4:
The Applicant presented a parking analysis in Section III.L.2.d of the DEIS. The
analysis was based on the number of member counts and an allowance was made for
the number of employees. After the Planning Board accepted the DEIS, the Applicant
performed a Parking Utilization Study to provide additional support for their assertion
that 610 parking spaces would be sufficient to support the Project. The Study was
based on actual parking counts which accounted for all visitors including shoppers,
employees, etc. Similar Costco stores, having tire centers and fueling facilities were
selected for the study. Parking counts were performed during the peak shopping
season. Based on the results, the Applicant asserts that the proposed 610 parking
spaces will be sufficient to support the Proposed Action. Also see FEIS III.L
Introductory Response and Parking Utilization Study in this FEIS Appendix H.

The Applicant notes that the referenced study accounts for parking for all attendees to
the store, including customers, employees and visiting workers.

Parking pavers can be effective in reducing impervious surfaces and resultant
stormwater runoff. Pavers are typically specified for low volume traffic uses such as
a community library, and not higher-volume retail or wholesale uses that require the
use of shopping carts within the parking area. The DEC Stormwater Design Manual
(page 5-115) suggests limiting its use to low traffic uses as follows: It [permeable
paving] can be used to treat low traffic roads (i.e. a few houses or a small cul-de-sac),
single family residential driveways, overflow parking areas, sidewalks, plazas, tennis
or basketball courts, and courtyard areas. The proposed Costco development does
not meet the referenced typical low intensity uses intended for permeable paving.
With the proposed 4.04 parking index, Applicant asserts that the parking area will
meet the parking demand but will not be oversized, leaving overflow parking areas.
In addition, much of the parking area will be constructed in fill, where the use of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-27

pervious pavement is not recommended. Refer to FEIS III.G 26.

Sensitive to the need to reduce stormwater runoff, the Applicant proposes an alternate
practice for reducing stormwater runoff by implementing an infiltration system. The
infiltration system as designed will capture, treat and infiltrate 100% of the
stormwater runoff from the water quality storm; whereas only installing pervious
pavers would not offer pre-treatment and would infiltrate a lesser amount runoff (only
that which would penetrate the voids between the pavers (estimated at around 50%
but could vary depending on design). Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Summary
Response for more discussion. The Applicant has asserted that parking lot pavers
would not be compatible for use at Costco, in part with regard to the use of shopping
carts. Also refer to FEIS III.G 26, 33, 37c.

Comment III.L 5 - (Document 119.2, Olivia Bell Buehl), (Document 178.11b, Henry
Steeneck):

The developer says Costco doesnt need the normal number of parking spaces that
other stores must have, because it has bigger aisles and less selling space than other
stores. The truth is that Costco will draw more customers than another store of its
size. Nor does the developers request allow for any growth. What happens when the
property is sold for another use? The real reason the applicant is requesting fewer
parking spaces is that if it complied with the correct number it would be impossible to
fit in the filling station. This is a self-imposed problem caused by the fact the project
is just too big for the site.

Response III.L 5:

This Comments assertion that Costco will draw more customers than another store of
its size is unsupported.

If the Project Site is sold for another use, the new owner must appear before the
Planning Board for site plan approval and, if the proposed new use is not listed under
Chapter 300-182.A, the Planning Board will be authorized to impose appropriate
parking requirements pursuant to Chapter 182-300.B.

The Applicant proposes what Costco asserts to be the appropriate number of parking
spaces to meet its projected peak season parking demand. After the Planning Board
accepted the DEIS, the Applicant performed a Parking Utilization Study to provide
further support to their assertion that 610 parking spaces would be sufficient to
support the Project. Similar Costco stores, having tire centers and fueling facilities

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-28

were selected for the study. Parking counts were performed during the peak shopping
season. Based on the results, Applicant asserts that the proposed 610 parking spaces
will be sufficient to support the Proposed Action. Also see FEIS III.L Introductory
Response and Parking Utilization Study in this FEIS Appendix H.

Comment III.L 6 - (Document 119.12, Olivia Bell Buehl), (PH2, Olivia Buehl):


Parking. The argument that Costco has a different parking need from other
retailers is spurious at best.

a. What is the ratio of square footage devoted to prep, entry, and cashier
stations relative to the total size of the store?
b. How do these figures compare to other types of discount stores in terms of
sales per square foot?
c. How does this analysis compare to the parking requirements by code as
broken down into these departments, including percentages of sales?

Response III.L 6:

In Section III.L2 of the DEIS, the Applicant described several factors supporting the
proposed 610 parking spaces. One of these was based on a Retail Floor Area
Calculation. It explained that more floor area was needed for a wholesale type use
than for standard retail. This Comments remarks refer to that discussion.

This Comment requests such information as ratios of various Costco departments in
comparison to other stores, an analysis of parking on a department basis and analysis
of sales percentages. The Applicant asserts that these additional details are not
relevant to the parking calculations because they are inconsistent with the parking
requirements set forth in the Yorktown Town Code. The Town Code does not require
parking calculated by each department within a particular store nor based on types of
sales. Further, Costco does not have information regarding floor plans of other types
of discount stores to make comparisons, as that information is proprietary.

Chapter 300-182 of the Yorktown Zoning Code regulates the parking requirements
for developments within the Town of Yorktown. Paragraph A lists certain specific
uses (e.g. retail, wholesale, etc.). For uses that do not fall into the listed land use
categories, Paragraph B of Chapter 300-182 authorizes the Planning Board to
determine the reasonable and appropriate parking required. Refer to FEIS III.L

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-29


This Comment contests the assessment presented in the DEIS, and asserts that the
parking spaces proposed for the Project should be greater. After the Planning Board
further analytical support to their assertion that 610 parking spaces would be
sufficient to support the proposed Yorktown Costco. The study included parking
counts at similar Costco facilities during the peak shopping season. Based on the
results, the proposed 610 parking spaces will be sufficient to support the Proposed
Action. Also see FEIS III.L Introductory Response and Parking Utilization Study in
this FEIS Appendix H.

Comment III.L 7- (Document 122.5, Al Boutross):

Claus.

610 parking spaces have been proposed instead of the expected 750. Such a
reduction might be okay for most of the year, however, during the heavy shopping of
days like Black Friday, the Christmas Season and the J anuary returns and exchange
season, both numbers of parking spaces will fill to 100% and any additional cars will
have nowhere to park. Walking from remote parking is virtually impossible along
Route 202.

Response III.L 7:

Utilization Study to provide additional support for their assertion that 610 parking
spaces would be sufficient to support the Project. The study included parking counts
at similar Costco facilities during the peak shopping season. The study included
Black Friday and two weekends during December. (The Applicant notes that even
during the holiday parking times the parking lot was still not fully occupied.) Based
on the results, the proposed 610 parking spaces will be sufficient to support the
Proposed Action. Also see FEIS III.L Introductory Response and Parking Utilization
Study in this FEIS Appendix H.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-30

Comment III.L 8 - NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.L 9 - (Document 128.1, Ms. Anne Fleurat):

The following comments and requests for information are the result of a careful
review the DEIS published on the Towns website. Please enter these comments,
questions and requests into this proposed developments DEIS public hearing record
so that they can be properly addressed in the FEIS and ultimately incorporated in the
final site plan design.

Also, please acknowledge receipt of this letter.

In section III.L Parking, the applicant argues that Costco should be exempt from
providing the number of parking spaces required for other stores. Errors in that
argument are pointed out below, along with alternative suggestions, as well as reasons
to deny the request.

Size and Nature of the Selling Space
The observation that the actual floor area or selling space is different from that of
other retailers is equally applicable to numerous commercial applicants subject to the
same parking requirements. To suggest that only Costco has non-selling square
footage comprised of prep areas, loading areas, foyers, etc., fails to recognize that
most other establishments have similar areas. In fact, many stores probably have a
greater proportion of such areas relative to their overall size than Costco does. The
parking requirements that exist in our town code have already taken these factors into
account.

Why does Costco warrant this special treatment?

A better argument could be made that larger stores, and particularly big box stores,
generate a higher requirement for parking space per store square footage (SF) than do
smaller stores. Why? Because the parking space to SF ratio does not take into account
the fact that the big boxes get more customers per SKU than smaller stores do and
customers at big box stores stay longer and make more trips over a period of time.
Using Costcos data is self-serving. In any case, the average size of Costco stores has
increased over the years so the relevance of historical data is limited.

What evidence is there that the applicants claims are valid in this respect?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-31

More importantly, underestimating the necessary amount of parking space could
cause a perfectly avoidable long-term problem. Prudence dictates that we err on the
side of caution. Even if some of the numbers provided in the DEIS are correct,
growth in the marketplace and changes in buying patterns could result in both internal
(parking lot) queuing and external (surrounding streets) queuing, releasing carbon
emissions into the environment.

The observation that Costco has larger aisles than other retailers does not factor in the
fact that smaller stores have smaller aisles because they do not have (or do not use)
the height that a Costco does. This vertical space allows for extensive storage of stock
not available to most other retailers, more than making up for wider aisles. We need a
far more thorough study on the number of SKUs as compared to other stores,
inventory turnover and a myriad of other data to correctly analyze whether Costco
indeed would have a lesser requirement for parking than all other stores. I request that
the applicant underwrite a more thorough study backed up with data from an outside
source before lending any credence to these observations.

Response III.L 9:

The Applicant does not request an exemption from the parking requirements as set
forth in the Towns Zoning Code. No parking variance is being sought. Chapter 300-
182 paragraph B of the Towns Zoning Code grants the Planning Board the authority
to determine the reasonable and appropriate parking requirement for the proposed
land use. Refer to FEIS III.L Introductory Response. In light of this, the Applicant
presented several approaches to justify the proposed 610 parking spaces. These
approaches were presented in Section III.L.2 of the DEIS to provide the Planning
Board with sufficient information to make their determination of the reasonable and
appropriate parking requirement for the Proposed Costco. One of these approaches
provided a Retail Floor Area Calculation in support of the Applicants assertion of
610 parking spaces. It is to this approach that the Comment refers to floor area, aisle
width, vertical storage, SKUs (stock keeping units), etc.

The Comment requests additional study regarding SKUs and comparison to other
stores. Costco has a narrower variety of goods when compared to typical retail. SKU
data from other stores is proprietary to them and unavailable to Costco and it is not
relevant to parking calculations based on the Towns Parking Code. The Towns
Code does not require calculation of parking based on product inventory. Neither
does the ITE Trip Generation Manual calculate trip generation by SKUs. Since SKUs
are not used to calculate traffic generation or parking demand and the Applicants
Parking Utilization Study indicates that adequate parking will be provided, the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-32

Applicant further asserts that no additional study in this regard is warranted. It is for
the Planning Board to determine the reasonable and appropriate parking required for
this Project. Refer also to FEIS Response III.L 6.

The Applicant did, however, perform an additional parking study to provide further
support as to the adequacy of the proposed 610 parking spaces. The Applicant
performed a Parking Utilization Study at two similar Costco stores within the region.
The study was performed during the holiday season and the peak parking demand at
both stores were less than the 610 spaces proposed at the Yorktown Costco. Refer to
FEIS III.L Introductory Response and Appendix H.


review of the DEIS published on the Towns website. Please enter these comments,

The Pool of Potential Customers
To claim that Costco will draw from a smaller pool completely disregards the fact
that the proximity of the Taconic State Parkway provides a huge pool of potential
customers. It is disingenuous to imply that this huge pool of potential customers is not
the precise reason that this location, despite its small size, is attractive to Costco.
Again, there is no reason to assume that the customer to SF ratio would be any less
than at a smaller store. On the contrary, the breadth, depth, and high discounts of the
product line would suggest just the opposite.

The very statement that Costco supports local businesses that will want to buy there
only strengthens the argument that the customer to SF ratio, and thereby their parking
requirement ratio would be higher. Obviously, more traditional stores do not draw
from this dual customer baseCostcos business model is based upon selling to both
traditional consumers and local businesses. Additionally, the discount club concept
draws business customers more often in a given time period. That stands to reason as
most small businesses want to keep their inventory low, and in the case of perishable
goods, keep them fresh. The result? More visits.

Finally, when Costco first opened, it might have been valid to say that because it sells
items in bulk customers come less often. However, Costco has since evolved to offer
smaller quantity purchase requirements. In some cases, such as jewelry, furniture, and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-33

appliances, single units are now the norm. Regardless of how Costco sells its
products, or whether customers must be members, the ratios of SF to parking
requirements does not, and should not be altered.

It is interesting to note that the certificate of occupancy the town issued to BJ s,
which follows the same selling model as Costco, defines the occupant as a retail
establishment, not a wholesaler. It stands to reason that if Costco does go through, the
building department would give it the same designation as B.J s.

Why should Costco be treated any differently from this other warehouse club store
less than a quarter of a mile away that also has wide aisles and sells both retail and
wholesale, in terms of number of parking space requirements?

One last point: The very growth in both size and number of such discount stores
makes the comment that they draw from a smaller pool spurious at best. And the
members only observation in this section of the DEIS ignores the fact that the Nanuet
Costco allows nonmembers to purchase fuel.

Response III.L 10:

The Applicant proposes a 4.04 parking ratio, which is consistent with the 3.93 ratio
recommended by ITE for Discount Clubs. The proposed parking ratio is also
consistent with the Towns recently amended parking ratio of 4.0 for commercial
districts (including district C-3 in which the Project is zoned.) The Code, in part, was
modified in response to changes in buying/parking trends. (Refer to III.L
Introductory Response.) In addition, the shopping center in which BJ s, a similar
Discount Club, is located ( mile west of the Costco Site), was recently granted an
amended Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board where the required parking was
considered at the new 4.0 parking ratio.

The Comment indicates that the BJ s Certificate of Occupancy designates BJ s as a
retail establishment rather than a wholesaler. The building department categories are
limited and the closest description for building use is assigned to the Certificate of
Occupancy. Since no category for Discount Club is included on the standard
certificate, the retail use was noted. BJ s Discount Club is similar to Costco, and the
Certificate of Occupancy may read similarly for Costco, however, the designation on
the Certificate of Occupancy is not pertinent to the calculation of required parking.

Costco draws from a customer base of members only. Costco supports local
businesses in that it provides bulk goods common to small businesses at discounted

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-34

prices. Although the majority of goods are sold in bulk quantity, some items, such as
jewelry, TVs, etc. are sold individually, however the selection of those items is
limited. In this respect, the Project is similar to the other Costco facilities studied in
the Applicants Parking Utilization Study, which provides further support to their
assertion that 610 parking spaces would be sufficient to support the proposed
Yorktown Costco. The study included parking counts at similar Costco facilities
during the peak shopping season. The study included Black Friday and two weekends
during December. Based on the results, the Applicant asserts that the proposed 610
parking spaces will be sufficient to support the Proposed Action. Also see FEIS the



Appropriate Mitigation
To try to mitigate the intrusion into wetland buffers by reducing impervious surfaces
with fewer parking spaces would be a fatal error that could cause other problems. To
use the request of the DOT to try to stop wasted space as a reason to open the door
for lowering the Towns standards could set a precedent with monumental
implications.

Instead, the proper mitigation for a parking requirement is, as it always has been, to
either acquire more land for the project, find a way to use more of the land that is
there (perhaps with underground parking), find a larger more suitable parcel
elsewhere, or eliminate the filling station, thereby freeing up more land for parking. It
is worth noting that the relocation of the filling station from its initial placement has
consumed some of the prime parking spaces close to the entrance. The other
mitigation, of course, would be to reduce the square footage of the building, which
would reduce the parking requirement and the amount of impervious surface, prevent
wetland intrusion, and lower vehicular traffic.

In short, the correct mitigation of the problem is the traditional way, which will not
run the risk of causing a future problem that could never be mitigated.

Therefore, I formally request that the applicant prepare a supplemental DEIS

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-35

exploring the impact of no filling station.

Response III.L 11:

Code. No variance is requested. The Planning Board is authorized to determine the
reasonable and appropriate parking requirement for the Proposed Action. The
Applicants design includes considerations to minimize disturbance of the Wetland A
buffer. The Applicant asserts that the proposed parking is consistent with the
recommendations by DECs to reduce impervious area, consistent with the ITEs
findings and consistent with the recently amended Chapter 300-182 of the Towns
Code. Refer to FEIS III.L Introductory Response and DEIS Section III.L.2.

The Applicant has developed several alternatives (DEIS Section IV) in accordance
with the DEIS Final Scope. Alternative IV.2a includes reduced surface parking
supplemented by structured parking. An alternative to develop underground parking
is discussed in FEIS Response IV.3; an alternative to eliminate the fueling facility is
discussed in FEIS Response IV.6; and an alternative to reduce the building size in
order to provide additional parking is discussed in FEIS Response IV.3.

SEQRA does not require the consideration of alternatives that require the acquisition
of property not within the Applicants possession or control. Moreover, the
Applicant asserts that the acquisition of additional land for parking would not be
practicable, as shoppers would have to cross-public streets and walk long distances to
access such parking areas.

The Applicant asserts that the proposed 610 parking spaces will be adequate to meet
the peak shopping seasonal parking demand while not over parking which would
result in increased environmental impacts from constructing an excess of impervious
area. Since publishing the DEIS, the Applicant performed a Parking Utilization
Study to provide further support to their assertion. The study included parking counts
at similar Costco facilities during the peak shopping season. Based on the results, the
proposed 610 parking spaces will be sufficient and will not require constructing an
excessive amount of impervious area. Also see the FEIS III.L Introductory Response
and Parking Utilization Study in this FEIS Appendix H.

The comment conflates mitigation for parking and wetlands impacts. As set forth
above, the Applicant contends that 610 parking spaces will be adequate to meet the
demands of the Site. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed or required in the form
of increased parking, reductions in square footage, or other Project changes, and no

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-36

SEIS is required to assess the impacts of such mitigation. Avoiding an unnecessary
increase in impervious surfaces is an effective mitigation measure to reduce potential
impacts to wetland buffers, as recommended by NYSDEC and proposed by the
Applicant.

With regard to the request for a Supplemental EIS refer to FEIS Response General
1.9.

Comment III.L 12 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.L 13 - (Document 60.4, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.5,

The applicant proposes 610 parking spaces, 146 parking spaces short of
Yorktown retail parking requirements (756 spaces) based on the site having two
uses. No data is provided as to why this site should be treated as a mixed use site (it is
not really a mixed use site), what site uses are actually being planned, or why the
parking should not be the sum of the mixed uses.

Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers data and Costcos own data the 756
spaces for this use is insufficient to accommodate peak demands.

Given that this site lacks overflow adjacent on-street or public parking, a 756 parking
space requirement and 76 (10%) additional parking spaces land banked should be
required by the Town to avoid peak period chaos.

Response III.L 13:

Chapter 300-182B of the Towns Zoning Code authorizes the Planning Board to
determine the reasonable and appropriate parking requirements when the proposed
use is not listed in the Chapter. The ITE recognizes a Discount Club as a distinct land
use (Land Use 857) having particular parking requirements. The 4
th
Edition of the
ITE Parking Generation (page 26) indicates a 3.93 85
th
percentile parking ratio for a
Discount Club, which for the Project, would require 594 parking spaces,
approximately 16 spaces less than proposed.

The Applicant asserts that the Proposed Action is not a mixed use having separate and
distinct uses. The Costco store functions as a single use and parking demand was
determined in this manner. The fueling facility does not generate parking separate
from the Costco store. Shoppers fueling up prior to or after shopping are accounted

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-37

for in the overall parking. See FEIS Response III.L.2.

Utilization Study to provide further support to their assertion that 610 parking spaces
would be sufficient to support the proposed Yorktown Costco. The study included
parking counts at similar Costco facilities during the 2012 peak shopping season.
Based on the results, the Applicant asserts that the proposed 610 parking spaces will
be sufficient. Refer to FEIS III.L Introductory Response and Parking Utilization
Study in this FEIS Appendix H. The Applicant further asserts that since the proposed
parking is consistent with the needs of other similar Costco facilities, no land banked
parking should be necessary. The Towns Code does not require land banked parking
spaces in addition to the Planning Boards determined required number of spaces for
the site.

Comment III.L 14- (Document 139.2, Jonathon Nettelfield):

Parking. Under the mitigation section of the DEIS states, The Project proposes
offsite highway improvements to Route 202/35, which include a proposed sidewalk
along the north side of Route 202/135 connecting Strang Boulevard to the Project
Site. The sidewalk will extend along the entire site frontage, thereby, improving the
ease of pedestrian access from the bus stop to the Project Site and destinations further
vest. Improvements will also include 6- foot paved shoulders, to accommodate
bicycle transportation along the eastbound and westbound sides of Route 202/35
extending from Strang Boulevard to the western limit of the Project Site. With these
improvements, bike traffic would be accommodated safely to the Proposed Costco.
Costco proposes providing bike parking racks for those customers or employees who
would choose to bike to the facility. Again we seek data on customers and
employees that bike to existing Costcos to assess whether this is real mitigation.
Additionally we would like similar data on bus ridership to existing Costcos.

Response III.L 14:

Data regarding numbers of shoppers and employees utilizing bus transportation at
other Costco stores is not available. Costco does not monitor or quantify bus ridership
to or from their stores. Bicycle racks storing 10 bicycles are provided at many Costco
facilities, although the Applicant stated that Costco management has indicated they
tend to be underutilized at most locations. (Refer to FEIS Response III.L1.)
Pedestrian and bicycle transportation to the Project will be encouraged, however, by
providing sidewalks, paved shoulders/bike lanes and bike racks. A sidewalk will
connect the bus stop at Strang Boulevard to the Project Site and an onsite sidewalk

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-38

will extend to the Costco entrance. These amenities will enable employees and/or
shoppers to ride bicycles, walk or take public transportation to the Project Site. The
number of patrons arriving by bicycle would likely be small due to the inability to
carry bulk packages on a bicycle. However, it is possible that some employees and
patrons may arrive by bus. Also refer to FEIS III.K Introductory Response.

Comment III. L 15 (Document 169.8, Mark H. Linehan):

Will Costco be required to mark the large vs. small parking spaces, e.g. compact
car, etc?

Response III.L 15:
The parking spaces nearer the building entrance are considered prime parking and
will likely be utilized more often. These spaces will be 10-feet wide, which will
allow room to comfortably load and unload goods. Parking spaces further from the
building entrance, which will be less often utilized, will be 9-feet wide. These spaces
will typically be located along the perimeter of the parking lot or greater than around
300 feet from the building entrance. All the parking spaces are designed to meet the
Towns minimum requirements for standard spaces.

The Applicant proposes no spaces designated for compact cars only and the Applicant
does not propose to identify the different stall sizes by sign or pavement marking.
The differences will likely be visually discernible to most and, therefore, the
Applicant asserts that such identification would not be warranted.

Comment III. L 16 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III. L 17 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III. L 18 (Document 171.5, Evan Bray):

An important note: the applicant does not account for the tire center and the gas
station in their calculations. So in reality, they are requesting a zoning variance of
well over 20%, when the accessory buildings are taken into consideration.

Question: will Costco limit the number of members that can use this facility?
Regardless of whether or not the current proposal is for this venerable and exclusive
members only retail/wholesale hybrid shopping mecca otherwise known as Costco,
there will be no legally binding covenant that would prevent a future tenant to occupy

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-39

it as boring old normal retail space. Unless Mr. Winters knows something I dont.

Response III.L 18:

Regarding the implication of the fueling facility and the tire center with respect to
parking impacts, Applicants engineer performed a Parking Utilization Study to
provide additional support for its assertion. The Study was performed at two nearby
comparable Costco facilities having similar amenities including tire service centers
and fueling facilities. For an explanation and the results of the Applicants Parking
Utilization Study see FEIS III.L Introductory Response, FEIS Response III.L 3 and
FEIS Appendix H.

Note also that the Applicant does not request a zoning variance for parking and no
variance is required. Refer to FEIS Introductory Response and FEIS Responses in
III.L.2 and III.L 3. Regarding the maximum number of members/occupants
permitted in the building, Costco will abide by the requirements of the Town Code.
Any future tenant would be required to comply with Code parking requirements.

Comment III.L 19 (Document 171.10, Evan Bray):
Occupancy and use:

Contrary to what the applicant states in the DEIS, the building code clearly defines
how to establish occupancy.

What will the description of the occupancy and use of the building read? Discount
membership wholesale club? No.

I have taken the liberty of researching other Costco sites around New York. In fact,
none of the other regional stores in NYC, Port Chester and New Rochelle treat this
store as anything other than a retail occupancy. In the site plans current form, what
would the Yorktown Building department issue a CO for as far as maximum
occupancy and type of use? I am attaching the COs from the other Costco sites I
retrieved.

Response III.L 19:

The NYS Building Code has separate and distinct functions from the Town of
Yorktowns Zoning Code, and the Building Code does not include discount
membership wholesale clubs among its enumerated uses. The Yorktown Zoning

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-40

Code does not establish parking based on building occupancy as defined and used in
the NYS Building Code. In some limited cases, such as when a particular use allowed
in a commercial zone does not attract patrons, like a public utility or private storage
building, the Yorktown Zoning Code establishes parking on actual anticipated
occupancy loads. The parking requirements for this Project will be determined by the
Planning Board in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 300-182B. Refer to
FEIS III.L Introductory Response and FEIS Responses in III.L.2 and III.L 3.

With regard to the maximum number of occupants permitted in the building, Costco
will abide by the Town Code and the requirements of the Towns Building
Department.

Comment III.L 20 (Document 176.01, Henry Steeneck):

The following comments and requests for information have resulted in a review of
the DEIS for the above named project which has been published on the Towns
website. We ask that these comments, questions and requests be entered into this
proposed developments DEIS public hearing record so that they might be properly
addressed in the projects Final Environmental Impact Statement and ultimately
incorporated in the final site plan design.

In section III.L Parking, Costco tries to make the argument that they should be
exempt from the parking requirement that others have had to follow. Below, we have
pointed out some errors in that argument, and some suggestions that we feel need to
be done to either make a more informed decision, or reasons why the request needs to
be denied.
The observation that the actual floor area or selling space is less or different than
that of other retailers, while true, is also true for all commercial applicants subject to
the same parking requirements.

Response III.L 20:

Code. No variance is requested. The Applicant asserts that the parking requirement
for the proposed use is subject to Paragraph B of Chapter 300-182, which provides
the Planning Board the authority to determine the parking requirements for uses not
listed in paragraph A. In determining the parking requirements, the Planning Board is
required to consider all factors entering into the parking needs of each such use.
Refer to FEIS III.L Introductory Response.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-41

Regarding this Comments reference to the relationship of building floor area to
parking, refer to FEIS Response III.L 2f.


To think that only Costco has non selling square footage because of prep areas,
loading areas, foyers, etc. is to fail to recognize that most other establishments have
these same issues, and probably have them as a greater proportion to overall size than
Costco. The parking requirements that exist in our town code have already taken
these factors into account. As a matter of fact, a better argument would be that the
larger stores, and particularly the big boxes, would generate a higher requirement for
parking vs. their square footage (sf) than the smaller stores, as the parking space to sf
ratio does not take into account the fact that the big boxes get more customers per sku
than the smaller stores; that their customers stay longer; and that they make more trips
in the same period of time. Hence, we would request a real thorough study and data
from an outside source (We contend that using Costcos data is far too self serving,
and their data is always evolving upwards, as can be shown from the fact that the size
of their stores is increasing), before lending any credence to these observations.

More importantly, an error here would cause a problem in the long term which would
be mitigated. That is to say, prudence dictates that we err on the side of caution. Even
if some of these numbers were correct, growth in the marketplace and changes in
buying patterns would then result in both internal and external queuing.

Response III.L 21:

The Project proposes no departure from the Towns Parking Code. Despite assertions
made in this Comment, Chapter 300-182 (the Yorktown Parking Code) does not
require the Planning Board to determine parking requirements based upon the ratio of
customers per SKU or average length of shopping time. Instead, for uses like
discount stores that are not specifically listed in the Yorktown Parking Code, the
Planning Board has the discretion to determine reasonable and appropriate parking
requirements based upon factors of its choosing. Refer to FEIS Section III.L
Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.L 2, 2a and 2g (Yorktown Parking
Code).

Utilization Study, based on parking counts at similar Costco facilities during the peak
shopping season. The study provides additional support to their assertion that 610
parking spaces will be sufficient to support the Proposed Action. Based on the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-42

results, the proposed 610 parking spaces will be sufficient to support the proposed
use. Also see FEIS III.L Introductory Response and Parking Utilization Study in this
FEIS Appendix H.

The Comment states that changes in buying patterns should be accounted for,
implying that more parking should be provided. The Applicant asserts that parking
ratios that have been historically utilized as a design standard have shown to be
much higher than what is needed based on todays actual parking demand. These
higher, older parking design standards often pre-date more recent changes in the
commercial industry which include but are not limited to the advent of Discount
Clubs, and increasing internet shopping. Refer to FEIS Section III.L Introductory
Response (discussing recent changes to Yorktown Parking Code). In light of this
trend toward lower parking indices and the Parking Utilization Study described in the
FEIS III.L Introductory Response (included in FEIS Appendix H) the Applicant
asserts that the proposed parking spaces are consistent with industry standards.

Comment III.L 22 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)


The observation that they have larger aisles is all well and good, however, they have
not taken into account the fact that the smaller stores have the smaller aisles, because
they do not have or use the height that a Costco does. That is to say, we would need a
far more thorough study on the number of skus as compared to the other stores,
inventory turnover and a myriad of other data to correctly analyze whether they
indeed would have a lesser requirement for parking than all others.

To make a claim that they will draw from a smaller pool completely disregards the
fact that, with the proximity of the Taconic State Pkwy, it is a huge pool. Again as
stated above, there is no reason to assume that the customer to sf ratio would be any
less than the smaller store. On the contrary, the breadth, depth and high discounts of
their product line would suggest just the opposite.

Response III.L 23:

This Comment requests a thorough study regarding the number of SKUs as compared
to other stores and inventory data. This data from other stores is proprietary to them
and unavailable to Costco and it is not relevant to parking calculations based on the
Towns Parking Code. The Towns Code does not require calculation of parking
based on product inventory. The Applicant asserts that no further study in this regard

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-43

is warranted. It is for the Planning Board to determine the reasonable and appropriate
parking required for this Project in accordance with Chapter 300-182B of the
Yorktown Code. Refer also to FEIS Response III.L 9.

This Comment contests the explanations presented in the DEIS and asserts that the
support the proposed Yorktown Costco. The study included parking counts at similar
Costco facilities during the peak shopping season. Based on the results, the proposed
610 parking spaces will be sufficient and will not require constructing an excessive
amount of impervious area. Also see FEIS the III.L Introductory Response, Response
III.L 10, and Parking Utilization Study in this FEIS Appendix H.


As to the statement that Costco supports local businesses who want to buy from them,
I would suggest that this only further makes the point that their customer to sf ratio,
and thereby their parking requirement ratio would be higher; as obviously the more
traditional stores do not ever draw from this customer base. Also, it again shows that
the discount club concept not only draws more different types of customers, but
draws them more often as they make more trips per given time period in an effort to
keep their inventory low and, in the case of perishable goods, attempt to keep them
fresh

Response III.L 24:

This Comment claims that the proposed Costco should require more parking because
local businesses are included in its customer base. DEIS Section III.L.2 presented
several approaches to support the proposed 610 parking spaces. In addition, after the
Planning Board accepted the DEIS, the Applicant performed a Parking Utilization
Study to provide further support to their assertion that 610 parking spaces would be
sufficient to support the Proposed Action. The study included parking counts at
similar Costco facilities during the peak shopping season. Based on the results, the
proposed 610 parking spaces will be sufficient to support the Project. Also see FEIS

The parking requirement for the Project will be determined by the Planning Board in
accordance with Chapter 300-182B of the Towns Zoning Code. No variance is

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-44

requested or required. The Planning Board is authorized to determine the reasonable
and appropriate parking requirement for the proposed Costco.


Finally, to try and say that they sell bulk items therefore people come less often,
while possibly true when Costco first opened, they have since evolved to smaller
purchase requirements, and in some cases (like J ewelry, furniture, appliances, etc) to
single units. Besides, the point is that regardless of how they sell their products, or
whether they must be members, the ratios of sf to parking requirements do not, and
should not be altered.

Response III.L 25:

The Applicant asserts that the Proposed Action proposes no departure from the
parking requirements of Chapter 300-182 of the Towns Zoning Code. No variance is
requested. The Planning Board is authorized to determine the reasonable and
appropriate parking requirement for the proposed Costco. Refer to FEIS III.L
Introductory Response and Response III.L.10.

support the proposed Yorktown Costco. The study included parking counts at similar
Costco facilities during the peak shopping season. Based on the results, the proposed
610 parking spaces will be sufficient to support the proposed use. Also see FEIS


One last point, on the members only observation, as can be seen from the growth in
both size and quantity of these discount stores, makes their comment that they draw
from a smaller pool spurious at best. And lest we forget, the Costco Nanuet store
allows non-members to purchase fuel.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-45

Response III.L 26:

Costco draws from a customer base of members only. At some Costco facilities, as in
the case of the Nanuet store, the fueling facility is open to non-members. However,
the Applicant has stated that fuel sales will be to members only. (Refer to FEIS
Response III.L 10.)

reasonable and appropriate parking requirement for the proposed Costco. Refer to
FEIS III.L Introductory Response. Should future changes to the Project use be
proposed that would impact zoning/parking, they would need to be proposed to and
approved by the Planning Board.

further support for their assertion that 610 parking spaces would be sufficient to
support the Project. The study included parking counts at similar Costco facilities
(including Nanuet) during the 2012 peak shopping season. Even during the peak
holiday shopping season, adequate parking was available. Based on the results, the
Applicant asserts that the proposed 610 parking spaces will be sufficient to support
the proposed use. Also see FEIS III.L Introductory Response and Parking Utilization
Study in this FEIS Appendix H.


As to the reduction of impervious surfaces and the intrusion into wetland buffers, to
try and mitigate this by causing a different potential problem is a fatal error. And to
use the request of the DOT to try and stop wasted space as a reason to open the
door for lowering our standards is bad form. The precedent it sets could be
monumental.

Response III.L 27:

The Applicant asserts that the proposed 610 parking spaces is consistent with the
DECs recommended parking ratio of 3.97, which is intended to minimize impervious
area, as discussed in DEIS Section III.L.2. Refer also to FEIS Response III.L 11.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.L-46


Instead ,the proper mitigation for a parking requirement is, as it always has been, to
either acquire more land for the project, find a way to use more of the land that is
there, find a larger more suitable parcel elsewhere, eliminate the filling station
thereby freeing up more land for parking (and by the way, relocation of the filling
station has taken some of the best and closest parking spaces), and of course, lower
the sf of the building which would reduce the parking requirement, lower the
impervious surfaces, prevent wetland intrusion, and lower the number of vehicle
traffic on the roads.

In short, the correct mitigation of the problem is the traditional way. To repeat
ourselves, to err here is to cause a problem for the future which would never be
mitigated,

Response III.L 28:

reasonable and appropriate parking requirement for the proposed Costco. The
Applicant asserts that exploring alternatives to acquire more land, acquire a different
site, eliminate the fueling station or reduce the building size in order to provide more
parking is not necessary. The Applicant asserts that the appropriate number of
parking spaces is proposed. The Planning Board will determine the reasonable and
appropriate number of parking spaces. Refer also to FEIS Response III.L 11.

III.M AIR QUALITY

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.M

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Air Quality

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.M-1

Section III.M Air Quality

Comment III.M 1 - (Document 59.3, Steven Kaplan), (PH1, Steven Kaplan):


Even if the DOT can finesse the added traffic, they will not be able to finesse the
added ozone, oxides of nitrogen, and peroxyacetyl nitrates that traffic will bring.
Youve already noticed the damage these pollutants do to tires and the decaying
rubber bands in your home. They also adversely affect our lungs. To all of you who
are asthmatics or have asthmatic children, how many years of life do you want before
you have to carry a tank of oxygen with you?

Response III.M 1:
The Applicant prepared an air quality assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of
the Project on air quality, including a review of offsite street traffic emissions and
parking lot traffic emissions. This is presented in Section III.M of the DEIS.
Increases in emissions associated with the increased vehicular traffic projected with
the proposed Project included CO, NOx, VOC, PM2.5, and lead. It is scientifically
accepted in the air quality regulatory, evaluation and licensing community that
formation of ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrates occur from emissions of VOC and NOx
in the presence of sunlight as a result of photochemical reactions. These chemical
reactions happen slowly and occur many miles downwind of its source and well
outside the study area of the Project, as discussed in Section III-M Air Quality of the
DEIS. Applicant asserts that traffic associated with the Project is not expected to
result in significant impacts to air quality in the area or cause or contribute to a
violation of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), based upon the
analyses of Project-related traffic data.. (The NAAQS are health-based standards
developed to protect the most sensitive population which includes asthmatics and
asthmatic children,) To the extent that traffic will present non-significant impacts, the
Applicant also asserts that the implementation of roadway improvements and traffic
congestion mitigation measures undertaken by the Applicant will mitigate any traffic-
related air pollution impacts. Refer to DEIS Sections III.M and VII.F for detailed
discussion regarding air quality and DEIS and FEIS III.K for discussion for traffic
related improvements.

A traffic sensitivity study was conducted as a response to comments that were raised
regarding traffic volumes. This is presented in FEIS Response III.K. 4, III.K.6.2 and
FEIS Appendix G. Based on traffic estimates accounting for the 12-island fueling
facility, an additional 225 trips to the Project may be added to the peak Saturday 517

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.M-2

trips calculated in the DEIS J ohn Collins Engineers Traffic Impact Study for a total
maximum of 742 trips to the Project. The DEIS air quality analysis revealed that the
air quality concentrations would be 1 ppm CO from the 517 trips associated with
street traffic and vehicles idling and parking within the Project development. This
concentration is minimal when compared to the CO 1-hour ambient air quality
standard of 35 ppm. The Applicant also asserts that the increased traffic volumes
shown in the sensitivity study would not affect the air quality conclusions of the DEIS
since the incremental increase in air quality concentrations from the additional trips is
0.4 ppm and also minimal. The total air quality concentrations of CO would be 1.4
ppm which is well below the applicable ambient air quality standard. Therefore, the
Applicant asserts that the traffic associated with the Project would not be expected to
result in significant impacts to air quality or cause or contribute to any violations of
any NAAQS.

Comment III.M 2 - (Document 113.2, Lauren Hirsch):

As a resident of Yorktown Heights, not only should everyone be concerned about the
traffic congestion on RT 202, but the car pollution effectsAnother big box store,
would cause significantly more litter and car pollution, and be disaster for the
esthetics[sic] of our town

And what about the car pollution? Has anyone given any thought as to how to offset
the negative effects of the car pollution from all the additional cars from Costco? Is
Costco willing to offset its own carbon pollution and the additional pollution from all
the cars? Does anyone even care about these affects [sic] on their town and on their
children? Or is it all about tax dollars?

Response III.M 2:
The air quality impacts of the additional cars are addressed in DEIS Section III.M and
this FEIS Response III.M 1. The Applicant asserts that the carbon footprint of the
Costco facility is minimized through energy efficient design and architecture as
described in DEIS Sections III.I.2.b and III.3.a, and that the Project will pose no
significant adverse impact due to its GHG emissions. Energy efficient building
technology that will be implemented will include but are not limited to the following:
a pre-engineered metal building constructed using 80% recycled materials,
daylighting program utilizing over 200 skylights coupled with photo sensors to
reduce use of electricity, heat reclamation system which captures heat from
refrigeration systems to heat water, energy efficient restroom fixtures, and a recycling
program designed to recycle much of the waste stream. Additional Project
improvements that will reduce air pollutants include provision of sidewalks and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.M-3

bicycle amenities to encourage alternative transportation as well as roadway
improvements that will increase the efficiency of vehicular transportation.

Comment III.M 3 - (Document 117.5, Megan S. and John M. Flynn):

The DEIS claims the proposed project will not significantly impact air quality,
while calling for the transfer of one-to-five truck loads of gasoline from delivery
vehicles to storage tanks and from the tanks to consumers vehicles. However, the
DEIS provides no data on the quantity of air emissions during these transfers. Given
the large volume of gasoline sales projected for this operation, the Planning Board
requires more data, starting with: how much fuel reaches the environment during
these transfers, either through accidental spills or inefficiencies in the vapor capture
systems? Surely someone has studied the evaporative emissions occurring during off-
loading of tanker trucks at retail locations and self-service fueling of consumers
vehicles.

Response III.M 3:

The potential of fugitive VOC emissions as a result of gasoline fumes escaping
during the delivery truck tank filling and vehicle dispensing processes at the proposed
Costco fueling facility is regulated by the NYSDEC through 6 NYCRR Part 230. In
addition, gasoline dispensing sites in Westchester County are required to implement
Stage II vapor recovery devices, which include special nozzles, hoses, adapters, and
vapor piping designed to capture the gasoline vapors that are displaced from vehicle
fuel tanks during refueling and return them to the bulk storage tanks. Pursuant to
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements, these devices
are designed to control a minimum 90% of the gasoline vapors that are displaced or
drawn from a vehicle fuel tank during refueling.

Applicant asserts that the fueling facility would meet or exceed the most stringent
EPA and NYSDEC requirements, which currently include the use of Stage I and
Stage II vapor control systems (6 NYCRR Part 230). A Stage I system consists of a
vapor-tight return line from the storage tank to the gasoline transport vehicle that
collects virtually all of the vapors displaced from the underground storage tank during
filling (in excess of 99 percent). The gasoline transport vehicle then returns to the
fueling depot with the captured vapors for recovery. As such, the Applicant asserts
that the air quality impacts due to fuel transportation to the Site would be nominal.

As currently designed, the facility would feature a Stage II vapor collection system
that addresses vapors displaced from the individual vehicle tanks during filling. The
EPA required Stage II systems to recover at least 90 percent of gasoline vapors.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.M-4

However, effective May 16, 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rule stating they have
determined that onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) technology is in
widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet for purposes of controlling motor
vehicle refueling emissions, which will be at approximately 75.2% in the year 2014,
and therefore, the EPA is waiving the requirement for states to implement Stage II
gasoline vapor recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities. The EPAs study
also determined the ORVR efficiency will be at approximately 80.2% in the year
2014. This ruling allows, but does not require, states to discontinue Stage II vapor
recovery programs for gasoline fueling facilities.
1
Because the Applicants design
still includes a Phase II system, the Applicant asserts that the adverse air impacts
associated with filling individual vehicles at this Site would be minimal, if any.

Additionally, the fueling facility will be required to comply with the EPA
requirements for fillings stations codified in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC -
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities. This subpart establishes national emission limitations and management
practices for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from the loading of gasoline
storage tanks at gasoline dispensing facilities. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations and
management practices. Applicant asserts that Costco will own and operate the
fueling facility in accordance with the NYSDEC and EPA fueling facility regulations.

Applicant asserts that the Costco fueling facility is expected to sell as much as
approximately 10,000,000 gallons per year. Applicant estimates that with the use of
the required emission control systems and best management practices the yearly
emissions of VOC could be as much as 15.5 tons which is well below the 6 NYCRR
Part 231 regulatory major source threshold of 100 tons per year for a point source.
This includes the emissions from submerged underground storage tank filling,
displacement losses during vehicle refueling, spillage during refueling, and
underground storage tank breathing losses. DEIS Sections III.D.2.c and III.D.3.c
describe the technology and practices that will help minimize potential loss of fuel
and vapors to the environment. Such technologies include but are not limited to the
use of double wall tanks, overflow prevention valves, spill prevention nozzles, regular
monitoring and inspection of equipment, leak prevention and detection technology.

1
USEPA Final Rule May 16, 2012: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-16/pdf/2012-
11846.pdf.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.M-5

Comment III.M 4 - (Document 122.2, Al Boutross):

Claus.


Air pollution from the benzene, methane, and other petroleum products
emanating from the proposed 12 fuel pumps. These will hasten the deterioration of
what was pure air in Yorktown because the prevailing Westerly winds will carry this
contamination to the Hamlet of Yorktown, never to be restored.

Response III.M 4:

See FEIS Responses III.M.1 and III.M.3.

Comment III.M 5 - (Document 122.3, Al Boutross):

Further air pollution from the massive added traffic to and from the site: hundreds of
cars and trucks per day. It is true that Yorktown is in the path of growth progressing
from the Metropolitan area outwards into the suburbs and this causes the growth of
traffic annually as we are witnessing. However, in my opinion, we would be foolish
to deliberately accelerate this phenomenon and increase the causes of our driving
frustrations.

Response III.M 5:

Refer to FEIS Response III.M 1.

Comment III.M 6 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.M 7 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.M 8 (Document 42.12, Yorktown Smart Growth):


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.M-6

More traffic means more traffic noise and more fuel emissions.

Cars idling at the fueling facility means even more noise and air pollution.

Response III.M 8:

The Applicants air quality assessment, presented in Section III.M of the DEIS,
accounted for idling at the fueling facility. Vehicle emissions from vehicles operating
within the Project Site, including trips to and from the fueling facility as well as the
warehouse store (idling, standing, low speed cruising for parking spaces) are included
in the estimate of the total round-trip vehicles. The analysis assigned a total vehicle
idling time of over 500 minutes for all the vehicles using the fueling facility within
the peak hour of operation. As set forth in DEIS Sections III.M and VII.F, the
Applicant asserts that such emissions are not anticipated to have a significance
adverse impact on air quality. Refer to FEIS III.N 2 which addresses noise.

Comment III.M 9 (Document 139.16, Jonathon Nettelfield):

Page III M-26: Air Quality, Project Related Traffic and Stationary Sources. In the
conclusions, the applicant asserts that there will not be any significant impacts to air
quality in the area. In fact, The roadway improvements and signal timing
improvements recommended by the traffic engineer result in reduced idling times,
which serves to improve the local air quality surrounding the Project traffic. No
consideration is made to account for additional exhaust from idling cars waiting in
lines to fill up at the gas station. We request that the applicant provides data from
other Costco locations on average and peak waiting times for cars filling up and
calculate the emissions from them in order to provide a more realistic analysis.

Response III.M 9:

The Applicant accounted for the average and peak waiting time for cars utilizing the
fueling facility as described in DEIS Section III.M.2b. The air quality assessment did
include contributions from vehicle idling by assuming over 500 minutes of vehicle
idling will occur within the ite property per hour. The results of the Applicants air
quality assessments indicated that the Project will not result in significant adverse air
impacts or cause or contribute to a violation of a National Ambient Air Quality
Standard. Also refer to FEIS Response III.M 8.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.M-7

Comment III.M 10 (PH2, James Garofalo, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):


My name is J ames Garofalo, Director of Transportation Division at Tim Miller and
Associates, Ten North Street, Cold Spring.

If there is any place that deserves an air quality analysis that there be a question mark
here, there should be a analysis, you are going to have seven lanes, four lanes are
going to be backed up trying to get to the pumps.

This is a depressed area, there will be vegetation over to the east when blocking in
from clearing this area out, this location needs to have an air quality analysis. [PH2,
page 41, lines 4-25], [PH2, page 42, lines 1-5]

Response III.M 10:

The Comments reference is to the location of the fueling facility. The air quality
analysis conducted by the Applicant and presented in Section III.M of the DEIS
studied numerous locations within the Property that are located next to areas with
expected queuing (i.e., the Site driveway and the fueling facility). This analysis
included a location at the fueling facility and the emissions from vehicles queuing are
included in the idling assessment. The air quality assessment which considered the
maximum worst case number of vehicles entering and exiting the proposed facility
provided results that were below applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Therefore, the conclusion of the Applicants assessment indicates that the Project will
not cause or contribute to a violation of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

Comment III.M 11 - (Document 84.1, Martha Patterson):


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.M-8


Response III.M 11:

The DEIS subjects referenced in this Comment were addressed in the DEIS Sections
Transportation, Section III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes, and Geology, Section III.F

Comment III.M 12 - (Document 39a.3, The Concerned Residents of Yorktown), (42.1d, The


(Please refer to Document 42 of FEIS Appendix A for the 103 signatures)

Response III.M 12:

This Comment expresses opposition to the Project based, in part, because of air
quality impacts. Based on the results of the air quality study included in DEIS
Section III.M (Air Quality), impacts from traffic and stationary source equipment will
not result in significant impacts to air quality. Refer to DEIS Appendix VII.F Air
Quality Impact Study. Also refer to FEIS Responses in this section III.M.

Comment III.M 13 - (Document 48.2, Marketa Esaili):

The more jobs we have in the town, the less commuters will be on the road, less
gasoline usage And thus less air pollution.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.M-9

Response III.M 13:

This Comment expresses support for the Proposed Action based opinion that the local
jobs created will require less driving time resulting in less impact to air quality.

Comment III.M 14 (Document 178.8e, Henry Steeneck):



the belief that Costco should not be allowed in our town or else air will be polluted
and will cause enormous irreparable damage to the environment and us.

Response III.M 14:

Document 178 in its entirety, including the referenced articles, can be found in
FEIS Appendix A. References to this document in other sections of this FEIS are

Article 8 expresses general opposition to the Proposed Action The DEIS subject
(air quality) referenced in this Comment was addressed in the DEIS Section III.M
(Air Quality). Responses to specific air quality comments are further addressed in
this section of the FEIS. The Applicant asserts that the results of the air quality
study (DEIS Appendix F) as described in DEIS Section III.M indicate that the
Proposed Action will not result in significant adverse impacts to the environment.

III.N NOISE

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.N
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Noise

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.N-1

Section III.N Noise

Comment III.N 1 - (Document 79.1, Kathryn Costanzo):

I am a Yorktown resident that lives on Mohansic Ave. the back of my property backs
onto the TSP and it is somewhat noisy now but will become way worse when Costco
is completed . I am in favor of the building of Costco but, of course the increased
traffic both on rt202 [sic] and TSP is a problem. the increase noise that will effect
[sic] our properties and the drop in their values. We will be organizing a community
group to request that Costco add to their road project planning construct [sic] a sound
barrier wall along the TSP from the Mohansic golf course to to rt 202 [sic].

Response III.N 1:

Ambient noise monitoring was conducted on Park Lane (residential area adjacent to
the Taconic State Parkway (TSP)) to characterize the existing noise environment in
the area (refer to DEIS III.N.1). The noise-monitoring program revealed that traffic
noise, particularly from the Taconic State Parkway, is an existing component of the
area noise environment. As part of the DEIS noise assessment, potential future
increases in noise due specifically to traffic that would be generated by the proposed
project were calculated. The intersection of Route 202/35 and Mohansic Avenue was
evaluated as part of the analysis. The results showed that the peak increase in traffic
related noise over existing conditions occurred during the peak Saturday hour, with
an increase in noise of only 1.2 dBA. During periods of the day (and night) when
Project generated traffic will be less, the net increase in noise will be even less than
1.2 dBA. Increases in noise of less than 3 dBA are considered to be barely
perceptible, as, according to the FHWA, studies have shown that this increase (3
dBA) is barely detectable by the human ear (FHWA, 1995
1
). Smaller relative
increases in traffic volumes, and even smaller increases in noise (than the maximum
1.2 dBA level above), would be expected based on the Projected traffic volumes on
the Taconic State Parkway, because the existing volume of traffic on the Taconic
State Parkway is much greater than the existing volume on area roadways, and
increases in noise are directly related to the relative increase in traffic volume.

1
Federal Highway Administration, 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement
Policy and Guidance. Prepared by U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway
Administration Office of Environment and Planning. Noise and Air Quality Branch.
Washington, D.C.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.N-2

The noise analysis (DEIS III.N.2) revealed that increases in noise due to increased
vehicular traffic would be minimal (1.2 dBA or less). A traffic sensitivity study was
subsequently conducted (FEIS Appendix G) as a response to comments that were
raised regarding traffic volumes. According to the Applicant, the increased traffic
volumes shown in the sensitivity study were minimal compared to existing traffic
volumes, and would therefore not affect the traffic noise conclusion of the DEIS.
Therefore, based on the above FHWA threshold that increases in noise of 3 dBA or
less are barely perceptible, Applicant has asserted that increases in noise would
remain minimal.

Accordingly, Applicant has asserted that the Project would be an insignificant
contributor to the total noise environment in the area and would not be expected to
affect property values in the area.

Comment III.N 2 (Document 42.13, Yorktown Smart Growth):

More traffic means more traffic noise and more fuel emissions.

Cars idling at the fueling station means even more noise and air pollution.

People who live along Rte. 202/35 would be subjected to the noise of large
trucks on their way to deliver goods to Costco in the middle of the night.

Response III.N 2:

The Applicant performed a Noise Study (See DEIS Section III.N and DEIS Appendix
Section VII.G) which found that the increase in noise from additional vehicular traffic
will be less than 3 dBA at each location that was studied. The Applicant asserts that
this increase would be be barely detectable (refer to FHWA threshold in FEIS
Response III.N.1). Please also refer to FEIS Responses III.N 1 regarding traffic noise
and III.M 8 regarding air quality.
The Applicant asserts that cars idling at the fueling station will generate very low
noise levels compared to existing noise in the area, and the noise generated by the
Projects idling cars would not be anticipated to result in any perceptible increase in
noise at any offsite residential areas (e.g., Old Crompound Road and Mohansic
Avenue),.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.N-3

As presented in the DEIS (see DEIS III.N.2), Applicant estimated that up to five
delivery trucks would access the Project each night. The traffic noise analysis data
indicate that this area on Route 202/35 currently experiences an average of 790 trucks
per day, with 69 trucks on average during the nighttime hours. As such, the
Applicant asserts that the addition of up to five delivery trucks during nighttime hours
would result in a negligible increase in average sound levels in the area. Increasing
truck traffic from 69 to 74 per night would result in an increase in sound of 0.3 dBA
for the nighttime hours, which would essentially be a barely perceptible increase,
according to the Applicant. Applicant also asserted that noise generated by daytime
fuel deliveries, which would include 1 to 5 trucks per day, would be insignificant
when compared to the existing truck volumes, and would also be a barely detectable
noise level increase (refer to FHWA threshold in FEIS Response III.N.1). Further,
Applicant asserted that these noise events would be brief.

Comment III.N 3 - (Document 84.2, Martha Patterson):


Response III.N 3:



_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.N-4

Comment III.N 4 - (Document 39a.05, The Concerned Residents of Yorktown), (42.1b, The


(Refer to Document 42 of FEIS Appendix A for the 103 signatures)

Response III.N 4:

The comment expresses opposition to the project based, in part, because of noise
impacts. Based on the noise modeling study, no significant increase in noise will
result from the Proposed Action. Construction noise will be temporary and will be
mitigated within the requirements of the local noise ordinance. Refer to DEIS
Section III.N. Refer to DEIS Sections III.M, K, C, F, D and J regarding air, traffic,
soil, water resources, hazardous and solid wastes respectively.

Comment III.N 5 (Document 178.8f, Henry Steeneck):



the belief that Costco should not be allowed in our town or else noise levels will
go up,all of this will cause enormous irreparable damage to the environment and
us.

Response III.N 5:



_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.N-5

Article 8 expresses general opposition to the Proposed Action. Document 178, in its
entirety can be found in Appendix A. The DEIS subject referenced in this comment
was addressed in the DEIS Section III.N Noise. Responses to specific comments are
addressed in Section III.N of this FEIS.

III.O BUILDING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.O
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Building Demolition and Construction

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.O-1

Section III.O Building Demolition and Construction

Comment III.O 1 - (Document 108.41, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

1. Steep slopes and erosive soils found on the site are discussed in various sections
relating to soils and topography. Emphasis should be given to the location of these
steep slopes and erosive soils relative to the wetlands and watercourses and their
overland hydrologic connection. Additional erosion control measures may be required
to avoid associated impacts.

Response III.O 1:

The Site contains environmentally sensitive areas, the most significant being Wetland
A and its associated buffer. The Applicant presents the FEIS Site Plan that would
reduce direct disturbance/impact to the Wetland A buffer and would retain
approximately of an acre more wooded buffer when compared to the DEIS site
plan. (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory Responses 2a, 6, 8c and FEIS III.G
Introductory Response.) The FEIS Site Plan would also greatly reduce (47%
reduction) the impact to erosive soils with E slope classification (see FEIS
Response III.C1).

In addition, the Applicant is proposing a construction plan that will be phased and
sequenced and erosion control measures will be implemented to protect Wetland A.
The Applicant proposes that double sediment barrier protection be installed in Phase
1 prior to the start of any soil disturbance at the disturbance limits, which are now
located up gradient of the majority of E sloped soils. To ensure the proper location
and placement of the double sediment barrier, the approved limits of disturbance will
be flagged and/or staked in the field and subject to inspection and verification by
Town and/or NYCDEP staff prior to installation of the barrier. Once the barrier is
installed, a follow-up inspection will be performed by Town and/or NYCDEP staff to
confirm proper installation and authorize the start of upland soil disturbance. The
proposed retaining wall at the toe of the westerly embankment, which will be located
a minimum of ten (10) feet upgradient of the double sediment barrier, will then be
constructed at the beginning of or in the early stages of Phase 2, thereby protecting
Wetland A along with the buffer and E sloped soils to be preserved from potential
erosion and sedimentation (refer to FEIS Response III.O5).

Additional erosion control measures such as diversion of concentrated runoff from up
gradient areas to the permanent detention pond, which would be constructed early in


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.O-2

Phase 2 and function as a sediment basin during construction, and daily temporary
stabilization in the form of either hay/straw mulch, hydromulch (wood fiber
cellulose mixed with green dye and a dispensing agent; sprayed on exposed soils), or
erosion control blankets/mats would be employed to the greatest extent practicable in
order to mitigate potential impacts to the remaining E sloped soils to be disturbed.

Protection):

2. It must be noted that demolition that involves soil disturbance must be included in
any estimate of disturbance for the phase of construction in which it occurs.

Response III.O 2:

Land disturbance resulting from demolition is included in the total land disturbance
for each phase of construction. Construction Phasing/Sequencing Plans have been
developed and are illustrated and discussed in Drawings C-401A through C-401E
(FEIS Appendix J ) and FEIS Exhibits III.O-4a thru III.O-4j. Phase 1 includes the
majority of land disturbance associated with building/structure demolition and
environmental cleanup. This work will disturb approximately 1.7 acres of the
estimated 2.24 acres of maximum soil disturbance within Phase 1.

Protection):

3. The DEIS notes in many places that the Town shall approve the sequencing and
inspect the site during construction. DEP will also approve the sequence as part of the
SWPPP and will observe construction to ensure compliance with the approved plan.

Response III.O 3:

Comment noted. Under the Rules and Regulations for the Protection from
Contamination, Degradation and Pollution of the New York City Water Supply and
Its Sources (Rules and Regulations), the DEP has the regulatory authority to review
and approve the construction phasing/sequencing and final SWPPP. In addition, the
DEP also has full authority under Section 18-51 of the Rules and Regulations to
perform periodic inspections as necessary to ensure compliance with the approved
SWPPP and, if necessary, bring enforcement actions against the Applicant for non-
compliance.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.O-3

Protection):

4. The section notes that a five acre maximum disturbance limit will be observed yet,
it does not appear as though a five acre maximum limit of disturbance can be
maintained based on the significant cuts and fills that are proposed as well as rock
processing. Interim cut and fill balances as well as limits of disturbance for each
phase of construction should be provided.

Response III.O 4:

A Construction Phasing Plan has been developed as illustrated in Drawings C-401A
through C-401E (FEIS Appendix J ) and FEIS Exhibits III.O-4a thru III.O-4j. In
conjunction with the Phasing Plans, the Preliminary Construction Schedule, Exhibit
III.O-4k shows that construction of the Project, which includes the Project Site, the
Old Crompond Road utility extensions, and the Route 35/202 improvements, will
essentially be performed in five phases and each phase will disturb less than five
acres. It is important to note that the land disturbance acreages for the Project shown
in the Preliminary Construction Schedule represent the proposed maximum amount
of soil disturbance/exposure that will occur for each month during the construction
period. The contractor must stabilize the disturbed area of each phase before
advancing to the next phase in such a way that leaves no more than five acres
disturbed and unstabilized at any one time.

The Phasing Plans and Schedule showing compliance with the 5-acre maximum
disturbance requirement is included as part of the SWPPP (FEIS Appendix E), which
is subject to approval by the Town of Yorktown and the NYCDEP to obtain coverage
under SPDES GP-0-10-001. The Phasing Plans will be used by the Applicants,
Towns, and/or NYCDEP inspectors for field review and monitoring of the
Contractors activities.

In accordance with Part III.C of GP-0-10-001 (the SPDES permit), the Applicant as
the Owner/Operator is required to comply with the following requirements:

The Owner/Operator shall have a qualified inspector conduct at least one (1) site
inspection every seven (7) calendar days.
In areas where soil disturbance activity has been temporarily or permanently
ceased, temporary and/or permanent soil stabilization measures shall be installed
and/or implemented by the contractor within seven (7) days from the date the soil


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.O-4

disturbance activity ceased. The soil stabilization measures selected shall be in
conformance with the most current version of the technical standard, New York
Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control.
The qualified inspector shall prepare an inspection report and notify the
Owner/Operator and contractor of any corrective action that needs to be made.

Earth excavation will generally involve cutting from the eastern side of the work area
and filling on the western side. The cut/fill line is illustrated on Drawings C-401A
through C-401E (Appendix J ) and FEIS Exhibits III.O-4a thru III.O-4j . Should
excess material be excavated for a particular phase, the material will be stockpiled for
fill to be used in the next phase. The stockpile will be stabilized and will be included
in the area of disturbance. If the opposite should occur where insufficient cut material
is available for fill within a particular phase, especially for backfill behind the
proposed westerly retaining wall and construction of the westerly embankment, the
contractor would import the amount of structural fill material necessary to satisfy fill
requirements within the phase. With the site earthwork operations managed in this
manner, there will be no need to have balanced cuts and fills in each phase.

Phase 1 will include establishment of staging areas, demolition and environmental
cleanup. The view of the construction staging area will be screened from viewers
along the Route 202/35 corridor by the use of fencing that will be installed along the
road frontage. Construction staging areas will be stabilized, after which they will
continue to be used throughout each successive phase of construction. After
disturbed areas have been stabilized, their land area will not be included in disturbed
areas included in Phases 2 through 4. Construction/earthwork will begin at the north
end of the Project and include the proposed retaining wall at the toe of the westerly
embankment, then move south for each progressive phase. Areas of rock cuts are
also illustrated on Drawings C-401A through C-401E (FEIS Appendix J ) and FEIS
Exhibits III.O-4a thru III.O-4j. A rock crushing operation will be established in Phase
2 at the north end of the Project, furthest away from residents. Phases 2 thru 4 will
involve rock crushing and the crushed material will be used as structural fill behind
the westerly retaining wall and to construct the westerly embankment.

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

I
I
I
.
O
-
4
k
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
2
.
7
3
2
.
7
3
4
.
3
7
4
.
3
7
4
.
3
7
4
.
3
9
4
.
3
9
4
.
3
9
4
.
2
1
4
.
2
1
4
.
2
1
3
.
2
1
3
.
2
1
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
0
0
.
8
8
0
.
8
8
0
.
4
3
0
.
4
3
0
.
4
3
0
.
2
7
0
.
2
7
0
.
2
7
0
.
2
6
0
.
2
6
0
.
2
6
0
.
3
2
0
.
3
2
3
.
6
1
3
.
6
1
4
.
8
0
4
.
8
0
4
.
8
0
4
.
6
6
4
.
6
6
4
.
6
6
4
.
4
7
4
.
4
7
4
.
4
7
3
.
5
3
3
.
6
3
0
.
1
0
0
.
0
0
1
.

A
r
e
a
s

o
f

d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e

c
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

s
i
t
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
r
e
a
s

a
s

s
h
o
w
n

o
n

t
h
e

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
.
3
.

A
r
e
a
s

o
f

d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e

c
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

h
i
g
h
w
a
y

w
o
r
k

z
o
n
e

a
r
e
a
s

a
s

s
h
o
w
n

o
n

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d

D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
.
4
.

W
o
r
k

i
n

t
h
e
s
e

S
t
a
g
e
s

w
i
l
l

c
o
n
s
i
s
t

p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y

o
f

p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t

m
i
l
l
i
n
g

a
n
d

o
v
e
r
l
a
y

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d
,

a
s

s
u
c
h
,

w
i
l
l

n
o
t

i
n
v
o
l
v
e

s
o
i
l

d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
.
H
W
Y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
t
a
g
e

3

-

D
w
g

H
D
-
2
5

(
N
o
t
e

4
)
N
O
T
E
S
:
M
a
x
i
m
i
u
m

S
i
t
e

D
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e

(
A
c
.
)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

H
W
Y

(
R
o
u
t
e

3
5
/
2
0
2
)

D
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e

(
A
c
.
)
T
o
t
a
l

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

D
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e

(
A
c
.
)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

O
l
d

C
r
o
m
p
o
n
d

R
o
a
d

D
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e

(
A
c
.
)
2
.

A
r
e
a

o
f

d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e

s
h
o
w
n

i
s

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

a

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
x
p
o
s
e
d

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

t
r
e
n
c
h

o
f

5
0
0

f
e
e
t

l
o
n
g

b
y

8

f
e
e
t

w
i
d
e

(
4
,
0
0
0

s
q
u
a
r
e

f
e
e
t
)

p
e
r

d
a
y
.

S
i
t
e

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
h
a
s
e

4

-

D
w
g

C
-
4
0
1
D
S
i
t
e

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
h
a
s
e

5

-

D
w
g

C
-
4
0
1
E
H
W
Y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
t
a
g
e
s

1
A
,

1
B
,

1
C

-

D
w
g

C
-
4
0
1
A

(
N
o
t
e

3
)
O
l
d

C
r
o
m
p
o
n
d

R
o
a
d

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
N
o
t
e

2
)
F
i
n
a
l

L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g

a
n
d

P
a
v
i
n
g
H
W
Y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
t
a
g
e

2

-

D
w
g

H
D
-
2
4

(
N
o
t
e

4
)
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

P
H
A
S
E
/
S
T
A
G
E
M
o
n
t
h
S
i
t
e

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
h
a
s
e

1

-

D
w
g

C
-
4
0
1
A

(
N
o
t
e

1
)
S
i
t
e

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
h
a
s
e

2

-

D
w
g

C
-
4
0
1
B
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
6
7
8
S
i
t
e

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
h
a
s
e

3

-

D
w
g

C
-
4
0
1
C
9
1
0
1
1
C
O
S
T
C
O

W
H
O
L
E
S
A
L
E
T
O
W
N

O
F

Y
O
R
K
T
O
W
N
,

N
Y
2
0
1
4
-
2
0
1
5

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

S
E
A
S
O
N
S
1
2
3
4
5
H
W
Y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
t
a
g
e

1
D

-

D
w
g

C
-
4
0
1
B
H
W
Y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
t
a
g
e

1
E

-

D
w
g

C
-
4
0
1
C
H
W
Y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
t
a
g
e

1
F

-

D
w
g

C
-
4
0
1
D
H
W
Y

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
t
a
g
e

1
G

-

D
w
g

C
-
4
0
1
E


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.O-17

Protection):

5. Based on the erosivity of the soils on-site, a five acre limit of disturbance may be
excessive. The project sponsor should reevaluate the disturbance limit based on the
soils types and revise the phasing to demonstrate that the impacts of disturbance on
erosive soils can be mitigated or avoided.

Response III.O 5:

As discussed in FEIS Responses III.O1 and III.C1, the FEIS Site Plan includes
modifications to the DEIS site plan that greatly reduce the impact to erosive soils with
E slope classification by preserving more of the existing Wetland A buffer where
the majority of these soils are located.

As discussed in FEIS Response III.O 4, construction phases have been established in
consideration of offsite construction of the Old Crompond Road utility extensions and
the Route 35/202 improvements, as well as existing erosive soils, slopes and
proximity to sensitive areas (wetlands). The construction phase areas on site were
limited to less than the allowable five acres to ensure manageability and protection of
resources. Sequence of major work tasks have been outlined in Drawings C-401A
through C-401E (FEIS Appendix J ) and FEIS Exhibits III.O-4f thru III.O-4j. The
detention pond, which will function as a sediment basin during construction, will be
constructed early in Phase 2. In order to protect Wetland A, double sediment barrier
protection will be installed at the limits of disturbance prior to the start of any soil
disturbance. The retaining wall at the toe of the westerly embankment will be
constructed at the beginning of or in the early stages in each phase, which along with
additional erosion and sediment controls discussed in FEIS Response III.O1, will
prevent erosion and sediment from reaching the wetland, buffer and E sloped soils
which are to be preserved.

Protection):

6. The discussion of mass grading appears contrary to the intent of maintaining a
maximum disturbance limit of five acres.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.O-18

Response III.O 6:

The Construction Phasing Plan has been detailed as discussed in FEIS Response III.O
4. The task descriptions have been modified as they pertain to specific applications
for each construction phase. The description of mass grading has been revised to
rough grading. It will be performed within the area limit of each phase, where
indicated. Rough grading is the first phase of grading which includes large scale
excavation and fill as opposed to fine grading which occurs later in construction to
establish finished grade.

Protection):

7. Additional detail regarding Erosion & Sediment Control for offsite improvements
must be provided to show adequate mitigation of the potential adverse impacts
associated with erosion and sedimentation during construction.

Response III.O 7:

Erosion and Sediment Control Plans have been prepared for the offsite improvements
and were submitted to the NYSDOT for review. Refer to Drawings HD-15 thru HD-
18 in FEIS Appendix J . These plans are included as part of the SWPPP (FEIS
Appendix E) that will be reviewed by the Town of Yorktown and the NYCDEP for
acceptance/approval and coverage under SPDES GP-0-10-001 in conjunction with
site plan approval.

Protection):

8. The document should discuss whether or not excavated material to be removed
from the site will require testing prior to disposal. If so, will the material be
temporarily stockpiled onsite until the disposal requirements and appropriate landfill
sites are identified? Also, describe how any temporary stock piles of this material will
be protected to prevent leaching or runoff to any uncontaminated areas.

Response III.O 8:


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.O-19

The DEIS states that soil contaminated with fuel oil-related compounds, VOCs,
arsenic, and PCBs is present at several discrete locations onsite (i.e. lawn mower
shop basement, below the motel basement floor, motel basement stairwell). See
DEIS Section III.D.3.a (page III.D-19) and also refer to April 2012 letter report
from EcolSciences, Inc. to the Westchester County Department of Health (DEIS
Appendix B6) which provides as follows:

the contaminated soil will be excavated and stockpiled separately and
covered with plastic until it is removed from the site. Prior to disposal, the
stockpiled soil will be sampled for waste classification purposes according to
the disposal facility requirements. Once the disposal facility has approved the
material, it will be removed from the property and transported by a licensed
hauler to that facility. These remedial activities will be conducted in
accordance with the NYSDECs DER-10 Technical Guidance for Site
Investigation and Remediation, 6 NYCRR 375-6.8, 6 NYCRR Part 371, 6
NYCRR Part 364.2, 6 NYCRR Part 374, and/or 6 NYCRR 364.2, and will be
conducted under the oversight of and be subject to WCDOH approval (Spill
Case resolution authority delegated to the WCDOH by the NYSDEC).

Relative to excess soil potentially generated from the portion of the Site formerly
utilized as a gasoline filling station, the DEIS states the following in Section
III.D.3.a (page III.D-20):

Although the spills associated with the former Chevron/Texaco gasoline
filling station portion of the property received a NFA from the NYSDEC (see
Appendix VII.B3 of this DEIS), the agency allowed marginal exceedances of
several VOCs to remain present in the soil and groundwater in this portion of
the property. All contaminated soil (i.e., soil exhibiting gasoline odors or
VOC contamination based on testing data) requiring excavation in order to
install below-grade utilities will not be used to backfill any utility trenches
onsite. Rather, the soil will be stockpiled, sampled for waste classification
purposes, and disposed of at an approved facility in accordance with the
procedures detailed above and 6 NYCRR Part 371, 6 NYCRR Part 364.2, 6
NYCRR Part 374, and/or 6 NYCRR 364.2.

With regard to the remainder of the Site, comprehensive Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments and Phase II Investigation activities have been conducted throughout
the Site. No other exceedances of the NYSDECs Part 375 URUSCO have been
identified in the onsite soil with the exception of a number of metals present at
concentrations above the NYSDEC URUSCO. However, the majority of the metals


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.O-20

concentrations are within the NYSDEC published ranges for background
concentrations in the Eastern USA and all concentrations (with the exception of
arsenic located at the lawn mower shop that will be remediated) are below the
Commercial Use Soil Cleanup Objectives (CUSCO). Since these metals are likely
associated with naturally occurring conditions and are all below the CUSCO, the
Applicant has asserted that no remediation is warranted. See also FEIS III.D
(Hazardous Materials).

If excess soil is generated from the areas where no remediation is warranted, this
material may be re-used in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360. Additional testing
for characterization for off-site disposal will only be necessary if required by the
receiving facility. If stockpiled prior to removal from the Site, all uncontaminated
soil will be managed in accordance with the Site Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP).

Protection):

9. The area of rock removal and the processing area appear relatively large in extent.
The applicant should clarify the amount of disturbance associated with this activity.

Response III.O 9:

The Construction Phasing Plans indicate the areas of rock excavation associated with
each phase of construction. Refer to FEIS Response III.O 4 and Drawings C-401A
through C-401E (FEIS Appendix J ). The rock processing area will be established
early in Phase 2 and will process rock and other inert materials (brick, concrete,
mortar and stone) reclaimed from the demolition of existing buildings throughout all
phases of construction as needed to be used as structural fill. The area established for
this use is approximately 1/4 to 1/3 acre and allows room for the rock processing
plant and adjacent area for equipment, stockpiled rock and processed material. The
total disturbed area includes the rock processing area.

Protection):

10. It may not be reasonable to assume that the amount of traffic for construction can
be averaged over the length of time various operations will take place. An example


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.O-21

cited in this section is that two truckloads will leave the site each day for the period of
demolition. Perhaps the material will be stockpiled for removal over a shorter period
of time. Likewise, structural fill may be delivered over a much shorter period of time
and stockpiled onsite for use later to allow for equal distribution of trucks.

Response III.O 10:

The DEIS addressed construction truck traffic to and from the Site in terms of total
anticipated truckloads spread over the related construction period resulting in an
average number of truck trips. The number of truck trips may not be distributed
uniformly throughout the construction period, experiencing at times higher or lower
trip volumes based on construction scheduling. Some material may be stockpiled
prior to removal or after delivery allowing truck trips to be more condensed. To that
end truck trips are estimated as follows.

Existing debris is estimated at 20 truckloads to be removed over a time frame
of two weeks. While the average number of truckloads may be two per day,
the Applicants engineer estimates as many as six truckloads per day.

Demolition debris is estimated at 75 truckloads to be removed over a
demolition time frame of two months. While the average number of
truckloads may be two per day, the Applicants engineer estimates as many as
eight truckloads per day.

Earthwork operations will require the import of approximately 8,000 cubic
yards of earth over a 5.5-month period of importing fill. While the average
number of truckloads may be four (4) per day over the course of fill import,
the Applicants engineer estimates there can be as many as sixteen truckloads
in a day.

The Applicant asserts that construction truck activity as referenced above
would be relatively low in daily volume (six to sixteen round trips), would be
distributed throughout the day and would, therefore, not lead to new or
increased adverse environmental impacts.

In connection with the site plan review, the Planning Board may require the
Applicant to maintain safety and minimize impacts by making sure all truck
traffic complies with the latest edition of the Manual for Uniform Traffic
Control Devices.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.O-22

Comment III.O 11 - (Document 130.2, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust):

The Yorktown Land Trust offers the following additional comments to those made at
the November 19th public hearing on the Costco DEIS.

Dust control measures should not include materials such as magnesium chloride or
the brine from any hydro fracking drilling places. These types of materials are
hazardous to water bodies such as the nearby Hunter Brook and Croton Reservoir.

Response III.O 11:

Typically, construction dust control is achieved using untreated water obtained from a
hydrant and applied by sprinkler on the job site when needed, or from a tanker truck
with sprayers on the back. The Projects SWPPP Section 5.3F (FEIS Appendix E)
specifies that Water will be applied by sprinkler or water truck as necessary during
grading operations to minimize sediment transport and maintain acceptable air quality
conditions. Repetitive treatments will be done as needed until grades are paved or
stabilized with vegetation.

Magnesium chloride (MgCl) is also used in dust control as it is hygroscopic
(absorbing water from the air) and dampening the dusty surface. MgCl can be an
inexpensive and effective dust suppressant, but loses its effectiveness through dilution
with precipitation and needs to be reapplied after each precipitation event. MgCl is a
salt, and is used in considerable quantities as a road deicing agent. There is no
legislation restricting its use in Westchester County as a dust suppressant. However,
it has become more recognized through articles and research that the long-term,
widespread use of deicing agents in cold-weather climate regions has resulted in
elevated concentrations of chloride in runoff that can be detrimental to groundwater
and surface water sources of drinking water and their ecosystems. Therefore, MgCl
will not be used by the contractor as a dust suppressant.

Hydrofracking brine generally contains a mix of surfactants, emulsifiers, and
undisclosed mix of chemicals that may be hazardous. Due to the controversy over its
use as a deicing and dust suppression agent, the Applicant agrees not to use
hydrofracking brine as a dust suppressant on the Project.

Other methods of dust control found in the New York State Standards and
Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control that can be used during Project
construction include vegetative cover, mulch (including gravel mulch), and rolled


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.O-23

erosion control blankets in non-driving areas; barriers (woven geotextiles or stone)
and windbreaks for driving areas. The two remaining methods that will not be
considered because of the Projects location in the Hunter Brook and Croton
Reservoir watersheds are the applications of polymer spray adhesives and additives.

Comment III.O 12 - (Document 93.1, Ben Falk), (PH2, Ben Falk):


As I said, I represent ALL of the residential property owners in the Bear Mountain
Triangle. We will be the most impacted by the proposed Costco development, both
during construction and on an ongoing basis. We will have to live with the
construction noise, the disruptions to traffic and our ability to get in and out of our
own driveways, and the permanent addition of a major development right on our
doorstep.

WE UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK YOU TO
APPROVE THE APPLICATION IN A TIMELY MANNER.

Response III.O 12:

The comment expresses support for the Proposed Action in spite of temporary
inconveniences caused by construction.

III.P COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.P
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Community Facilities and Services

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.P-1

Section III.P Community Facilities and Services

Comment III.P 1a - (Document 58.2, Jennie Sunshine), (PH1, Jennie Sunshine), (Document


In this letter I have posed 10 questions of the proposed Costco - Draft Environmental
Impact Statement - as it relates to traffic and more specifically, the affect [sic] of
traffic on our emergency services and emergency services personnel.

Question: Additional Police

Given the large increase in policing area in the Route 202 corridor with Costco and
any and all other development projects, will Yorktown need to hire additional officers
to cover this area so that all the residents in Yorktown can continue to receive the
same excellent level of safety and policing services?
Captain Lou Barbieri, Captain of the Lake Mohegan Fire District, regarding Fire and
EMS, in Appendix VII.L of the DEIS, wrote in his letter to TRC Engineers (referring
to the Costco project), Resources for Emergency Services both financial and
manpower wise are always impacted by development... Captain Barbieri also
explains that Lake Mohegan Fire District would be serving the Costco project with
fire protection and EMS services from the Fire Head Quarters on Route 6, the
Furnace Woods Fire Station on Croton Avenue and from the J efferson Valley Fire
Station on Lee Boulevard. He says, Normal response times would be in the five
minute range.

Response III.P 1a:

Police Chief McMahon indicated in his May 25, 2011 letter that budgetary
implications resulting from the Proposed Action stated as follows:

The proposed Costco will cause increased traffic on Crompond
Road. There are five traffic lights between Strang Boulevard and
Stony Street approximately a half of a mile [sic]. This will create a
need for traffic control equipment and dedicated manpower in
this area during weekends and shopping seasons.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.P-2

These five referenced traffic signals that currently exist will be upgraded in
association with the proposed roadway improvements. The westerly traffic signal at
Stony Street will be reconstructed as part of the NYSDOT project that is presently
under construction. The upgraded signal will include installation of a pedestrian
signal. The Applicant will reconstruct the remaining four existing traffic signals at
Mohansic Avenue (Costco Site entrance), the two Taconic Parkway entrance/exit
ramps and at Strang Boulevard. The Applicant will also install pedestrian signals at
each of these four upgraded intersections. Signal improvements will also include the
addition of back plates to the signal heads to make the signals more visible from the
westbound approaches to make the signals more visible during afternoon periods
when sun glare has been noted as a contributing factor to accidents.

In addition to traffic signal improvements, the Proposed Action includes widening of
Route 202/35 (Crompond Road) from Strang Boulevard to Old Crompond Road. The
widening will provide an additional westbound through lane beginning immediately
west of Strang Boulevard extending to Old Crompond Road, an exclusive eastbound
left turn lane for vehicles entering the Site as well as a dedicated left turn storage lane
for vehicles turning left onto the Taconic State Parkway northbound, which will also
result in the increase in the storage length of the existing westbound left turn storage
lane for vehicles entering the Taconic State Parkway southbound. The Applicant
asserts, that the referenced improvements (addition of two lanes, signal timing
improvements, addition of signal back plates) that will be funded by the Applicant
will improve traffic flow along Crompond Road in the vicinity of the Taconic State
Parkway interchange and the proposed Site access intersection. (See the traffic
analysis in the revised Traffic Impact Study, FEIS Appendix G.) The Applicant
asserts that the Traffic Impact Study in the FEIS shows that these improvements will
compensate for increased traffic generated by the Proposed Action and that improved
traffic flow will increase traffic safety thereby reducing accidents and the subsequent
need for police activity. (Refer to FEIS Response III.P 9.) A further description of
the Applicant-sponsored improvements is provided in the Introductory Response to
FEIS Section III.K.

The NYSDOT has separately commenced with further roadway improvements that
will extend the westbound through lane from Old Crompond Road to the west of
Stony Street past the Parkside Corner Shopping Center as well as providing an
additional eastbound through lane and auxiliary turning lanes at area intersections.
These improvements, which are projected to be completed by Summer 2014, are
discussed in greater detail in the Introductory Response to FEIS Section III.K. The
Applicant asserts that, as reflected in the revised Traffic Impact Study in the FEIS, the
improvements proposed to be completed by the Applicant and the separate NYSDOT


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.P-3

improvements will result in improved traffic flow along Crompond Road. (Refer to
FEIS III.K Introductory Response for description of roadway improvements.)

Police Chief McMahon also indicated that the police department is currently
understaffed. He projected that:

The proposed Costco will cause an increase of 106 calls for service
annually that will increase the need for manpower and or overtime.
Investigations, reporting paperwork, arrest processing and court
appearances will create overtime.

The call volume predicted by Chief McMahon translates to an average increase of
two additional calls for service per week. As discussed in FEIS Response III.P 8,
Police records indicate an average of 56 police incidents occur annually at BJ s, a
similar use as Costco, which would suggest that the weekly police calls for Costco
would be less than the projected 106 calls.(In addition, this figure of 106 calls does
not account for the fact that Costco employs its own security staff.) The BJ s store
has approximately 108,000 square feet of floor area as compared to the Costco, which
will have 151,092 square feet. Proportionately, the number of police calls on a floor
area basis for Costco would be approximately 1.5 calls per week or 3 calls in 2 weeks
or 78 calls annually The Applicant asserts that less than two additional weekly calls
could be handled by existing personnel and/or redistribution of existing manpower.
(Refer to FEIS Response III.P 5 for a discussion of the potential cost of adding a
police officer to the department.)

Captain Lou Barbieri, of the Lake Mohegan Fire District, indicated in his August 3,
2011 letter to Applicants Engineers (TRC) that Emergency Services both financial
and manpower wise are always impacted by development. The implication is that
any development will have an incremental demand on the public services. Captain
Barbieri did not identify any specific incremental impact of the Proposed Action on
Fire District finances or personnel requirements, and therefore, no associated costs
have been projected. The Applicant notes, however, that based on potential fiscal
impacts described in Section III.Q of the DEIS, the Proposed Action will generate
$135,902 to the Town of Yorktown of which the Lake Mohegan Fire District would
receive $41,148 to provide such services (refer to DEIS page III.Q-7).

With regard to Emergency Services response time, the Applicant asserts, as described
more fully in DEIS III.K, that the addition of multiple travel lanes on NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202 between Strang Boulevard and the Bear Mountain Parkway
Extension, which are being completed by a combination of work by the Applicant
and/or NYSDOT, will expedite the flow of traffic through this area, including


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.P-4

emergency vehicles. The widened roadway section and presence of multiple travel
lanes will allow emergency vehicles to travel more efficiently through the area and
provides other vehicles more area to pull over to allow the emergency vehicles to pass
through. Therefore, Applicant expects response times to improve through this area.
The capacity analysis, which is included in FEIS Appendix G, indicates that there
will be a decrease in overall vehicle delays along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 in
the area of these proposed improvements when compared to existing conditions. This
will result in improved ability to accommodate emergency vehicles along the
roadway. On other sections of NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202, emergency vehicles
will still have priority when traveling through these other locations. Refer also to
FEIS Responses III.K 6, III.K 9 and III.K 10.

Comment III.P 1b - (Document 58.3, Jennie Sunshine), (PH1, Jennie Sunshine), (Document


Question: Additional Fire & EMS Personnel
Given the additional coverage area in the Route 202 corridor with Costco (and any
and all other development projects), will Yorktown need to hire additional fire and
EMS personnel to cover this area so that all the residents in Yorktown can continue to
receive the same level of safety and support through the fire and EMS services that
they presently receive?

In Section I of the Executive Summary in section P, Community Facilities and
Services under the section entitled, Police, the DEIS explains that Costco would
generate approximately $819,146 in annual property taxes to the Town of Yorktown,
but that only $135,902 could be available to support police, fire and emergency
services.

Response III.P 1b:

The Projects potential impact on community fire and EMS services have been
expressed in a letter from Captain Lou Barbieri, of the Lake Mohegan Fire District
(refer to FEIS Response III.P 1a and DEIS Appendix L). Although he indicates that
impact from the Project is anticipated, as services are always impacted by
development, no specific quantities of personnel, equipment or costs were
enumerated. DEIS page III.Q-7 provides a breakdown of the $819,146 in taxes that
will be generated by the Project to the Town of Yorktown and its Special Districts
which includes $41,148 to the Lake Mohegan Fire District as well as $2,506 to
Advanced Life Support.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.P-5

Comment III.P 1c - (Document 58.4, Jennie Sunshine), (PH1, Jennie Sunshine), (Document


Question: Funding for Additional Emergency Personnel

It is clear from their letters* to engineers that the Yorktown Police Captain Lou
Barbieri [sic] and the Lake Mohegan Fire Chief Daniel M. McMahon [sic]
1
feel that
Costcos traffic issues will be difficult to work around. So if they and/or if the
Yorktown Town Board determines that in order to continue the present level of safety
and coverage area for Yorktown - that additional personnel and equipment needed to
be obtained and assuming additional VOLUNTEER firefighters and EMS personnel
cannot be found, then Yorktown would then need to hire additional firefighters and
EMS personnel. Further, if $135,902 is all of the funding that has been made
available to the Town by Costco to support hiring additional police officers and
equipment, additional fire fighters and equipment and hiring paramedics and
equipment, how is $135,902 sufficient for all the support and supplies that would be
needed? And in addition, would any new vehicles need to be purchased to support
this needed increase in services? Where would these resources come from?

1
The Applicant notes a correction to the first sentence of the Comment as follows: Chief of Police
Daniel M. McMahon of the Yorktown Police Department and Captain Lou Barbieri of the Lake
Mohegan Fire District.

Response III.P 1c:

With regard to traffic related issues and costs to community services refer to FEIS
Responses III.P 1a, 1b and III.P 5 and III.Q 15. The letters referenced in this
Comment are attached to Comment document #58 in FEIS Appendix A.

Comment III.P 2 - NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.P 3- (Document 139.3, Jonathon Nettelfield):

Community Facilities and Services. Under Police, the DEIS states that the Proposed
Action is estimated by Yorktown Police to result in an additional 106 annual calls for


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.P-6

service. No cost is provided for these additional services in the DEIS and yet the
applicant is eager to demonstrate the additional tax revenue to the Town. In order to
evaluate the real revenue accruing to the Town, these and other costs should be
estimated. In the Fire and Emergency Services section, the applicant states various
response times. Do these response times reflect the additional traffic that would be
generated by the Proposed Action? Finally, there is no mention in this section about
the impact on travel time to ambulances heading to Hudson Valley Hospital Center
along Rt. 202/35 which should be included in the DEIS.

Response III.P 3:
With regard to potential impact to the Police department, refer to FEIS Responses
III.P 1a, III.P 1b and III.Q 15b.

The emergency response times indicated in Section III.P of the DEIS were provided
by the emergency services facilities and represent current estimated response times.
Highway improvements to Route 202/35 sponsored by the Applicant as well as by the
NYSDOT will improve traffic flow along the corridor, which leads to the Hudson
Valley Hospital Center. Also refer to FEIS Responses III.K 5 and III.P 1a.

Regarding impact costs to emergency services, refer to FEIS Response III.P 1a. The
Applicant asserts that an increase of one to two weekly police calls could be handled
by existing personnel and/or redistribution of existing manpower, without the
incurrence of additional costs.

Comment III.P 4 (Document 174.18, Stephen Steeneck):
Please define the true cost of a Police Call ? The DEIS states it expect to add 106
Police calls, if that is the case then please provide what is the real true cost of each
call.

Response III.P 4:
In his letter to the Applicants engineer (TRC Engineers, Inc.), Yorktown Police
Chief McMahon does not identify incremental financial impact of a police call, and
the Applicant asserts that the true cost of a single police call is not capable of
reliable estimation. Furthermore, the Applicant does not anticipate that any
additional police equipment or manpower will be needed to address the projected
demand of less than two possible police calls per week. Refer to DEIS III.P 2a.i, FEIS
Responses III.P 1a, 1b, 5 and III.Q 15b.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.P-7

If one more Police Officer is to be hired due to Costcos high call rate, what will that
real and true cost be? If, another Police Officer needs to be hired, then the real cost
will be negative to the effect as to the Taxes of the Town of Yorktown. Please state
these costs as it pertains to hiring of another Police Officer, is it net positive or net
negative?

Response III.P 5:
The Applicant asserts that no additional police manpower will be needed for the
projected demand of one to two possible police calls per week. (See FEIS Responses
III.P 1a, III.P 1b and III.P 8.) Therefore, the Applicant asserts that the Project would
not impose any costs pertaining to the hiring of additional police officers.

The Applicant asserts that any increase of the police force would be for the benefit of
the entire community. The addition of a police officer to the force would cost an
annual salary of $49,565 per year as indicated in the September 17, 2013 Town Board
minutes of meeting in which a police officer was appointed to the Yorktown Police
Force. (http://www.yorktownny.org/sites/default/files/meetingminutes/sept._17.pdf).
The Applicant asserts that the one to two weekly police calls (78 annual calls as
described in FEIS Response III.P 8) resulting from the Proposed Action would be
only a small percentage of the tax contribution ($92,248) to the Town (DEIS page
III.Q-7), which would more than cover the salary. (Assuming 78 calls per year x 4
hours per call =312 hours per year, which is around 15% of 2,080 hours worked
annually equating to approximately $7,500 per year attributed to the Proposed
Action.)

Also, refer to DEIS III.P 2a.i), FEIS Responses III.P 1a, III.P 1b, III.P4, III.P8 and
III.Q 15b.

Please address how many Police Calls does the J efferson Valley Mall have on a
weekly basis?

Response III.P 6:
The Applicant, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIL), requested information
from the Yorktown Police Department pertaining to the frequency of police calls at
the J efferson Valley Mall (Refer to FEIS Appendix F). Police records provided to the
Applicant indicated an average of 336 police incidences occurred annually at the
J efferson Valley Mall per year over a five-year period from 2008 through 2012. That


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.P-8

would equate to approximately six to seven calls per week.

Please address what the size of the J efferson Valley Mall in terms of Square Footage,
in relation to the Project of Costcos 151,000 +Square Feet Foot Print.

Response III.P 7:
The approximate size of the J efferson Valley Mall is 700,000 square feet (Gross
Building Area), which is approximately 4.6 times the size of the proposed Costco.

Please address how many Police Calls does BJ s have on a weekly basis?

Response III.P 8:
The Applicant, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIL), requested information
from the Yorktown Police Department pertaining to the frequency of police calls at
BJ s (Refer to FEIS Appendix F). Police records provided to the Applicant indicated
an average of 56 police incidences occurred annually at BJ s over a five-year period
from 2008 through 2012. That would equate to approximately one call per week.
Refer to FEIS Response III.P 1a.

Please address how many Automobile Accidents occur or have Police Calls to the
Current traffic Flow Pattern of the Project area. Not limited to and including BJ s?
Response III.P 9:
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has identified a
Priority Investigation Location (PIL) along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 in the
vicinity of the Taconic State Parkway Ramps and the proposed Costco Site.
Associated with this PIL, a Highway Safety Investigation (HSI) was completed (see
copy contained in FEIS Appendix G of this FEIS) and submitted to NYSDOT for
their review as part of the Highway Work Permit review process. To complete this
HSI, accident data was obtained for the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor and
summarized as shown in the report. The data indicates that there were a total of 77
accidents along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 between Old Crompond Road and
Strang Boulevard between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2010. Several accident


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.P-9

patterns were identified in the Highway Safety Investigation, including rear-end
accidents in the westbound direction along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and left
turn accidents at the intersection of Mohansic Avenue. To mitigate the rear-end
accidents, it was proposed by the Applicants Traffic Engineer and concurred by the
NYSDOT, to add back plates to the signal heads along NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202
to make the signals more visible during afternoon periods when sun glare has been
noted as a contributing factor to accidents in this area. In addition, traffic signal
phasing changes at the Mohansic Avenue intersection were recommended by the
Applicants Traffic Engineer to mitigate the left turn accidents that currently occur
(refer to DEIS Appendix E). The phasing changes will be included as part of the
NYSDOT Highway Work Permit. These improvements will be implemented as part
of the roadway improvements (refer to FEIS III.K Introductory Response) to be
funded by the Applicant, which will also address capacity issues along the NYS
Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor.

Furthermore, the area to the west of the Costco Site, including the BJ s/Staples Plaza
intersection, was previously evaluated for capacity and safety improvements by
NYSDOT as part of Pine Grove Court/Bear Mountain Parkway Extension
improvement project. (Refer to DEIS pages III.K-77 & 78.) This NYSDOT project,
which began in April 2013, is designed to address any roadway deficiencies including
high accident locations. The NYSDOT improvements are discussed in greater detail
in the Introduction to DEIS Section III.K as well as in FEIS Response III.K

Therefore, with the referenced improvements, including the provision of sidewalks,
shoulders, additional through and turning lanes and associated new/upgraded traffic
signals to the Route 202/35 roadway system, as proposed by the NYSDOT and/or
undertaken in connection with the Proposed Action, The Applicant asserts that traffic
safety will be enhanced. Refer to FEIS Section III.K Introductory Response for a
more detailed discussion of the Applicants proposed improvements and
improvements currently being constructed by NYSDOT.

Comment III.P 10 - (Document 66.3, Domenick Mascioli), (PH1, Domenick Mascioli):


It will not jeopardize lives for emergency vehicles they will just go around the traffic
just like they do in other congested areas such as Brookfield Ct.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.P-10

Response III.P 10:

This Comment expresses support for the Proposed Action, by refuting oppositional
concerns that Project-related traffic will impair emergency response teams.

Comment III.P 11 - (Document 68.2, William Rubin):

Weve seen claims that more police will be needed for Costco, but no one will say
how many calls come in from BJ s, and the DEIS estimates that Costco will only
have two calls per week.

Response III.P 11:

This Comment expresses support for the Proposed Action, by suggesting that the
Projects anticipated demand for police will be similar to BJ s. Refer to FEIS
Response III.P 8 and III.P 9.

Comment III.P 12 (Document 178.3, Henry Steeneck):


Article 3. Shooting death at Costco

Response III.P 12:


The referenced Article 3 (FEIS Appendix A) relates to a lawsuit against Costco
arising from the shooting by police officers of a customer who was asked to leave a
Costco store because he was carrying a gun. The lawsuit is unrelated and not relevant
to the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action that is currently before
the Planning Board.

Comment III.P 13 (Document 178.7, Henry Steeneck):



_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.P-11

Article 7. Comments from Yorktown Police Chief of how Costco would be
unfavorable to the Town of Yorktown.

Response III.P 13:


The referenced Article 7 (FEIS Appendix A) refers to a letter included in the DEIS
Appendix VII.L and which was discussed in Section III.P.3 of the DEIS. Also refer
to refer to FEIS Response III.P 1a.

III.Q FISCAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.Q

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-1

DEIS Section III.Q Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts


The comments submitted on the DEIS Section III.Q Fiscal and Socioeconomic
Impacts focused on the following topics: impacts on the local economy/property
values/tax base, type of economic development on the site, quality of jobs/wages,
competitive impacts, concern about the proximity of the existing BJ s to the Project,
and issues regarding the methodology of the Applicants Market Study and
Commercial Character Assessment. These subjects are addressed in detail below, and
referenced in response to particular comments and questions. The Applicants
Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment were attached as Appendix K
to the DEIS and any changes occasioned by comments raised by the public, either
adding to or subtracting from the Commercial Character Assessment report, are in
FEIS Appendix F, Updated Commercial Character Assessment which is included
with this FEIS.

Property Values and Tax Revenue

A number of comments focused on Yorktowns economy, property values and tax
revenues in relation to the Project. Based on the Applicants analysis, the Project will
not adversely impact Yorktowns economy or property values. Also, this analysis
asserts the Project will generate approximately $797,195 annually in property taxes,
with $92,248 to the Town, $91,657 to the County, $613,290 to the school district, and
$47,813 in additional taxes to the Hunter Brook Sewer District (DEIS at III.Q-3). The
Property currently pays $16,424 in taxes to the Town and $77,610 to the school
district. See FEIS Response III.Q.1.

Regional Draw Development

Several comments focused on the particular type of economic development being
generated on this Site. The Applicant asserts that an establishment, such as this
Project, that draws customers from throughout the region, would diversify the Towns
tax base and strengthen the local economy. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the
eastern end of the Crompond hamlet business center, known as the Bear Mountain
Triangle, should be developed with a mixed use design that includes a regional draw.
The Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which envisions the use at the
top of the hill to remain C-3 and build off its location next to the Taconic-Route 202
interchange. See generally DEIS at Section III.A 10-11 and Comprehensive Plan
Policy 4-24.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-2

J obs and Wages

Another subject (although not considered an environmental impact under SEQR) is
the quality of jobs that will be created as well as the wages to be paid. The Applicant
asserts that Costco provides quality jobs with highly competitive wages and benefits.
Once fully operational, the Applicant projects that the Project will create 200
permanent jobs, with an average hourly wage of $19.43
1
for regular full time
employees, which is based upon a national average for Costco. According to the
Applicant, Costco strives to have a 50/50 mix of part time to full time workers at all
Costco stores, with a starting wage of $11.50 per hour
2
for both. At nearby Costco
locations the mix of full-time to part-time employees is: 52/48 in Yonkers, 51/49 in
Port Chester, 52/48 in New Rochelle and 51/49 in Brookfield. Benefits are available
to full time employees after 90 days and are available to part time employees after six
months of employment. See FEIS Response III.Q.1.

Competitive Impacts

Further, some Commenters expressed concern about whether the Project would cause
displacement of local businesses and/or gasoline stations due to competition. The
potential effects that a Project may have in drawing customers and profits away from
established enterprises or potential economic disadvantage caused by competition
or speculative economic loss, are not environmental factors. NYSDEC, SEQR
Handbook at 118 (2010). The fact that Costco (or any other major retailer situated at
the Site) might, by virtue of competition, cause a competitor to close is not subject to
review under SEQRA. See, e.g., Sun Co. v. Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 209
A.D.2d 34, 50 (4th Dept. 1995) ([P]urely competitive economic factors [are]
beyond the scope of SEQRA.); Socy of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77
N.Y.2d 761, 777-78 (1991) (Economic injury is not by itself within SEQRA's zone
of interests.).

Economic impacts may be considered under SEQRA only if they have an impact on
one of the factors in the definition [of environment], such as population patterns or
existing community character. Lazard Realty v. Urban Dev. Corp., 142 Misc.2d 463
(N.Y. Cty. 1989). In contrast, the potential closure of individual stores which does
not alter the physical character of any coherent cultural enclave or neighborhood, is
beyond the scope of SEQRA. E. Coast Dev. Co. v. Kay, 174 Misc. 2d 430, 432, 667
N.Y.S.2d 182, 184 (Sup. Ct. 1996).

1
Source: Costco Wholesale.
2
Ibid.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-3

The Applicants Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment addressed the
potential for the Project to impact community character, of which blight is one of
many factors, and found that there would be no consequential displacement or
adverse impacts on the commercial character of the area. Instead, based on this study
the Project is estimated to capture a significant share of the $1.7 billion in sales
leakage that is currently being spent outside of Yorktown. See FEIS Response
III.Q.3.

Proximity of Costco and BJ s

Another concern referenced in several comments is the proximity of the existing BJ s
to the Project and its ability to coexist. Based upon the Applicants Market Study and
Commercial Character Assessment and the co-location of both stores in many other
communities, the Applicant asserts that the Project will not adversely impact BJ s.
There are multiple locations throughout the tri state area where BJ s and Costco
coexist within five or less miles from each other. Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 5 for
more specific information.

Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment Methodology

The Applicants Market Study, which established the retail sales leakage that is
currently being spent outside Yorktown, established a Market Study Trade Area
based upon Reillys Law of Retail Gravitation and adjusted for the natural patterns of
north-south traffic flow in Westchester. A trade area is the geographic area for which
a retail sector generates the majority of its steady customer sales, and differs
markedly among varying types of retailers. Each of the 9 retail categories that
comprise Costco is associated with market characteristics and consumer behaviors
which impact the trade area boundaries, such as driving time/distance, travel patterns,
location of competing establishments, physical site location social and economic
demographics and number of households needed to support a given type of
merchandise. The Outer Trade Area represents the distance that households are likely
to travel for comparison-shopping (see Figure 1 of the Retail Market Analysis in
Appendix K of the DEIS). The Middle Market Area (8 miles) represents the distance
households are likely to travel for products that are purchased for reasons other than
convenience or necessity, but do not require comparison shopping. The Inner Market
Area (5 miles) captures the nearest source of consumers who are likely to travel for
convenience.

The Applicants Commercial Character Assessment analyzed impacts on relevant
retailers, i.e. establishments that carry all or part of Costcos product line located
within the Yorktown Five Hamlet Study Area. According to that Assessment, there

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-4

are 198 retail establishments (excluding vacancies) in the Yorktown Five Hamlet
Study Area, which includes the commercial hamlets of Yorktown Heights, Mohegan
Lake, Shrub Oak, J efferson Valley and Crompond (sections of Route 202 going west
of the proposed Costco toward Peekskill). Of the retail establishments inventoried,
the survey results indicated the presence of 98 relevant retail establishments that
carry all or part of Costcos product line (most of which attract shoppers on a
convenience-oriented basis rather than destination-oriented basis). From this detailed
survey, the relevant retailers were identified based upon the likelihood that the
business would be affected by Costco locating within the Town of Yorktown. When
identifying the relevant retailers, the Applicant took into account Costcos limited
offerings on some of their product lines. For instance, Costco has a wide range but
limited depth on what it offers in store, with many items only available for a short
period of time and with limited sizes or options. Other local retailers are specialists
and offer a depth of merchandise, mostly year-round, with options from a variety of
manufacturers. Therefore, the Applicant did not consider many local businesses to be
relevant retailers due to Costcos narrowed product selection and
temporary/seasonal nature of some products. Refer to the Commercial Character
Assessment in the DEIS for more information.

Overall, based on the Applicants analysis, the Project is not anticipated to impose
significant adverse socioeconomic impacts upon the Town of Yorktown.

Comment III.Q 1 - (Document 6.1, Barbara Cava, AVAC Auto Repairs, Inc):

as a local merchant and owner of a retail establishment, I do not think that large,
national Big Box stores are the way for Yorktowns economy to grow. Creating an
environment in which locally owned independent small businesses can thrive and
multiply is a far sounder alternative.

Heres why;

Local merchants pay our employees more (we actually provide careers, not just
part-time jobs). Big Box stores pay the lowest wages they can get away with and
offer few full-time, career-track jobs.

Local merchants keep our profits in the community by hiring local citizens and
supporting community activities. Big Box stores send their profits back to the
home office.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-5

Local merchants align with the concept of hamlet shopping upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based. Big Box stores are category killers that will kill
that concept once and for all.

Yes, Yorktown needs more tax revenue, but:

Together small stores pay more taxes than Costco would.

And if small stores are put out of business or our future growth is stifled, we will
not be able to continue to pay those taxes any longer.

Net result, less tax revenue, more closed and boarded up stores, more businesses
not making enough to keep up the appearance that Yorktown deserves and that
potential merchants demand.

Bottom line: more blight.

Yes, we know that fair competition is good for both customers and merchants

And we know that additional businesses, brings more customers to us allwhen the
additional businesses are small merchants.in keeping with the hamlet philosophy. Not
category killers that only ensnarl all the customers into the black hole of Big Box
stores. Not the type of business that only causes traffic problems that will drive away
our customers. Not the type of businesses that will only begat more Big Boxes.

Yes. we want growth. But we want the right kind of growth, the kind outlined in the
adopted (yes, adopted) Comprehensive Plan. The kind of growth that will make our
community thrive with distinctive, hamlet type stores, restaurants, places to go to and
enjoynot a giant pile of cinder blocks with a big ugly sign.

Please, give serious consideration to the above points before you determine your
position on Costco. Lets see the Planning Board play a significant role in helping
Yorktown achieve its potential with carefully considered growth that makes the town
a shopping destination, not Central Avenue North.

Response III.Q 1:

According to the Applicants Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment,
the Project will provide benefits to the Town of Yorktown. Based on this analysis, the
Applicant estimates that the Project will generate a net tax gain of approximately

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-6

$686,705 annually in property taxes, with a net gain of $75,824 to the Town, a net
gain of $75,202 to the County and a net gain of $535,680 to the school district (DEIS
at III.Q-3). These figures take into account the existing taxes paid on the Property and
are therefore net figures.

Once fully operational, the Applicant asserts that the Project will create 200
permanent jobs, with an average hourly wage of $19.43
3
for regular full time
employees, which is based upon a national average for Costco. According to the
Applicant, Costco strives to have a 50/50 mix of part time to full time workers at all
Costco stores, with a starting wage of $11.50 per hour
4
for both. Furthermore,
according to Costcos Northeast Regional Manager, benefits are available to full time
employees after 90 days and are available to part time employees after six months..
Costcos business model, states that it's a lot more profitable in the long term to
minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and
loyalty
5
."

The Comprehensive Plan promotes retailuses with a regional draw on the Site
(part of the Crompond-Bear Mountain Triangle) with direct proximity and access to
the Taconic State Parkway (Comprehensive Plan at ES-7). With respect to the
Comprehensive Plans goals of balancing a mixed use hamlet business center and
this larger retail draw, the Comprehensive Plan provides for a village center with
small stores and limited mixed-use downhill (to the west) from the Project Site, with
larger uses such as the Project, located at the top of the hill. See generally DEIS at
Section III.A 10-11 and Comprehensive Plan Policy 4-24. Refer also to FEIS
Responses III.A 3, III.A 5, III.A 6 and III.A 8.

In addition, based on the Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment
prepared by the Applicant, as well as the responses to comments in this FEIS, the
Project will not cause significant adverse impacts on existing businesses in the area.
Although the Project will include a broad mix of middle market merchandise and thus
will likely compete, to some extent, with nearby retailers, the Applicants
Commercial Character Assessment shows that the Project is not anticipated to
adversely impact the commercial character of the Yorktown Five Hamlet Study Area
or create blight in existing commercial concentrations in the Study Area. In
Westchester, Costco stores are located in Yonkers, Port Chester and New Rochelle.
The Chambers of Commerce of Port Chester and Yonkers, as well as the Access
Advocacy Westchester County Association, and The Business Council of

3
Source: Costco Wholesale.
4
Ibid.
5
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/morning_call/2013/03/costco-us-womens-chamber-urge.html

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-7

Westchester have endorsed Costco as a good neighbor that contributes to the
community and does not adversely impact local businesses (See documents 53 thru
56 in Appendix A to this FEIS).

Comment III.Q 2 Form Letter D (Document 7.1, Barbara and Joseph Cava), (Document
9.1, Mary Popra), (Document 12.1, Mr. Marc Alfredo), (Document 19.1, Kilik
Sheng), (Document 22.1, John Robinson), (Document 25.1, Pola Silverman),
(Document 27.1, Joanna Cali), (Document 31.1, Joseph Eduardo):

I am all for creating and bringing new development into Yorktown, butand this is a
big butnot at the expense of our existing local businesses.

Yorktown should be trying to attract small businesses run by local citizens who
reinvest their money here, not big corporations that barely pay minimum wage and
send their profits back to corporate headquarters. Yes, I know Costco will hire a lot of
people; however, most of those jobs will be part time. And the average income of
Yorktown residents suggests that not many new hires will actually live in town. Lets
face it; only local merchants pay the level of wages needed to live here.

I would like to formally request a more in-depth study of the socio-economic impact
of this type of project than we presently have. The study needs to show not only the
current impact on the local merchants, but also the cumulative impact brought on by
the expected entry of other mass merchants. Also, it must show the impact on the tax
rolls after owners of surrounding properties demand tax certioraris when they can no
longer get tenants, or support the necessary rents they need to collect to pay their
taxes. In that context, any increased tax revenue from Costco could easily be offset.

Response III.Q 2:

Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 1 regarding jobs and wages for Costco employees. New
openings will be filled by the most qualified candidates who apply.

Regarding the request for a more in-depth study, the Applicant asserts that the Market
Study and Commercial Character Assessment that were conducted by Applicants
consultants are sufficient. Also, as explained in the Introductory Response,
competitive impacts, without attendant environmental impacts such as displacement
or impacts on community character, are not considered to be environmental impacts
under SEQRA. Thus, the mere fact that the Costco (or any other major retailer
situated at the Site) might, by virtue of competition, cause a competitor to close is not

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-8

an environmental impact subject to SEQRA unless the closing of that unsuccessful
competitor is expected to lead to population shifts or impacts to community character.
The Applicants Commercial Character Assessment concludes that there is no
evidence that the Project would adversely impact community character, nor cause
displacement, in Yorktown. Additionally the Applicants Market Study estimates $1.7
billion in lost annual sales to other jurisdictions, or leakage from the market area
that could potentially be captured by the Project without significant adverse impacts
on existing Yorktown businesses. (DEIS at III.Q-7.)

The Applicant asserts that the possible filing of tax certioraris by store owners in the
area in the future is not anticipated to occur. In any event, this scenario is highly
speculative.

Refer to FEIS Introductory Response and FEIS Response III.Q.5 regarding other
locations where BJ s and Costco are in close proximity to one another.

Comment III.Q 3a - (Document 65.1, Olivia I. Buehl), (Document 134.1, Olivia I. Buehl),
(PH1, Olivia I. Buehl):


Re: DEIS for the Proposed Costco Warehouse Store
My letter focuses on Volume 3, Section K: Retail Market Analysis and VII
Appendices and Section III, Q and Attachment A. After reading the entire DEIS once
and these sections several times, it is clear that the conclusions regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed Costco on Rte. 202/35 on the commercial areas
of Yorktown are not backed up by the data provided. In fact, that data is incomplete,
inaccurate in certain places, and on occasion contradictory. Finally, by establishing
arbitrary definitions and parameters of what constitutes a relevant retailer, the
report is inherently biased and designed to reach a conclusion that supports the
applicants assertion that Costco would not adversely impact Yorktowns commercial
environment.

I understand that competition is an inherent part of retailing, but the cumulative
effect of severe economic stress to a significant number of merchants could create
environmental blight, which would make the town less appealing to potential
residents and retailers. Yorktown already has enough empty storefronts. A total of
48 are listed in the Commercial Character Assessment section (pages AlAll).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-9

Response III.Q 3a:

Based on the Applicants Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment, there
will be no significant adverse impacts to any local businesses in the area, and
therefore there will not be any adverse impacts to the community character, of which
blight is one of many factors, of the Yorktown Five Hamlet Study Area. Refer to
FEIS Section III.Q Introductory Response regarding relevant retailers and the
following FEIS Responses III.Q.3b to III.Q.3e for specifics on select retailers
mentioned in the comment.

Comment III.Q 3b- (Document 65.2, Olivia I. Buehl), (Document 134.2, 134.3, 134.5 Olivia
I. Buehl), (PH1, Olivia I. Buehl):

Major Retail Categories
The DEIS states on page 2 of VII: Appendix K, Market Study and Commercial
Character Assessment that nine major retail categories will be sold at Costco:

Food eaten at home, including bakery, meals, and prepared foods
Food eaten away from home and alcohol consumed at home.
Healthcare, including prescription drugs and medical supplies
Household furniture, furnishings and large and small appliances
Housing related and personal goods and services
Personal care and smoking products
Sports and entertainment, including photographic, TV, radio and sound
equipment, sports equipment, and computers, software and accessories
Gasoline, motor oil, and tires
Apparel and footwear for adults and children

What is not stated is that Costco sells a myriad of other goods and services,
including, per Costco.com:

Flowers
Gift baskets
Baby gear
J ewelryCostco is one of the largest retailers of jewelry.
Pet supplies
Hearing aids
Glasses and contact lenses
Water delivery

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-10

Auto, home, and health insurance
Funeral: caskets, coffins, floral arrangements, urns

For a more complete list, see the attached Costco Product Index. This second list is
important in that it provides a much more realistic idea of the breadth of Costcos
retail muscle. In VII, K. Market Study and Assessment, the applicant states, Overall,
there are in excess of 400 establishments and 198 retail establishments in the Study
Area [Yorktown Heights, Crompond, J efferson Valley, Mohegan Lake, Shrub Oak],
excluding vacancies.

However, a number of retailers are not included in the market study. Secondly,
many of the retailers that sell products or services that appear on the Costco
Product Index are not considered relevant retailers. A relevant retailer is one
whose products or services overlap those of Costco in all or part. By cherry-picking
which retailers to include and omitting some that are clearly competitive with Costco,
the applicant is creating bias, making the conclusions suspect.

The applicants conclusion is that given the size and product line of the proposed
Costco, the consumer trade areas can absorb the promised retail space. In plain
English, this means that Costco could not be considered responsible for putting any
local retailers out of business, because supposedly the dollars for such purchases are
available, thereby absolving itself of any responsibility for blight caused by stores
closing. Since numerous local businesses have already closed in the last few years
and given that the population Yorktown and the rest of Northern Westchester has
actually declined in recent years, that conclusion must be carefully examined.
Moreover, numerous studies on the impact on retailers after a big box store comes to
town provide powerful evidence that such stores, including warehouse clubs,
destabilize local retailers. (I will supply these studies in a later document.)

To accurately understand the impact of Costco on existing businesses requires
looking at all retail businesses, not just those that the applicant has decided to focus
on. By that I mean any business that sells a product or service that appears on the
Costco Product Index.

The Grocery Category
The category that includes all food eaten at home is a perfect example of what can
happen when a market becomes saturated. Witness the closure of the Food
Emporium, and the resultant blight at that end of the K-Mart Shopping Center. Not
only is the building deteriorating, but also as one of two anchor stores in the
complex, its impact is doubled. Since this category (food eaten at home) will be of
particular appeal to Costco shoppers, it does not bode well that the applicants study

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-11

(see page 10) shows a negative number in this category. That means that the
geographical area already has an excess of what is considered an appropriate amount
of retail square footage in this category. While the applicant claims that there are
significant so-called lost sales, meaning supposedly available dollars to spend in
most other retail categories, it acknowledges that two categories are oversaturated.
They are food stores with a negative amount of more than $40 million and automobile
gas and oil. In plain English that means that Costco would have to poach on dollars
currently being spent at the two A&Ps, Turcos, DeCiccos, as well as specialty food
stores such as Mrs. Greens and A& [sic] Pork Store. It seems likely that the fate of
the Food Emporium will happen to another grocery store. It bears repeating that good
food shopping is one of the most important things people consider when deciding
where to purchase a home.

Response III.Q 3b:

The process of selecting relevant retailers for the Applicants Market Study and
Commercial Character Assessment, which is detailed in the study, is summarized in
the Introductory Response of this section. The nine major retail categories that will
be sold at Costco and that were used for the Market Study and Commercial Character
Assessment are:
Food eaten at home, including bakery, meals, and prepared foods
Food eaten away from home and alcohol consumed at home.
Healthcare, including prescription drugs and medical supplies
Household furniture, furnishings and large and small appliances
Housing related and personal goods and services
Personal care and smoking products
Sports and entertainment, including photographic, TV, radio and sound
equipment, sports equipment, and computers, software and accessories
Gasoline, motor oil, and tires
Apparel and footwear for adults and children

The Comment states, What is not stated is that Costco sells a myriad of other goods
and services, including, per Costco.com:
Flowers
Gift baskets
Baby gear
J ewelryCostco is one of the largest retailers of jewelry.
Pet supplies
Hearing aids

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-12

Glasses and contact lenses
Water delivery
Auto, home, and health insurance
Funeral: caskets, coffins, floral arrangements, urns

These were not stated as part of the nine major retail categories in the Applicants
study because those listed in this Comment are sub categories of the nine major
categories. For example, hearing aids and glasses and contact lenses would be under
Healthcare, including prescription drugs and medical supplies. Also, some of these
sub categories, such as funeral caskets, are only sold online. Most of the sub
categories this Comment mentioned have more variety and options online as opposed
to what is actually sold within the Costco store. Further, the items online can be
purchased in Yorktown and shipped to the purchasers address; Costco does not need
to be located within the municipality for residents to purchase these items. All that is
required is a Costco membership card and currently, approximately 800 Yorktown
residents are members. Therefore, the Applicants consultants did not take into
account the items that are sold online in its Commercial Character Assessment. This
is due to the fact that Costco already competes with local retailers with respect to
products available online.

Relevant Retailers

The Applicants consultants considered the range of product categories sold by
Costco, the scope of offering within each category and the length and manner in
which it is sold (e.g., in store or online) and determined, based on this detailed
information, the relevant retailers based upon the likelihood that the business would
be affected by Costco locating within the Town of Yorktown. Refer to FEIS Section
III.Q Introductory Response and the amended Commercial Character Assessment in
Appendix F of this FEIS for more information.

The determination of relevant retailers also took into account other pertinent factors.
For example, while Costco does sell a wide variety of products, some of these
products are limited in their availability and/or quantity because some are only sold
during certain times of the year, some are only sold pre-packaged in bulk, and some
products are only available online. As an example, the Costco Northeast Regional
Manager notes that Costco only sells two types of mattresses for only six weeks out
of the year. Also, rings in the jewelry department are only offered in a size 7, and gift
baskets are only offered seasonally in the stores, and otherwise sold online. The
Applicant considered all of these factors in its determination of which retailers were
considered relevant, and why some local businesses were excluded from the
Assessment. Overall, Costco has fewer product options and limited offerings.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-13

Consequently, the Applicant asserts there is no need to expand the Market Study and
Commercial Character Assessment to include all 400 businesses in the five hamlets
as this Comment suggests. Refer also to the FEIS III.Q Introductory Response.

The methodology used in the Applicants Market Study and Commercial Character
Assessment has been used in preparing and reviewing numerous reports and studies
to analyze the impacts associated with commercial character, including environmental
impact statements under SEQR. A few examples of this methodology being utilized
in environmental reviews under SEQR include: an economic impact study and
commercial character assessment for Riverhead Centre, a 400,000 square foot "power
center" on Route 58 in the Town of Riverhead that includes several big box store
stores, a supermarket and several satellite stores and a review of an economic impact
study and commercial character assessment for a Home Depot and Costco store for
the City of New Rochelle off I-95 in an urban renewal area
6
..

The Grocery Category
This Comment expresses concern over the grocery and specialty food stores in the
Town of Yorktown, and fears that they will go out of business as the Food Emporium
did in the K-Mart Shopping Center (Yorktown Green) and cause blight. The Market
Study and Community Character Assessment prepared by the Applicant addresses the
potential for Costco to impact local food stores, and found that there would be no
consequential displacement or adverse impacts on the commercial character of the
area. Additionally, neither the Applicant nor the Lead Agency has information
regarding the Food Emporiums decision to close, nor with respect to the Property
owners marketing of the Site to new potential tenants.

6
Additional examples of where this methodology has been used include: an economic impact study and
commercial character assessment for the former Manufacturers Outlet Center (now Target Center) which includes a
Target store, a supermarket and several satellite stores on Route 117 in Mount Kisco, NY; an economic impact study
and commercial character assessment for a proposed Walmart superstore on Route 59 in Monsey (Town of Ramapo)
NY); and an economic impact study and commercial character assessment for a proposed Walmart superstore in
downtown Stamford, CT prepared for the Stamford Special Services District. Representing the public sector in
SEQRA reviews, a few examples include: an economic impact study and commercial character assessment for
Ridge Hill Village, a "lifestyle center" on I-87 in the City of Yonkers that includes a 1.3 million square foot retail
mall, plus 1000 units of market rate and affordable housing, a hotel and conference center and offices; ; review of an
economic impact study and commercial character assessment for a proposed 57,000 square foot Shop Rite
superstore on Route 9A in the Village of Hastings, NY; and review of an economic impact study and commercial
character assessment for a proposed 135,000 square foot lumberyard on Route 58 on behalf of the Town of
Riverhead, NY.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-14

Comment III.Q 3c - (Document 65.3, Olivia I. Buehl), (Document 134.6, Olivia I. Buehl),

Three Areas of Inadequacy
The data the applicant provided on existing retailers is inadequate for three
reasons:

1. The list of retailers and service providers in the five hamlets is incomplete.
2. Certain retailers or service providers are not deemed to be relevant
retailers despite selling items that are sold at Costco and listed in the Costco
Product Index.

3. The data contradicts itself in certain categories.

Ill now give some examples of each of these concerns.

Missing in Action
Inexplicably, some businesses simply arent listed, whether intentionally to mute
Costcos likely impact or simply due to carelessness.

Why is DeCiccos listed nowhere in the Market Study? It is clearly a
relevant retailer.
Again, why are companies that offer alarms and home security not
included in Appendix A, although Costco offers these services?
Why is Tompkins Garage, probably the oldest garage in Yorktown, not
listed along with other purveyors of gasoline and motor oil?
Why is Paneras not listed in anywhere? It is most definitely relevant as
a source of baked goods.
If CST Creations, a custom kitchen vendor (photo 182), is considered
relevant why is there no mention of Canterbury Kitchen on Crompond
Road or Yorktown Woodworking on Front Street?
Why is the Sports Attic listed but not the Sports Barn?
Why is Meadows Farm included and considered a relevant retailer but
nothing is said about Wilkens Fruit Farm?
Why is Whispering Pines Nursery included but not the Blossom Knoll on
Baldwin Road, which would also be a relevant retailer?
Why is the Tool Nut not included?

These examples are only a few of the errors of omission found in this section.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-15

I respectfully request that the applicant expand the Market Study and Commercial
Character Assessment to include all 400 plus existing businesses in the five hamlets
to allow a more accurate assessment of what is a relevant retailer and what is not,
as well as a more accurate understanding of the percentage of relevant retailers in
the total marketplace.

Response III.Q 3c:

Refer to FEIS Response III.Q.3b regarding the Applicants determination of relevant
retailers. This Comment identifies specific businesses that were not included in the
Commercial Character Assessment. The Applicant offers the following specific
responses to the Comment:
1. DeCiccos was listed in the Commercial Character Assessment and was noted
as J efferson Valley Market. It is listed as a relevant establishment.
2. Businesses that offer alarms and home security were not listed as relevant
retailers because, other than the limited offering of digital video camera and
receiver sets, Costco does not sell alarms and home security in store.
3. Tompkins Garage was not listed because it is not located in the Five Hamlet
Study Area.
4. Panera was not listed as a relevant retailer because it is considered a
restaurant; it has a Certificate of Occupancy identifying the establishment as
such and is treated as such in the Building Code. While Panera does sell baked
goods, it is primarily a restaurant. Further, the baked goods that Panera sells
are freshly made, unlike Costcos limited baked products, as there is no actual
bakery in Costco. Paneras NAICS code is 722110, which falls under the full-
service restaurant industry.
5. CST Creations carries some off the shelf kitchen products, which is why it
was listed as relevant. The Applicants understanding of Canterbury
Kitchen and Yorktown Woodworking is that they deal primarily in custom
products, which Costco does not, and therefore were not included as
relevant.
6. Sports Barn is not listed because it is not located in the Five Hamlet Study
Area. The facility also carries a wide variety of sporting goods and products
versus Costcos limited line.
7. Wilkens Fruit Farm is not listed because it is not located in the Five Hamlet
Study Area. The facility provides a variety of good and services, and serves as
a tourism venue in the Town.
8. Blossom Knoll is not listed because it is not located in the Five Hamlet Study
Area.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-16

9. Tool Nut is not included because it is not located in the Five Hamlet Study
Area.

Refer to FEIS Section III.Q Introductory Response regarding the scope of the Market
Study and Commercial Character Assessment.

Comment III.Q 3d - (Document 65.4, Olivia I. Buehl), (Document 134.7, Olivia I. Buehl),

Missing Relevant Retailers and Service Providers
Why are the following categories of businesses listed in the Market Study but not
designated as relevant retailers despite selling items on the Costco Product Index?

Diners: While people are unlikely to visit Costco just to eat a meal, the
convenience of its food court means that many shoppers would eat there
rather than at a diner. Why are diners and similar dining places not listed
at all, much less considered relevant?
Fast Foods: These establishments, including pizza parlors, are even more
relevant Why are they not included in the report?
Delicatessens: These are listed, but not considered relevant, which is an
example of bias. Costco has an extensive line of deli style foods,
appetizers, and prepared meals (including pizzas). Why are delicatessens
not considered relevant retailers while a store like Turcos, which also
sells a lot of prepared meals, is?
Bakeries: Costco offers a large variety of baked goods, including cakes,
donuts, bagels, and more. So why are Grandmas, Dream Cakes, other
bakeries, and several bagel stores not considered relevant retailers?
Costco is a major purveyor of eyeglasses. Why are Sterling Optical and
Lens Crafters not considered relevant retailers?
The same applies to hearing aids, which are sold at Costco. Why are
Hearing Solutions and the 1V Hearing Company not listed at all?
Costco offers mortgages and other financial services, so why are no banks
or mortgage companies listed as relevant retailers?
Costco offers health, home, and auto insurance, which should make any
independent insurance agents in our town relevant retailers. Why dont
they appear on any list?
Costco also offers travel services, but Travel Emporium, Liberty Travel,
and any other independent travel agents do not appear on the list of
existing businesses. Why not?


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-17

I respectfully request that the applicant expand the Market Study and Commercial
Character Assessment to include relevant retailers in compliance with the Costco
Product Index. This will allow the public to have a more accurate understanding of
Costcos impact on Yorktown businesses and the potential for blight.

Response III.Q 3d:

The second part of this Comment refers to categories of businesses and the
determination of whether or not certain categories were defined as relevant
retailers.

The Applicant has provided the following responses to correlate with comments
under the Missing Relevant Retailers and Service Providers section of this
Comments letter:
1. All diners, restaurants and catering halls were eliminated from the
Commercial Character Assessment and not considered relevant retailers
because Costco does not offer that type of service. The counter food court in
Costco offers only a limited menu as a convenience for shoppers on their way
out of the store or for in-house employees. The Applicant assumes that most
patrons would not go to the Costco food court solely for lunch or dinner.
2. See previous response as to why fast food restaurants are not considered
relevant.
3. Delicatessens were not listed as relevant because Costco does not have an
actual deli in store and offers only a limited selection of deli products, all of
which are pre-packaged meats, cheeses, etc. Yorktown delicatessens were not
considered relevant because most offer a wide variety of fresh
meats/cheeses, and sandwiches and catering which do not compete compared
with the limited variety that Costco offers.
4. Bakeries were not listed as relevant retailers as Costco only sells bakery
items in pre-packaged bulk with a few minor exceptions such as a pie or a
cake. For example, a customer cannot purchase one bagel from Costco; they
would have to purchase several bagels that are pre-packaged. Also,
Grandmas was not listed as a relevant retailer because it is considered a
restaurant, not a bakery, with a Certificate of Occupancy identifying the
establishment as such and is treated as such in the Building Code.
5. Sterling Optical and Lens Crafters were not listed as relevant retailers as the
optical department will have a limited selection and Costco does not offer the
broad range of services and products available at the national optical chains
located within the Five Hamlet Study Area.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-18

6. Banks and mortgage companies were not listed as relevant retailers because
Costco only offers mortgages and other financial services online, not in store,
and uses third party providers for this service.
7. Independent insurance agents were not listed as relevant retailers because
Costco only offers health, home and auto insurance online, not in store, and
uses third party providers for this service.
8. Travel Emporium, Liberty Travel and any other independent travel agents do
not appear on the list of relevant retailers because travel services are only
offered online, not in store.

Comment III.Q 3e - (Document 65.5, Olivia I. Buehl), (Document 134.8, Olivia I. Buehl),

Contradictory Designations
Perhaps the most perplexing situations are those in which one business is
considered a relevant retailer and another seemingly similar business is not.

For example, Baskin Robbins is not considered a relevant retailer, but
Abbots Frozen Custard and Carvel are. Why arent all of them relevant
retailers?
The DEIS states on page 2 of the Retail Market Study that one of Costcos
nine major categories includes alcohol consumed at home. Yet none of the
liquor and wine merchants listed in Appendix K are considered relevant
retailers. Please have the applicant clarify whether alcohol, other than
beer, and wine would be sold at this Costco. If they are not, they should be
removed from page 2; if they are, all vendors or wine and spirits should
obviously be categorized as relevant. I respectively request that the
applicant clarify this apparent contradiction, which would significantly
change the number and percentage of relevant vendors.
Likewise, page 2 lists clothing and shoes for adults and children as a key
category to be sold at Costco, but none of the establishments that sell
apparel, and footwear, many of them in the J V Mall, are considered
relevant. I respectively request that the applicant clarify this apparent
contradiction, which would significantly change the number and
percentage of relevant vendors. This is a clear example of cherry-
picking retailers to get a desired result.
Why is Signs Ink considered a relevant merchant, when Star Signs &
Graphics and Airbrush & Sign Shop are not?
Why is Sleepys in the Triangle Shopping Center not considered
relevant, while Sleepys in the BJ s Shopping Center is?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-19

The sloppiness of the data provided, including a significant number of omissions
and contradictions, cast doubt on the validity of the applicants conclusion that
Costco will not hurt local businesses and cause economic and visual blight. Please
have the applicant prepare a more complete and clear study that includes all the
businesses in Yorktown as detailed above.

Response III.Q 3e:

This section of the Comment refers to specific categories in the Commercial
Character Assessment.

The Applicant has provided the following responses to correlate with comments
under the contradictory designations section of the letter:
1. Baskin Robbins is not considered a relevant retailer because the Baskin
Robbins on Route 202 includes a Dunkin Donuts and New York Pizza. This
establishment sells a variety of products over the counter at one location.
Baskin Robbins has 31 different flavors of ice cream available. The Applicant
does not anticipate that someone will go to Costco solely for an ice cream or
coffee because they can get a larger variety and/or flavors faster at existing
businesses in Yorktown. As a result, Costco would likely have little impact on
this type of business, so, according to the Applicant, it was not considered
relevant. On the other hand, since Abbots Frozen Custard and Carvel both
have a more limited selection of ice creams, as Costco does in one of its food
court counters, they were considered relevant, albeit in a very limited way.
2. Wine and liquor stores were not considered relevant since they are not in
competition with the Costco market, as Costco sells only a limited variety of
beer and wine products. The Applicant does not plan to open a liquor pod at
this Site. If it were to be added, the new proposal would be subject to local
planning board approval.
3. Clothing and shoe stores were not considered relevant since Costco offers a
limited variety of apparel and footwear. Therefore, it is unlikely that Costco
would have an impact on existing clothing and shoe stores.
4. Signs Ink was included as a relevant retailer because it sells awnings; in
contrast, the other stores mentioned, Star Signs and Graphics and Airbrush
and Sign Shop, do not. However, based upon further research, Costco sells
only a limited selection of awnings, and it is unlikely Costco would have an
impact, on Signs Ink, which offers commercial custom awning fabrication.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-20

Thus, this store will be re-characterized and no longer be included as
relevant
7
.
5. Upon further research, Sleepys in the Staples Plaza will be re-characterized
and will no longer be considered a relevant retailer. Costco sells only one or
two models of mattresses that are sold for six weeks out of the year. Costco is
unlikely to affect the Sleepys stores in either shopping center due to the
limited selection and the limited time frame during which Costco sells
mattresses.

Comment III.Q 4 - (Document 67.4, Richard E. Stanton, Law Offices of Richard E. Stanton):

The Community Stakeholders of the Town of Yorktown have now identified
substantial concerns with:

The Socio-economic impact study appears unfounded in

its conclusion that grocery and gasoline retail operations are
warranted by the underlying economic assessment and looking at
average wages organizationally rather than identifying retail wages
and benefit, and then failing to compare the wages of actual on-site
retail workers against wages paid for the same job at existent
locations where jobs may be eliminated: and
only looking at tax revenues to the community, and then failing to
deduct costs of services provided (police, fire, ambulances, life
support and added infrastructure maintenance), and ignores adverse
impact on revenue from other tax paying businesses to determine if
there is actually net revenue: and
turns a blind eye to likely adverse secondary economic impacts
caused by the Project (i.e. eliminating small locally owned grocery
and gasoline based retail and other business that that sell local
merchandise and pay living wages, in favor of a big box approach
that pays lower wages and has a net adverse impact on wages in the
community.

7
For any changes occasioned by comments raised by the public, either adding to or subtracting from the
Commercial Character Assessment report, these will be noted in an amended Appendix F, Updated Commercial
Character Assessment in this FEIS.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-21

Response III.Q 4:

The Applicant asserts that:

The Market Study conducted by the Applicant to determine possible
competitive effects does not include a comparison of wages among proposed
Costco employees and employees of existing local stores. Disparity among
employee wages is not considered an environmental impact recognizable
under SEQRA, such as population displacement or impacts to community
character. Potential disparity in wages between the Project and existing
gasoline stations or grocery stores would not impact community character
within Yorktown. Furthermore, such information is not generally available as
it is proprietary to individual retail establishments. A more appropriate
comparison, which was undertaken in the DEIS and is amplified in this FEIS,
is a comparison of the principal lines of products offered by Costco with those
offered by local retailers. The Applicant asserts that its Commercial Character
Assessment, as amended (see FEIS Appendix F), demonstrates that the Project
would not cause environmental impacts such as business or population
displacement or impacts to the commercial character of the community.

The fiscal impact analysis of the Project includes potential additional costs of
community services such as police and fire that might be attributable to the
Project. The additional sewer and water revenues from the Project will aid in
offsetting sewer and water costs. An assessment of lost revenues from the
possible closure of unnamed competitors is not possible or necessary because
such assessment would be speculative. See Industrial Liaison Comm. Of the
Niagara Falls Area Chamber of Commerce v. Williams, 72 N.Y. 2d 137, 143
(1988) ([I]t is not arbitrary and capricious or a violation of existing law for
the agency, when it takes its hard look and makes its reasoned
determination under SEQRA to ignore speculative environmental
consequences which might arise). Furthermore, because the Applicants
Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment indicates that the
Costco would not cause significant adverse impacts such as commercial
displacement, the Applicant asserts that the Project would not adversely affect
real estate taxes paid by other establishments.

The Applicant does analyze secondary economic impacts in the Applicants
Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment. Refer to Appendix K of
the DEIS for the Market Study, Appendix F of this FEIS for the amended
Commercial Character Assessment and FEIS Section III.Q Introductory

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-22

Response regarding on how Costco will not likely adversely impact existing
businesses and wages of Costco employees.

Comment III.Q 5 - (PH1, Mr. Smithies):

I just have a couple of concerns; The concern that I have, was about blight, and I
would say this, I believe very strongly that within two years BJ s will be closed. And
I don't mean that as slight to anybody, but Costco is a stronger operator than BJ s.

I know that in Mr. Primavera's letter it said that they co-exist in four location, [PH1,
page 61, lines 12-20]

but I would be amazed, surprised if BJ s can make it two years. [PH1, page 62,
lines 7-8]

I think one thing the Planning Board should do, is to really study the impacts, not just
look at the positives that Costco will bring, but the negatives if BJ s goes down. You
have Bed Bath and Beyond in that shopping center closed down, if Circuit City on the
other side of town which is closed a long time now, we have big boxes around that
are not being occupied, so that's still a major problem.

The four locations where they co-exist, one is Brooklyn with a population of two
million five, not quite this market place. Second is Westbury, New York. Westbury
is a small town, it is fifteen thousand people. [PH1, page 62, lines 12-25], [PH1, page
62, lines 1-3]

Westbury is -- the location most of all for their shopping center, is the number one
shopping center in Nassau County, is the shopping's heart of Nassau County. So, the
Nassau County is about a million three, the highways that get to that place, Southern
State Parkway, Northern State Parkway, Meadowbrook Parkway, Long Island
Expressway, they all go there. So, not comparable to the Yorktown location that we
have. The other location that I found was Edison, New J ersey.

Edison is nine ninety thousand [sic] people of itself. The surrounding towns are
another three hundred thousand people, it is a -- it's big. Route 1 corridor is a
extremely busy area. As bad as 202 is, Route One down there is ten times worse, if
not much more traffic, so it is not comparable to Yorktown.

And the last area that they have -- threw me a little bit off is Manahawkin, both
companies have sources in Manahawkin. Manahawkin is only fourteen, fifteen

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-23

thousand people. Manahawkin is a gateway to LBI. So, of the thousands of
businesses that are in on Long Beach to go shopping of club stores to supply
themselves, the residents who rent the homes will supply themselves, that's the only
bridge into Long Beach Island with a Manahawkin base. That's why those two club
stores there survive.

So, there is no precedent around anywhere why -- if there is that would be a question
that I would ask, is there another location like this that says that these two giants can
coexist together in this size town. Because if that is not the case, then we really need
to study the impact of BJ s closing, the impact from that blow and also the lose of
taxes and revenue, and jobs and retail if BJ s closes. And that concludes it, I wanted
to keep it as short as possible. [PH1, page 63, lines 6-25], [PH1, page 64, lines 1-24]

Response III.Q 5:

The Applicant asserts that the Project will not adversely impact BJ s such that it would
result in its closing. Both are national retailers and, as such, they are competing on a
national level, and generally will not close and cede the market to a rival. The Project
may intercept sales from BJ s located on Route 202; however, the Applicant expects
the impact to be minimal, as BJ s has a loyal customer base and, as mentioned, there
are numerous locations where Costco and BJ s stores co-exist in other markets (See
Market Study attached to the DEIS as Appendix K). A few examples of locations are
in New Rochelle/Pelham, three miles apart, and in Brookfield, a BJ s opened in
December 2012, half a mile away from a pre-existing Costco store. See map below
showing existing tri state area BJ s and Costco locations. See also the table on the
next page listing the existing locations of ten (10) Costco stores and BJ s stores in the
tri state area that are located in close proximity.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-24

Map of Existing Costco and BJs Locations

Source: Mapmuse.com, extrapolated by Ferrandino & Associates Inc., August 2013

List of Costco and BJs locations within 5 miles:
Costco BJs Distance
Gas Station
(Costco/ BJs)
Costco, 50 Overlook Blvd
Nanuet, NY 10954
BJ s, 1000 Palisades Center
Drive West Nyack, NY
10994
5 miles apart Yes/ No

Costco, 315 Route 15 N.
Wharton, NJ 07885
BJ s, 1 Howard Blvd
Ledgewood, NJ 07852

Costco, 20 Bridewell Place
Clifton, NJ 07014
BJ s, 300 State Route 17
East Rutherford, NJ 07073
4.3 miles apart Yes/ No

Costco, 205 Vineyard N
Edison, NJ 08817
BJ s,1000 US Highway 1
Edison, NJ 08817
2.5 miles apart Yes/ No

Costco, 605 Rockaway
Turnpike Lawrence, NY
11559
BJ s, 125 Green Acres Road
Valley Stream, NY 11581 4.1 miles apart No/No

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-25

Costco, 1250 Old Country
Road Westbury, NY 11590
BJ s, 6000 Brush Hollow
Road Westbury, NY 11590
3.4 miles apart No/ No

Costco, 3000 Middle
Country Road, Nesconset,
NY 11767
BJ s, 1000 Nichols Road
Islandia, NY 11749 4.2 miles apart No/ No

Costco, 3000 Middle
Country Road, Nesconset,
NY 11767
BJ s, 4000 Nesconset
Highway East Setauket NY
11733
5.2 miles apart No/ No

Costco, 1 Industrial Lane
BJ s, 825 Pelham Parkway
Pelham Manor, NY 10550

Costco, 200 Federal Road
Brookfield, CT 06804
BJ s, 106 Federal Road
Brookfield, CT 06804
0.5 miles apart Yes/ Yes

The Applicant has provided examples of locations where both stores coexist and each
location is characterized by different variables. Some areas have large populations,
others smaller populations and with different ways to access the stores. This shows
however, that these two stores can and do coexist in many different types of locations
and, based on this analysis, should be able to coexist in the Town of Yorktown.
Additionally, Applicant asserts that the market area and the extent it is served is key,
not the demographics. If an area is dense, as in some of the examples listed, there are
likely more stores than just Costcos and BJ s. While, in sparse areas where people
have to travel farther, two stores may be the only competition in that area. Therefore,
demographics are not dispositive.

Comment III.Q 6 - (PH1, Andrew Fisher):

we've got a forty to sixty percent vacancy rate on 202 for years. We have a huge
parcel of land that can hold this Costco right now just sitting there.

Owners who are just not willing to accept offers or work and I think the town -- the
Planning Department, the Planning Board needs to work better and make use of plans
already developed instead of adding to the footprint on this property.

A lot of talk has been made of economic impact, some people are throwing around
figures of our sales taxes. What your Board may not be aware of is that big
corporation, like Costco and others, will go way over your head to the state,
governor's office and the county executive's office and they make tax abatement
deals, where they don't have to pay sales tax.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-26

They are still allowed to collect it from the customers, but they don't necessarily have
it to pay to the state tax department. I used to work for a company in Westchester -- a
large Fortune 500 company, but they decided to relocate their corporate office within
Westchester. They played the game that often corporations do.

They called the office of economic development and the Governor, they hired a few
real estate brokers who said that they shopped around South Carolina, or New J ersey
or Pennsylvania, and they cut a deal that says, alright, if you keep your jobs here or
create your jobs here, we will give you a tax abatement for five or ten years.

So, the dollars that you think may be coming back to this community may not
actually be coming back to this community. To the best that you can, check with
your town attorney what language you will put in to make sure that any money you
think is coming back to the Yorktown school district or the Yorktown economy really
is and it is not being put on the abatement, because these things happen all the time.

I mean, if you give them any trouble they go to the county executive's office, uhm,
sorry, I just want to make a couple of points here. The board, should also
specifically -- I know many general letters went out to the school district and fire
departments for comment, but as you know from the past you don't always get very
specific answer backs and then most people think is routine, and they say yes, we
have to educate our kids in our school district and here is what it costs, and the fire
department has to give fire protection. [PH1, page 119, lines 6-25], [PH1, page 120,
lines 1-25]. [PH1, page 121, lines 1-9]

-- I am also concern about the different stores competing. I am quiet [sic] positive
that within five years, either BJ s will be out or Costco will be out. This area can't
sustain both, there is plenty of evidence around that.

Circuit City came in, was on Route 6 for several years, Best Buy decided that they
needed to open up across the street, boom, Circuit was out. Bed Bath and Beyond
came in, then Linens and Things had to be there to compete, boom, they are out.
[PH1, page 124, lines 11-22]

Response III.Q 6:

The Applicant has stated that it does not intend to apply for any tax exemption or a
Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT), or Industrial Development Authority (IDA)
financing which would forgive sales taxes on construction materials, among other
benefits.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-27

In addition, Circuit City did not close due to Best Buy moving in across the street.
Circuit City declared bankruptcy and closed all its stores. The same occurred for
Linens and Things, which declared bankruptcy as well. Therefore, it is speculative to
assume that Bed Bath and Beyond moving into that area contributed to that store
closing.

Comment III.Q 7a - (PH1, Babette Ballinger):

The applicant estimates that during the construction phase the proposed project is
estimated to generate five hundred and fifty-three thousand, one hundred and
twenty-five in sales tax revenue. But, they provide no breakdown as to how that
figure was arrived.

Since one main argument in the DEIS is that the project is going to bring substantial
tax relief to Yorktown, please have the applicant provide a detailed breakdown of
how the figure was arrived and how much of this figure is of a direct benefit, to the
people of Yorktown.

The DEIS claims that during the construction phase the project will create three [sic]
and fifty temporary/full time equivalent construction jobs at the project site.
However, no detail on what these jobs are or where these workers will come from are
detailed.
And I kindly request that the applicants to the Yorktown Costco project provide the
public with what these jobs are and where these three hundred and fifty people are
coming from. I agree with Mr. Pescante [sic], that one of the biggest unemployed
groups that we have in Yorktown are in construction. Please have them provide
details and include how many of the jobs that they are bringing are union jobs since
so many of our residents are unemployed unionized construction workers.

Regarding Section 3-Q-5, I quote "once fully operational the project will create
approximately, two hundred direct jobs with annual earnings of approximately eight
million two hundred seven thousand six hundred eighty. Now, that's an average of
approximately $41,058.00 a year per person, for a thirty-five hour work weeks it
comes to approximately $22.50 an hour.

Mr. Brann detailed to us that a lot of these jobs start at about $11.00 an hour. There is
no detailed description of what these jobs are or where the jobs are, or if these jobs
are going to be filled by Yorktown residents. Two hundred permanent direct jobs,
many of them could come from their headquarters in the State of Washington, it is not
going to helps us here. I want to know all the details.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-28

I kindly request that the applicant for the Yorktown Costco project provide a detailed
description of the two hundred jobs, including detail on how many of the jobs are
guarantied to be in Yorktown, with Yorktown residents and the residents of the five
hamlets.

I also request that the applicant provide detail on the other comparable Costco stores
that they have mentioned in the DEIS, regarding the number of employees, how many
are local, how many are part-time and how many are full time and what the average
wage is. This important component of the DEIS requires facts, not supposition and
relevant on-site locations, not figures based on Washington or elsewhere that would
not impact our local economy. [PH1, page 132, lines 24-25], [PH1, page 133, lines 1-
25], [PH1, page 134, lines 1-25], [PH1, page 135, lines 1-18]

Response III.Q 7a:

The Comments reference to Mr. Pescante likely meant Mr. J oe Visconte.

The Applicant does not have a specific breakdown of the estimated sales tax revenue
during the construction phase. Sales tax during the construction phase is paid on
materials, some labor, and equipment both purchased and rented to construct the
building.

This Comment requests a breakout by job category of the estimated 350
temporary/full time equivalent constructions jobs created during the construction
phase. This estimate is based upon the experience of other Costcos of comparable
size in the region. The Applicant cannot provide more detailed information at this
time, as the number of workers in different job categories will be determined by the
selected general contractor. He/she will determine the number of workers needed by
job category. From where exactly they will be hiring workers is difficult to predict, it
depends on who is qualified and applies for a position. Because the construction
contract will be competitively bid in the future, it is impossible to estimate the
number of union jobs at this time.

Also, this Comment asks for a detailed description of the estimated 200 direct jobs
that will be created once the store is fully operational. The breakdown of jobs in each
store is determined by the store manager based upon the particular needs of the store.
Costcos Northeast Regional Manager stated that Costco generally employs about 10
people to each manager. The Costco store in New Rochelle has 249 employees, Port
Chester has 182 employees, Yonkers has 272 employees and Brookfield has 231

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-29

employees.

The figure for average salary ($41,058) was provided from the Costco Facts Sheet
and is based on a full time employee who has been with Costco for four years. Refer
also to FEIS Response III.Q 1.

This Comment requests details on other comparable Costco stores (that were
mentioned in the DEIS) regarding the number of employees and how many are part-
time, full-time and the average wage. Refer to FEIS Section III.Q Introductory
Response.

Comment III.Q 7b - (PH1, Babette Ballinger):

In Section 3-Q-11, according to the DEIS, Costco designates one percent of the
annual pretax profit to local charitable organizations, but again no relevant detail is
provided. I kindly request that the applicants of the Yorktown Costco project specify
how much dollars were provided to organizations in Port Chester, New York and
Milford, Connecticut, and what determines eligibility and what organizations have to
do to access this step.

Additionally, what is the pretax profit of those stores so that the citizens of Yorktown
can have a realistic idea of what this would actually mean in dollars. Finally, are
membership fees from a specific location included since as much if not all of the
profits of Costco, according to J im Kramer, come from their membership fees and
only a very small amount from the sale of goods and services.

I think that all of these are key issues, I think that there is a enormous amount of
supposition in the DEIS by the applicant in conclusions that they are making in order
to justify the addition of a hundred and fifty thousand square foot warehouse by using
outdated models of consumer and retail behavior.

Within a ten mile radius we have a population of two hundred and forty-four
thousand, which is approximately ninety-three thousand families. Westchester
County we are said to have a medium income here of eighty thousand dollars per
family, that is not in Yorktown, we are actually below that in Yorktown.

We have two corridors here that go from north to south. 684, which no one has
mentioned tonight and the Taconic Parkway. If you took -- go ahead and you look at
this realistically, and you take out of the two hundred and forty-four thousand people,
the people that are on the 684 corridor, who probably aren't gonna be coming back

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-30

and forth on Route 6, which is a bottleneck and God knows what is going to happen
to Route 35, or other east west corridor, you are going to eliminate most of the high
payers, the people who meet the Costco profile, such as Goldens Bridge and Bedford,
which kind of take that $80,000.00 figure.

Instead we are going to be left with our biggest population basis here of Ossining and
Peekskill. And in case you are wondering what the medium income is in those
places, is $47,000.00. So, I think that the figures that we are being given and told and
said where Costco is not gonna canalize [sic] the current retail environment that we
have, it's just plain not true.

In order for them to make their figures they are going to have to go into that four
hundred and twenty-five million that is currently being done by our local businesses
and I just shudder to think on what kind of blight that is going to cause in our
community and additional unemployment. Thank you. [PH1, page 135, lines 19-25],
[PH1, page 136, lines 1-25], [PH1, page 137, lines 1-25], [PH1, page 138, lines 1-12]

Response III.Q 7b:

This Comment requests more information on the one percent of the annual pretax
profit that is designated by Costco to local charitable organizations. The one percent
pretax profit is a corporate goal and not an individual store goal. As a corporation,
Costco strives to donate at least one percent of pretax profits to local charities which
are generally focused on programs for children. However, this is not a store-specific
requirement, and the review and environmental assessment of the Project has not
assumed any particular donation amount from the Project.

The pretax profits of an individual store are not related to what Costco may donate to
the local community. This is why these dollars were not included in the net fiscal
impacts/benefits to the Town of Yorktown. Refer to Costcos Giving Guidelines in
FEIS Appendix F.

Refer to FEIS Section III.Q Introductory Response regarding the Applicants Market
Study and Commercial Character Assessment methodology which addresses the
issues of existing retail leakage and impacts to local retailers in Yorktown.

Comment III.Q 8 - (PH1, Larry Centone):
Now, we've got a number of gas stations in this town that are not written about, no
one has talked about that yet. You've got a negative sales of sixteen millions of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-31

dollars in the gas station industry alone, okay. Costco will do forty million dollars,
there is no chance that they will not blight the community of that individual center
alone. The same with the groceries that has already been said. [PH1, page 171, lines
4-13]
The competition is not a problem, is [sic] the blight that occurs. [PH1, page 171,
lines 18-19],

Response III.Q 8:

The Applicant asserts there will be no adverse impacts on existing gas stations. Many
gas stations provide different services besides gasoline. Generally their profit is from
these other types of services such as oil changes or automobile repairs, as well as
convenience stores
8
. This is the case for the four gas stations along Route 202 from
the Project Site west to the Cortlandt Town line. Unlike the Project's fueling facility,
all four of the stations have some ancillary business/activity to supplement the filling
station component -- a convenience store, or both auto repairs and convenience store,
etc. None of the four stations solely sells gas. Mobil Mart (3205 Crompond Road)
has a convenience store; Gulf Gas Station (3451 Crompond Road) has a convenience
store (and a separate car care business on the same site); Shell (3907 Crompond
Road) has a 7-11 convenience store and car wash; and Hess has a convenience store.
Thus, each of these stations offers services not associated with the Costco fueling
facility. Refer to the Applicants amended Commercial Character Assessment in
Appendix F of this FEIS for photographs and additional information.

Additionally, the Applicant asserts that the Project fueling station will not cause
existing gas stations to close within the Yorktown Five Hamlet Study Area. The
Projects fueling station will only sell gas; no additional products or services will be
offered. Refer also to FEIS Response III.Q 17. Moreover, Applicant asserts that
impacts from a Costco fueling station are not likely to supersede the national trends
which are making retail sales for fueling less profitable compared with oil exploration
and production. For example, a March 5, 2013 article in the New York Times stated
that Hess is closing 1,350 of its retail stations across the U.S
9
. Several years ago,
Exxon underwent a similar retail downsizing, indicating the potential for the retail gas
business to decline with or without a Costco located in the market area.

8
http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/340191/facts-about-gas-prices-and-oil-profits
9
http://threevillage.patch.com/groups/business-news/p/hess-to-quit-retail-gas-station-businesses-fab14aee

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-32

Also, the Applicant asserts that the potential closure of gasoline stations is not
expected to generate adverse impacts on the community character, of which blight is
just one of many factors, of Yorktown. As set forth in the Community Character
Assessment accompanying the DEIS, the gasoline stations in the Yorktown Five
Hamlet Study Area do not function as anchors or partial anchors, meaning they
are not primary shopping destinations that drive patrons to stores in the surrounding
areas. See DEIS Exhibit K, Attachment A. Furthermore, most of the gas stations are
located on separate lots along main roadways, and are isolated from other stores and
the communitys downtown areas. Therefore, any potential closure is not anticipated
to lead to significant adverse impacts on the community character of Yorktown.

Comment III.Q 9 (Document 15A.1, James A. Garofalo):

information. The materials requested are as follows:

A. Internal store layout, use, and building access plan is requested. Furthermore
provide a table containing more detail as to functional uses in Costco characterized in
DEIS Appendix K Retail Market Analysis Commercial Character Assessment
Attachment A.

Response III.Q 9:

This Comment requests an internal store layout, use and building access plan. The
DEIS provides a Site Plan of the Project, which shows building access. The Applicant
asserts that this is sufficient, as the internal layout does not have any relationship to
environmental impacts of the project.

This Comment requests a table containing more detail as to functional uses in
Costco characterized in DEIS Appendix K. Although this Comment does not explain
this term, Appendix K, Attachment A provides a detailed list of the survey used for
the Commercial Character Assessment.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-33

Comment III.Q 10 - (Document 30.1, Grace Siciliano):

I was speaking to a local merchant who informed me that Costco will be paying
cheaper taxes to the town for their building because they will list themselves as a
Warehouse and not a store. This merchant told me that Warehouses pay cheaper taxes
per square footage than a regular store in Yorktown. Is this Correct? Because if it is
then they are not being truthful about the money Yorktown will receive if they come
into our area.

Response III.Q 10:

According to the Yorktown Tax Assessor, Costco would be taxed as a big box
store, not a warehouse.

Comment III.Q 11 - (Document 37.1, Ali Osama), (Document 155.1, Ali Osama):

I heard about the Plans to Open another Big Store and shopping area across from the
existing Bjs.

Why do we need another Big Corporate Store?

Why dont we allow the local small business make a living while keeping our Town a
Town not a City?

Are they donating enough to compensate all the Businesses that are going to go out of
business?

Are they donating enough to get those closed businesses on Route 202 to re-open?
Dont we have enough buildings on 202 that are vacant and could not be supported by
the community?

Response III.Q 11:
Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 5 in which the Applicant asserts that BJ s and Costco
can and do coexist successfully. The Applicant asserts that the Project will provide
benefits to the Town of Yorktown such as recurring benefits of property taxes, sewer
district, sales tax revenue, job creation and more (refer to DEIS Section III.Q). Based
upon the Applicants Market Analysis and the Commercial Character Assessment, the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-34

Applicant asserts that the Project will not impose significant adverse impacts on local
small businesses.

Comment III.Q 12 - (Document 76.2, Jane Schneider):

Our property values will surely decline. Please address these issues with people who
will not benefit economically directly.

Response III.Q 12:
Based upon the experience with other Costco stores in other locations, the Applicant
asserts that there is no indication of a projected loss in property values due to the
Project. The Applicant asserts that it is also reasonable to conclude that when the
Town Board determined to maintain the zoning that allowed a regional retail draw, it
did not anticipate any negative impact to the Town.

An occupied Costco store could be considered a better alternative than the existing
abandoned building on the Site that has been an eyesore for years and which, in the
long run, could contribute to loss in property values to surrounding residences
(located approximately within 1,500 feet of the Site). Therefore, the Applicant asserts
that this Project would be an improvement to the Site as well as the community. Also,
it is important to note that a variety of factors contributes to property values, and it is
nearly impossible to determine a direct correlation or cause when property values
increase or decrease.

Furthermore, Walmart is a significantly larger company as compared to Costco and
Walmart stores carry a wider range of products, and thus compete with local stores to
a greater extent than Costco. However, in a 2010 study conducted in New J ersey, it
was shown that Walmart did not have an adverse impact on local property values or
the tax base in either the host or adjacent communities
10
.

Comment III.Q 13 - (Document 78.1, John S. Martin):

Yorktown has enough empty buildings and cannot support two big box stores. Empty
space - Bed Bath & Beyond, BJ s will surely be empty, the old supermarket building
in Yorktown, K-mart will surely be empty - this is just what we need - more empty

10
http://business.pages.tcnj.edu

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-35

space to make the town even more ugly than it has become.

Response III.Q 13:
Based upon the Applicants Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment,
the Applicant asserts that the Project will not contribute to vacancies in existing
buildings. The results of the Commercial Character Assessment prepared by the
Applicant suggest that the Project is not expected to adversely impact the commercial
character of the Yorktown Five Hamlet Study Area.
Please, also refer to FEIS Response III.Q.2 on competitive impacts and III.Q.5 on
how BJ s and Costco are able to coexist within the same area.

Comment III. Q 14 Form Letter E (Document 42.5, Residents of Yorktown), (Document
39.4, Gia Diamond):


- Cost - benefit analysis of one big box store in 1994 found that for every dollar
of tax revenue, there was a loss of $2.50 in tax revenue and costs to provide
police, fire protection, and other services. Imagine with the cost of inflation and
bad economy now how greater the true cost of Costco is to the taxpayers now.

- there is a 2.8% county population growth from the year 2000, and the buying
power of Westchester residents has remained flat. We dont need another
COSTCO;

- One local study by (www.civiceconomics.com/localworks) has found that for
every $100 dollar spent in a local retail store $68 stay in local economy as
opposed to $43 only with a chain store;

- Journal of Urban Economics study (vol.67 issue 1) has shown that for every 1
position that opens up at a big box store, 1.4 jobs are lost locally;

Response III.Q 14:
The link for the referenced study (www.civiceconomics.com/localworks) states that
the page no longer exists, and therefore could not be reviewed by the Applicant.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-36

Furthermore, the Journal of Urban Economics study referenced does not prove that
jobs will be lost locally. As the abstract for the article cited states: In part due to the
popular perception that Big-Boxes displace smaller, often family owned (a.k.a. Mom-
and-Pop) retail establishments, several empirical studies have examined the evidence
on how Big-Boxes impact local retail employment but no clear consensus has
emerged. To help shed light on this debate, we exploit establishment-level data with
detailed location information from a single metropolitan area to quantify the impact
of Big-Box store entry and growth on nearby single unit and local chain stores. We
incorporate a rich set of controls for local retail market conditions as well as whether
or not the Big-Boxes are in the same sector as the smaller stores. We find a
substantial negative impact on Big-Box entry and growth on the employment growth
at both single unit and especially smaller chain stores but only when the Big-Box
activity is both in the immediate area and in the same detailed industry. Two points
merit attention: First, as the authors readily admit, numerous empirical studies have
examined this issue, and did not find a correlation between the entry of big box stores
and the decline of local businesses. Second, the authors only found such a negative
correlation in very particular circumstances, many of which do not relate to the
Project.

According to the Applicant, the Project will provide jobs with benefits, as indicated in
FEIS Response III.Q 1. The cost-benefit analysis mentioned in this Comment
appears to be based on the Walmart model and it is not predictive of the impacts from
the Project, which has a different business model than Walmart. The Walmart model
is based upon retailers which sell a much broader product line than Costco, engage in
below cost pricing
11
, have more part-time employees without benefits, do not provide
their own security and are readily available to the public, as a membership is not
required for entry. Therefore, given the significant differences between Costco and
Walmart, Applicant asserts that the relevance of this Comment is limited. This
Comment also discusses population growth in Westchester; however it is important to
note that the Project market area goes beyond Westchester County as noted in the
Applicants Market Study attached as Appendix K of the DEIS.

11
Below cost pricing allows a dominant competitor to knock its rivals out of the market [by
lowering its prices to below cost ] and then raise prices to above-market levels for a substantial time.
Source: Federal Trade Commission (http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-
antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/predatory-or-below-cost).Walmart has been charged repeatedly for
below cost pricing practices as documented by the New York Times, UC Berkeley Labor Center and the
Institute for Local Self-Reliance, among others. See: Walmart Charged with Predatory Pricing,
res://ieframe.dll/acr_error.htm#ilsr.org,http://www.ilsr.org/walmart-charged-predatory-pricing/;
Wal-mart on Trial on Predatory Pricing Charges, http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/24/business/wal-
mart-on-trial-on-predatory-pricing-charges.html; and
What Makes It Evil, http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/press/somerville_june12.shtml

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-37

Comment III.Q 15a - (Document 42.9a, Yorktown Smart Growth):

STRAINS ON RESIDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY
Consider Costcos impact on real estate values, police, and infrastructure.

Negative Impact on Residential Real Estate Values
Yorktowns tax revenues depend primarily on residential real estate. Anything
that reduces the value of residence real estate hurts the whole town.
In the midst of a recession and with high gasoline prices, houses located
within walking distance of local businesses have been shown to hold value
better than those isolated in the suburbs, where its necessary to drive miles
to purchase food and other essentials.

Response III.Q 15a:

There is no evidence that the Project will reduce the value of residential real
estate. Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 12. See also FEIS Section III.Q
Introductory Response on how the Project would strengthen the local
economy and support economic development.

Bus, bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be available, although the majority
of customers would arrive by automobile. Moreover, the Comprehensive Plan
provides for the Site to be used for a retail establishment with a regional draw,
which contemplates that customers will arrive in vehicles. And while a few
residences are close enough to walk to this location, Costco will be a regional
draw that will allow a walkable downtown style development to be built at the
bottom of the hill. If a Costco were not to be built on this Site, Yorktown
Costco members would be driving significantly further to the next closest
Costco such in Yonkers or Brookfield.

Comment III.Q 15b - (Document 42.9b, Yorktown Smart Growth):

A Burden on Local Services

Costco would require additional police, ambulance, and fire protection
services, thereby draining government resources. Added costs could offset or

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-38

exceed any increase in real estate and sales taxes Costco would bring to
Yorktown.

A cost/benefit analysis of one proposed big-box store found that for every
dollar of tax revenue, there was a loss of $2.50 in tax revenue and costs to
provide police, fire protection, and other services .

On average, big-box stores cost local governments 30-percent more to
provide services and infrastructure than do neighborhood and downtown
stores .

The Yorktown Police Department would almost certainly have to hire more
officers and perhaps add another shift, increasing what is already the largest
expense of the Yorktown budget (exclusive of the school taxes).

Response III.Q 15b:
The Project will provide its own security, thereby reducing the demands
placed on local law enforcement personnel. Also, Section III.Q of the DEIS
analyzes any potential ways the Project could impact the Town. On page III.Q
3, Section III.Q of the DEIS states that in the Yorktown Police Departments
letter of May 25, 2011, the Police Chief indicated that the Department has
historically been understaffed. It was further indicated that the Project could
result in an increase of 106 annual calls for service. This translates to an
average increase of two additional calls for service per week. It is the
Applicants opinion that these two weekly calls could be handled by existing
personnel and/or redistribution of existing manpower. This potential annual
increase would not put the department at a tipping point, where there would be
a need to hire an additional officer. Should the Town Board determine that
additional personnel would be warranted, the Applicant asserts that the
demand would be a reflection of the overall Town needs, attributed to current
conditions, without significant, adverse impacts from the Project. Also, the
emergency services provider for the Town was contacted. No response
received to this date. See Section III. P of the DEIS regarding emergency
services. Any potential expansion to emergency services would be to serve the
entire community and not necessarily be a direct result of the Project. Refer
to FEIS Response III.Q 4 for more on costs to the community.

This Comment refers to a cost/benefit analysis of one proposed big-box store.
Big-box stores vary and, therefore there is no basis that the analysis

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-39

referenced in the Comment will apply to the Project. However, this Site-
specific EIS analyzes specific potential impacts of the Project. Therefore, this
EIS is able to analyze the Project more specifically than an analysis of a
different big-box store. Refer to FEIS Section III.Q Introductory Response
and FEIS Response III.Q.14 for more on how the Project is not comparable to
Walmart or other big-box stores.

This Comment states on average, big-box stores cost local governments 30
percent to provide services and infrastructure than do neighborhood and
downtown stores. The Applicant asserts that there is no indication this is true
for the Project. Also, the Project will provide tax benefits to the Town, as
noted in Section III. Q of the DEIS. The lower costs to local governments
associated with servicing commercial and industrial developments compared
with residential developments have been documented by governments and
scholars for several decades
12
. Also, the numerous studies referenced in this
Comment are generally inapplicable because they pertain specifically to
adverse impacts associated with Walmart. But even assuming that Walmart
studies are relevant, studies on this subject can be contradictory. For example,
a 2010 study conducted in New J ersey, demonstrated that Walmart did not
have an adverse impact on local property values or the tax base in either the
host or adjacent communities
13
. Refer also to FEIS Section III.Q Introductory
Response and FEIS Response III.Q 14.

Also, services and infrastructure are different and need to be treated as such.
Road infrastructure/ traffic improvements may be necessary to service big box
stores depending upon the needs of the retailers and the level of service
desired by both the municipality and the retailer. The Applicant has proposed
a number of improvements to local roads and transit systems. Refer to DEIS
Section II Project Description, DEIS Section III. K, Site Plan Introductory
Response and FEIS Section III. K Introductory Response Section for a
description of offsite roadway, pedestrian and traffic signal improvements
proposed in the DEIS. Moreover, neighborhood and downtown stores are
not part of the scope of the Project, not well suited for the Project Site, and
would not achieve the objectives of the Applicant. Refer to DEIS Section IV.

12
See: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Analyzing the Benefits and Costs of Economic
Development Projects, at http://sogpubs.unc.edu/electronicversions/pdfs/cedb7.pdf;
University of Wisconsin at Madison, Community Guide to Development Impact Analysis, at
http://www.lic.wisc.edu/shapingdane/facilitation/all_resources/impacts/analysis_fiscal.htm; and
University of Georgia, Fiscal Impacts of Land Uses on Local Government, at
http://jdorfman.myweb.uga.edu/cocsrep.pdf.
13
See: The Effect of Wal-Mart on Residential and Commercial Property Values: Evidence from New
Jersey, December 2010, http://business.pages.tcnj.edu/files/2011/07/F10Loyer.Thesis.pdf;

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-40

Alternatives for more information.

Please refer to first bullet in this section regarding impacts on the Yorktown
Police Department.

Comment III.Q 15c - (Document 42.9, Yorktown Smart Growth):

A Strain on Town Infrastructure

Increased traffic, including heavy truck traffic, as well as storm water runoff
and erosion, would damage Yorktowns roads and bridges, with resultant
higher costs for repair and maintenance.

Eventually, taxpayers will bear the burden in the form of higher local, county,
and state taxes.

Residences adjacent to Costco would almost certainly become less appealing
to potential buyers. More traffic, noise, and air pollution would also likely
impact the resale value of residences all along Rte. 202/35, ultimately
impacting the tax base and requiring others to make up the difference.

Response III.Q 15c:

Route 202/35 is a heavily used traffic corridor. Applicant asserts that the level
of service will improve without adverse impacts to existing infrastructure as a
result of traffic improvements funded by the Applicant. These improvements
include those described in detail in the DEIS and expanded in the Section
III.K Introductory Response contained in this FEIS. Also, since this is part of
the State highway system, the maintenance cost is borne by the entire state,
not just Yorktown residents.

Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 1 regarding taxes to be generated by the Project.

There is no indication that the Project will adversely impact the value of
residential property values in the area. Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 12.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-41

Comment III.Q 15d - (Document 42.9d, Yorktown Smart Growth):
THE BIG-BOX MYTH
Proponents of big-box stores argue that they increase economic vitality in a
town, but they are wrong.

The Impact on Other Retailers

Because of the size, scale, and nature of Costco, its considered a category
killer, meaning its presence would discourage most retailers from locating to
this commercial area.

This is Costcos strategy: Our preference is to never be in a mall or by a
mall, Costco co-founder and chairman J eff Brotman said in an interview.

As the largest single retail establishment in town, Costco could impact any
retailer that sells groceries, house wares, appliances, electronics, jewelry,
toys, clothing, fresh produce, meat, dairy, seafood, baked goods, flowers,
clothing, books, computer software, vacuum cleaners, solar panels, tires, art,
hot tubs, furniture, tires, pharmaceuticalsand even coffins. Ditto for hearing
aid and optometry centers, travel agents, photo processors, and providers of
heating equipment, kitchen cabinets, flooring, and the like.

Located a quarter mile away, Costco is likely to drive BJ s out of business.

The fueling station will undoubtedly siphon off purchases from other gas
stations on Rte. 202/35 and farther afield, including Yorktown Heights.

Response III.Q 15d:

A category killer is commonly defined as a retail store that specializes in
one kind of discounted merchandise and which dominates the competition.
14

While Costco sells a wide range of products, there is a limited number of each
type of product that it sells. The Applicant asserts that the Project is therefore
not a category killer and there is no evidence that it would discourage other
retailers from locating to the Town, which already contains a range of
businesses the carry product lines similar to Costco.

14
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/category+killer

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-42

The location preferences expressed in the statement quoted in this Comment
have no bearing upon the environmental impacts from the Project. This quote
was taken out of context. Brotmans statement was given in an article titled
Costco Sees Malls as the Next Way to Grow Business. From the article,
Our preference is to never be in a mall or by a mall, Brotman said. But in
metro areas there just is not that much land, and we still want to expand. We
will continue to penetrate areas using the mall approach.
15

Costco does not offer many of the product lines referenced in this Comment at
its proposed store (i.e. coffins, travel services, etc.). Although these products
and services are sold to Costco members online, they would be available to
Costco members in Yorktown whether or not the Project is built. Moreover,
the Applicants Market Study determined that sales leakage is occurring for
most product segments and that in those areas where leakage was not
occurring displacement was unlikely to occur based on the introduction of a
Costco into the market area.

There is no evidence that Costco would result in the closure of BJ s. Instead,
the Applicants Market Study revealed a significant volume of leakage from
the market area, which could be captured by the Project without any adverse
effect on local businesses. It is common for competing retailers to operate
virtually side by side as is demonstrated by the presence of BJ s and Costco in
other retail environments (see FEIS Response III.Q 5). And it can be routinely
seen with competitors like Home Depot and Lowes, Walmart and Target, etc.

The Project fueling station will compete with existing fueling stations in the
area. However, fueling stations are not considered anchors or partial
anchors, and the potential closure of a fueling station is not anticipated to
adversely affect the community character of Yorktown. For further
information, refer to FEIS Section III.Q Introductory Response and FEIS
Response III.Q 8.

15
See: The Wall Street J ournal: Business, Costco Sees Malls as the Next Way to Grow Business,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703447004575449414252053370.html?mod=WSJ _hps_L
EFTWhatsNews

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-43

Comment III.Q 15e - (Document 42.9e, Yorktown Smart Growth):

Fewer Dollars Remain in Town, More Return to Corporate Headquarters

Locally owned businesses create an economic multiplier effect. This is
because a local merchants profits turn over several times in the form of
locally purchased goods and services. Numerous studies show that locally
owned stores actually generate two to three times the benefits for the local
economy than do chain stores.

One study found that for every $100 spent in a locally owned business, $68
stays in the local economy, compared to only $43 spent in a chain store.

Locally owned stores tend to have a significantly higher dollar volume per
square foot than chain stores and therefore a greater multiplier effect.

When local businesses close, the negative impact is magnified by the
reduction in these trickle-down purchases.

Response III.Q 15e:

Costco also has a multiplier effect, as employees spend their dollars on goods
and services in the local economy
16
. In addition, The Project will serve as a
regional draw bringing more traffic (consumers) into the trade area, which can
stimulate local businesses, especially those with a unique niche in the market
area.

The study this Comment refers to is not based upon a Costco. Therefore, it is
incorrect to assume these numbers would be consistent with the Project. As
set forth in the DEIS, the Applicant anticipates the Project to generate $92,248
in local government revenues, more than a village-like development with
smaller businesses. See DEIS at IV-15 and FEIS Response III.Q.1.

The study referenced in this Comment was not based upon Costco, and it is
not predictive of the impacts from the Project, which are set forth in detail in
the DEIS.

16
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Analyzing the Benefits and Costs of Economic Development
Projects, at http://sogpubs.unc.edu/electronicversions/pdfs/cedb7.pdf.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-44

The Applicants Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment asserts
that local businesses will not close due to the Project. See FEIS Response
III.Q.2.

Comment III.Q 15f - (Document 42.9f, Yorktown Smart Growth):

A Surplus of Retail Space: More Is Not Better

From 19902005, the amount of square feet of retail space per person in the
United States doubled, reaching unsustainable levels. In 2010, developers
actually built fewer square feet of shopping center space than they had in
each of the 40 previous years.

More than 9 percent of retail space in malls is already vacant.

Many big retail chains have reported double-digit sales declines and several
have filed for bankruptcy. Others, such as Sears/K-Mart, Office Depot,
Dillards, Best Buy, and Lowes are closing underperforming stores.

Our region is hardly exempt, with the closure of the Food Emporium, Linens
N Things, Circuit City, J oAnnes, and numerous stores in J efferson Valley
Mall. Many smaller businesses in Yorktown, including several auto
dealerships, have also closed their doors.
Meanwhile, the buying power for most Americans has dropped and population
growth in Westchester has been relatively flat. The 2010 Census shows only
2.8 percent county population growth from 2000.

With limited disposable dollars available for retail purchases, the opening of a
new store means existing retailers wind up with a smaller piece of the pie.

One study revealed that a staggering 84 percent of big-box revenue came at
the expense of existing businesses.

Response III.Q 15f:

National trends in retail construction do not affect environmental impacts of
the Project.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-45

National statistics concerning vacancy rates in malls do not affect
environmental impacts of the Project, which is not located within a mall.

The financial status of non-Costco retailers does not affect environmental
impacts of the Project, and there is no indication that Costco is the cause of
the store closings and corporate bankruptcies referenced in the comment.

The pre-Costco closure of businesses in and around Yorktown does not affect
environmental impacts of the Project, and the Project is not anticipated to
result in the closure of anchor businesses within the Yorktown Five Hamlet
Study Area. Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 3b on the Food Emporium and
III.Q 6 on the Best Buy.

The buying power for most Americans and population trends in Westchester
County does not affect environmental impacts of the Project, which is also
anticipated to draw customers from beyond Westchester County. Also, the
Applicants Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment addressed
the potential for Costco to impact community character, and found that there
would be no consequential displacement or adverse impacts on the
commercial character of the area. Instead, the Project is anticipated to capture
a significant share of the $1.7 billion in sales leakage that is currently being
spent outside of Yorktown.

While purely competitive economic impacts are not considered to be
environmental impacts under SEQRA (see FEIS Section III.Q Introductory
Response and FEIS Response III.Q.2), the Applicants Market Study reveals
significant leakage for most retail categories, which could be captured without
adverse impacts upon existing businesses in the market area.

The referenced study is not based on Costco and therefore cannot be used to
predict the impacts that would result from the Project.

Comment III.Q 15g - (Document 42.9g, Yorktown Smart Growth):

No Real Stake in the Community

The majority of profits earned by big-box stores goes to corporate
headquarters and shareholders.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-46

Costcos business model is to lease a building on land owned by a developer,
so the store is free to depart when its lease expires, possibly leaving
Yorktown with another empty eyesore on Rte. 202/35.

On average, local business owners contribute more than twice as much of
their revenue to charitable causes than do chain stores.

Response III.Q 15g:

Beyond taxes anticipated from the Project, which would benefit community
services and resources, the allocation of Costcos corporate profits does not
affect environmental impacts of the Project.

This statement is purely speculative and unsupported by the facts. The
Applicant does not want to see the Project fail and has no intention of
abandoning the Site. Even if Costco does opt to lease the Site, Costco invests
a great deal of money in opening its stores and it is neither efficient nor cost
effective to open stores and randomly close stores soon thereafter. Costco
undertakes due diligence prior to opening their stores, as it is a significant
financial commitment which they pursue only if there is a high likelihood that
the store will be financially viable for the long term.

This Comment identifies no support for the claim that local businesses
contribute twice as much of their revenue to charitable causes than chain
stores, whereas Costco has publicly stated its corporate goal of donating 1%
of its pre-tax profits to charitable causes. However, this is not a store-specific
requirement, and the review and environmental assessment of the Project has
not assumed any particular donation amount from the Project. Refer to FEIS
Response Q.III 7b.

Comment III.Q 15h - (Document 42.9h, Yorktown Smart Growth):

Job Creation Is an Illusion

A big-box stores impact on job creation is minimal at best; typically, new
hires are offset by job losses as other stores unable to compete close or
downsize.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-47

Typically, there is an overall drop in local employment levels of retail workers
when a big-box store opens. One study found that on average for every new
position that opens up, 1.4 other jobs are lost.

With the exception of a few professional positions, such as a pharmacist and a
licensed optician at the typical Costco Wholesale Club, most positions are in
maintenance, check out, food service, and other low-paid fields.

Wages paid by big-box stores are generally inferior to those paid by local
retailers.

When a large chain store enters a community, declines in county-level retail
earnings tend to depress the local wage market.
In summation, the overall impact on Yorktowns economy is complex, multilayered,
and deserves a detailed cost-benefit analysis.

Response III.Q 15h:

This Comments statement regarding job creation is purely speculative, and
there is no evidence that Costco would cause other stores to close or
downsize. Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q.2, III.Q.5 and III.Q.7a for
information on jobs and competitive impacts of the Project.

The study referenced in this Comment is not based on Costco.

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 1 and III.Q 7a regarding Costco wages and job
breakdown respectively.

This statement is speculative and is based upon a study that did not analyze
Costcos wage structure. Costco positions start at $11.50 per hour, plus
benefits; there is no evidence cited in the Comment or known to the Applicant
that local retailers are paying their employees more than that amount. Under
New York law, minimum wage is $8.00 per hour. See FEIS Response III.Q.4
for more information on wage disparities.

Refer to the bullet above. Given the existing leakage in the market area and
the lack of saturation overall, there is nothing that indicates that this would be
the case for Yorktown or Westchester County.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-48

All of the relevant economic impacts of the Project are analyzed in the DEIS.
There is nothing cited in this Comment, which relies principally upon studies
of non-Costco retail establishments, that documents any shortcoming in that
economic analysis.

Comment III.Q 15i - (Document 42.9i, Yorktown Smart Growth):

If you have any doubt about Costcos effect on other retailers, this is what
the CEO of Costco wrote in the 2009 Annual Report:

Our industry is highly competitive, based on factors such as price, merchandise
quality and selection, warehouse location and member service. Over 1,200
warehouse club locations exist across the U.S. and Canada, including our 483 North
American warehouses, and every major metropolitan area has several club
operations. In addition to other membership warehouse operators such as Wal-Marts
Sams Club and BJ s Wholesale Club, we compete with a wide range of national and
regional retailers and wholesalers, including supermarkets, supercenters, general
merchandise chains, specialty chains, gasoline stations, as well as electronic
commerce businesses, such as Amazon. Wal-Mart, Target and Kohls are significant
general merchandise retail competitors. We also compete with low-cost operators
selling a single category or narrow range of merchandise, such as Lowes, Home
Depot, Office Depot, PetSmart, Staples, Trader J oes, Whole Foods, Best Buy and
Barnes & Noble.

Response III.Q 15i:

This statement was extracted from Costcos 2009 Annual Report. The list of Costcos
national and regional competitors does not affect the environmental impacts of the
Project in a market area like Yorktown with substantial leakage. Additionally, the
Applicants Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment asserts that there
will be no significant adverse impacts on the community character of Yorktown due
to the Project.

Comment III.Q 16 - (Document 80.2, Scott Carson):

I am against the proposed Costco. There are two reasons. One is because of traffic,
and one is because I dont see the tax benefits of big box stores.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-49

Second: Cortlandt has lots of big box stores, but what do they have to show for it?
Are taxes substantially lower there? I dont think so (based on house shopping a few
years ago). And their school system is not nearly as good as Yorktowns. Great that
Costco will give us $500k more in school taxes. But thats only 6/10 of a percent of
the budget. J ust last year the school budget went up 2.3%.

Response III.Q 16:
Tax bases and tax rates vary from community to community based on myriad factors,
including, among others, the commercial or industrial bases, the type of residential
base; the equalization rate, etc. Therefore, given the number of variables, it is not
plausible to determine whether taxes are higher or lower in a community as a result of
a particular type of store. A 2010 big box study indicates that impacts to the tax base
for the host community are not likely to be adverse owing to the presence of a big box
retailer
17
. The study focused on Walmart stores and Superstores, and it also included
an analysis of 10 Sams Club stores, which are similar to Costco.

Furthermore, the issue assessed in the EIS is the effect of the store on tax revenues in
Yorktown, and not a comparison of tax rates between Yorktown and other
municipalities. The Applicant asserts that, as discussed in more detail in the DEIS
(Section III. Q-1), the Project would provide substantial net tax revenues to the Town.
Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 1 on the net tax revenues gained from the Project.
Also, see FEIS Response III.Q 12 on impacts to property values.

Comment III.Q 17a - (Document 92.1, Sheila Schraier):

Executive Summary

In reading the Retail Market Analysis as prepared for Costco by Ferrandino &
Associates Inc., (F&A) it becomes readily apparent that their conclusions regarding
the socio-economic impact on the market segment of Transportation and Food at
Home somehow gets lost in the reporting of their own data. They contend that

The proposed Costco store will not have an adverse effect on the overall strength
and character of the commercial areas in which businesses that sell goods similar to
those carried by Costco (the Study Area) are located. Therefore, the proposed Costco
is not expected to affect community character in these areas.

17
http://business.pages.tcnj.edu/files/2011/07/kababikthesis.pdf

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-50

We will show in the next few pages that while this may or may not be an accurate
conclusion when looking at the other 7 major retail categories, it is completely off the
mark in regard to Transportation and Auto and Food at Home. It will become
apparent that their DEIS is deficient in its Socio-Economic Impact study and
conclusions.

Retail Analysis Assumptions:

Trade Area

F&A defines the Transportation and Auto retail category (1 of 9 located in the Study
Area), as gasoline, motor oil. They then go on to define 3 geographic market areas,
inner, middle and outer. They place the Transportation and Auto and Food at
Home categories within the Inner Market Area of 5 miles.

Retail Analysis Methodology

F&A then calculate, using 2015 consumer spending data, the expenditure (spending)
potential of all the households in the market area for the categories in question. In this
case, they show that the Demand (Expenditure Potential) for Transportation and Auto
is $68 million; for Food at Home, $213 million. This represents the amount of dollars
one can expect to be spent in the market area given the number of households and
per- household income.

Next, using annual sales volume data from retail sales databases derived from the US
Census of Retail Trade, they show the amount of business actually being done in the
same market area for these categories at $86 million and $254 million respectively.

Now it is important to recognize that in the remaining seven retail categories
analyzed, the difference between these 2 amounts, which represents what is termed as
Unmet Spending Potential, is a positive number. In the Transportation and Auto and
Food at Home categories it is a negative; at MINUS $18 and $40 million respectively.

F&D[sic] calls this amount Unmet Spending Potential, or lost sales, or, as they say,
leakage. That is to say, this represents the potential purchasing power that is
available in the market area that is not presently being captured by the existing
businesses.

The chart on page 8 of Retail Market Study shows the following:


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-51

Category Demand Supply Unmet

(Expenditure (Retail Spending

Potential) Sales) Potential

(Lost Sales)

Food at Home $213,969,701 $254,156,596 ($40,186,895)

Transportation $68,124,133 $86,300,653 ($18,176,520)

This means that the study area is already over-saturated with Grocery stores and Gas
Stations. As a matter of fact, F&As attachment A shows, for the Transportation
category, a total of 15 gas stations in the study area.

Supportable Square Footage Estimates

F&A then presents on page 10 in Table 7 entitled Supportable Space, the amount of
space that the market area can support in the Transportation and Auto (or Gas Station)
category is again, NEGATIVE 68,102 square feet, meaning that the study area in
question has more than twice the number of gas stations that it should have in order
for this retail segment to remain economically healthy.

Response III.Q 17a:

Refer to FEIS III.Q Introductory Response and FEIS Response III.Q 15 regarding the
methodology of the Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment prepared by
the Applicant.

While the Applicants analysis demonstrates that overall unmet spending potential
exists, gas stations and food establishments may experience a small decline in revenues
with the addition of a new Costco. However, this small decline, if it occurs, would not
likely be the primary reason for the closure of a particular retailer
18
, nor cause a
significant change in community character, of which blight is just one of many factors.
In other words, the presence of a Costco in the trade area will not be the primary factor
in determining the economic viability of gas stations and food establishments.

18
Anecdotal information suggests that landlords may be contributing to the closure of local retailers
due to unsustainable increases in commercial rents. The landlords may be taking tax write-offs for such
vacant properties.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-52

Furthermore, the Applicant asserts that Costco shoppers are likely to come from well
beyond the projected trade areas for both of these retail sectors, which will decrease
associated impacts for local gas and food retailers.
19
As the trade area enlarges, more
consumers/more spending potential exists, which thereby reduces impacts on local
retailers. By delineating a smaller trade area(s), the impacts are not so readily
absorbed, as spending potential is lowered, and the impacts on local retailers tend to be
more evident. Therefore, the Applicant asserts that the trade area selected in the DEIS
reflects the worst case scenario for local retailers. This approach in delineating the
trade area was undertaken specifically to quell concerns about these retail sectors, and
to ensure that potential, worst case impacts were fully transparent.

Comment III.Q 17b - (Document 92.2, Sheila Schraier):

Findings
Possible Blighting

It is easy to conclude by the applicants own data submitted in the DEIS that the study
areas do not need another gas station or grocery store. A simple inventory of the
existing gas stations would show to even the most casual observer that of the 15
existing stations, about 1/3 are already in the lower tier of economic health, evidenced
by the lack of maintenance, painting, outside storage of old tires and vehicles, etc.
These conditions do not exist because the owners/operators are lazy. This is the case
because they are already struggling financially.

Response III.Q 17b:

This Comment does not provide any economic data to support the assertion that
about 1/3 of the 15 fueling stations in the Yorktown Five Hamlet Study Area are in
the lower tier of economic health. The Applicant asserts that the Project is not
likely to result in the closure of fueling stations, and, if certain fueling stations were
to close as a result of economic competition from the Project, it would not affect the
community character, of which blight is just one of many factors, of Yorktown.
Refer to FEIS Section III.Q Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.Q 8.

19
The outer trade area extends 18.8 miles from the project site, which almost quadruples the size of
the trade area for gas stations and food retailers. This accounts for much of the increase in unmet
spending potential.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-53

Comment III.Q 17c - (Document 92.3, Sheila Schraier):

Greater Impact than Alluded to

While the DEIS concludes that we have too many gas stations that may be under
fiscal stress, the addition of a Costco gas station needs to be looked at in its own
individual light, not in combination with all the other items it sells. After all, it is even
a separate area.

Costcos projection for this location, and the gas sales at its other locations bear this
out. The applicant estimates that they can expect to receive up to 3 truckloads of gas
per day, (thats upwards of 36,000 gallons). That translates to over 800,000 gallons
per month. They propose to have on-site storage for 90,000 gallons of gas in three
underground storage tanks to support this amount of sales.

Lets put this in perspective. Of the 15 gas stations in the study area, there are some
that do between 50,000 to 80,000 gallons a month, with 2 or 3 underground storage
tanks that equal 15,000 to 20,000 gallons of storage. Even those stations on the larger
end of the scale only have sales in the 180,000 to 225,000 gallons per month, again
with commensurate underground storage of maybe 30,000 gallons. Lets be clear here
and make the proper comparison. We are talking about gas volumes for each of these
smaller gas stations on a per month basis; Costco is projecting their sales volume on a
daily basis.

That means that when adding the Costco gas station into the market, it is the
equivalent of adding between 4 to 8 more stations.

Using this sales volume as it relates to the Unmet Spending Potential (aka
Leakage), at $4.00 per gallon, Costco is projecting annual sales in the area of $40
million. With current sales in the study area reported at $86 million and where the
demand is measured at $68 million (a negative $15 million), the DEIS must conclude
that Costco will be doing close to half of the existing business available in the study
area and there is only one way for that to occur. Take the business away from the
existing gas stations.

Response III.Q 17c:

The Applicant asserts that the impacts to existing fueling stations as outlined in the
DEIS is the worst case scenario in terms of possible impacts associated with the
inclusion of Costco in the market area. Generally, a five mile trade area for fueling

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-54

stations is standard and this trade area was used in the DEIS to ensure that the
Applicant did not underestimate impacts
20
. However, Applicant asserts that the reality
is that the impacts to existing fueling stations are not likely to be as dramatic as
predicted in this Comment for the following reasons: (1) Costco only services
members and is not open to the general public; (2) existing fueling stations provide
services that the Costco facility will not provide, and will therefore service a specific
niche within this market; and (3) Costco is a regional draw, patrons from the outer
trade areas and beyond who come to Costco to shop will also likely fill up with gas,
accounting for a portion of Costcos projected sales revenue. In other words, a
significant portion of the projected gas revenue will be drawn from consumers
beyond Yorktown, who are not likely to utilize local gas stations. Also refer to FEIS
Responses III.Q 8.

Comment III.Q 17d - (Document 92.4, Sheila Schraier):

Impact Not Even Addressed

While the study does go into a sales and square footage analysis, thereby trying to
measure the impact on the sales of the existing business, it neglects to study the
impact of Costco on the profits of the existing business.

The gasoline industry has for years struggled with the markup or profit margin in its
gasoline pricing. Contrary to popular belief, in many instances, the average station
relies on the sale of gasoline to bring in 60% of its total monthly profit Gasoline is, of
course, a commodity product, and because of the way it is marketed with large price
signs on the street, it is a highly competitive business. When the sales of its main
product, or when the fair profit margin of its main product, are lost, the results can be
catastrophic and immediate.

Response III.Q 17d:

The Applicant does not have access to the profit margins for each individual fueling
station.

20
University of Minnesota Extension, Downtown Market Analysis, at http://fyi.uwex.edu/downtown-
market-analysis/understanding-the-market/trade-area-analysis/ and
University of Minnesota, Trade Area Analysis of Retail Sales, at
http://www1.extension.umn.edu/community/retail/analysis/docs/sampletown32-39.pdf

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-55

The Applicant does not dispute that commodity pricing makes gas sales competitive,
and adds a level of uncertainty to the profitability of gasoline sales. However, the
competitive pricing associated with a commodity driven market, and the hardship it
can bring, are present with or without the Project. The relevant inquiry under SEQRA
is whether the Project will cause significant adverse impacts with respect to
community character or displacement. As explained above, the potential closure of
gasoline stations as a result of the Project is speculative and the Applicant anticipates
the Project to have no significant, adverse impact with respect to community
character or displacement. Refer also to FEIS Response III.Q 8, and III.Q.17c.

Comment III.Q 17e - (Document 92.5, Sheila Schraier):

Not Just Blighting

The real estate taxes paid (either by the gas station/grocery store owner directly, or
indirectly by their landlord if leased) in the market area are considerable. These will
be impacted.

The number of people employed by the gas stations easily extends beyond 80
employees; plus working owners. These will be impacted; jobs will be lost.

The dollars that are put back via cross spending into the community by these
employees, owners, landlords, etc are significant

Response III.Q 17e:

Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 2 on competitive impacts, Q15e on Costco multiplier
effects and III.Q 17c and III.Q 17d on impacts of the Costco fueling station.

Comment III.Q 17f - (Document 92.6, Sheila Schraier):

Their Conclusion is in Error

The DEIS concludes that given the size and product line of the proposed Costco, the
consumer trade areas can absorb the proposed retail space. This is grouping all the
retail categories with the same conclusion, which is incorrect and misleading. For
obvious reasons, as shown above, this statement is inaccurate, in bad form, and
renders the DEIS as deficient and not credible. The individual market categories of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-56

Transportation and Food at Home require their own in depth analysis.

For the Gas Stations and Grocery Stores we need a thorough analysis of the existing
locations, their average profit margins and how they will be impacted if Costco is
allowed to enter the market, the market share/current sales that each business has and
which ones will be impacted the most. We need projections on lost tax revenue if
some landlords lose their tenants or if current businesses close due to lost sales,
projections on loss of employment as well as projections on loss of gross spending.

Response III.Q 17f:

The Applicants assertion that local retailers specializing in food at home are not
likely to be significantly impacted is supported by the presence of BJ s in the existing
trade area, which co-exists with local groceries notwithstanding the market conditions
referenced in the comment (see FEIS Responses III.Q.2, III.Q.5 and III.Q.17a). A
small number of fueling stations may be adversely impacted, but the Applicant asserts
that these impacts cannot be solely attributed to the Project and, even in a worst case
scenario, would not rise to significant adverse impacts on community character (see
FEIS Response III.Q.8).

The Applicant does not have access to the profit margins for each individual fueling
station. Based on the local market conditions and national trends, some fueling
stations may close with or without the Project. SEQRA does not require that all
businesses remain viable and it cannot protect existing businesses from the market
forces that are already at work. In a worst-case scenario, if one or more fueling
stations closes, a corresponding loss of tax revenues and jobs associated with these
closures will occur. However, the Applicant asserts that the closures will be offset by
the new tax revenue and jobs provided by the Project. In addition, it is important to
note that such displacement is speculative and that economic competition from the
Project is not an environmental impact for the purposes of SEQRA. Refer to FEIS
Section III.Q Introductory Response and III.Q.2.

Comment III.Q 17g - (Document 92.7, Sheila Schraier):

Other Studies on the Net Economic Impacts of Big Box Stores Support there
Will be a Net Negative Economic Impact

The conclusion that the imposition of a low cost big box store in an area already
adequately served by a variety of retail establishments has regularly been refuted by
economic experts at highly regarded academic institutions who have recently looked

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-57

at the net economic impacts of Big Box stores in urban areas. Although the bulk of
the studies have focused on the impact of Wal-Mart stores they do challenge the
underlying premise that the introduction of a Big Box store, paying lower wages than
its competition, often has an adverse net economic impact on the host community.
(See The Impact of an Urban Wal-Mart Store on Area Businesses: An Evaluation of
One Chicago Neighborhoods Experience, published by The Center for Urban
Research and Learning out of the University Chicago Loyola College, December
2009, published at http://luc.edu/curl/pdfs/Media/WalMartReport21010_01_11.pdf;
and Wal-Ma rts Economic Footprint: A literature review prepared by Hunter College
Center for Community Planning & Development and New York City, J anuary 10,
2010, http://advocate.nyc.gov/files/Walmart.pdf; Wal-Mart and County-Wide
Poverty, prepared by Stephan J . Goetz and Hema Swaminathan, Department of
Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University
October 2004).

The two above referenced studies each include a recent review of a larger literature
basis on the economic impacts of big box stores. A common finding in both the
literature reviewed, and the more recent studies is that the addition of grocery service
to an area without a shortage of grocery services does not result in people buying
more groceries, it only shifts where they buy them, and in the long term the business
practices of the lower wage payers selling non-local goods has a much larger net
negative impact on local economies where there is a sufficient retail supply. As set
forth above, the base line economic study submitted by the developer already
establishes the inner circle market already has an excess supply of grocery and
gasoline suppliers that the Big Box would be drawing business away from. Because
people do not eat more, or use more toilet paper, deodorants, or other disposable
goods, or drive more when a Big Box enters the market the net impact is they end up
replacing local retailers, and often have a net negative long term economic impact.
The ultimate finding of the academic studies, prepared for government agencies, is
that new Wal-Mart stores in well serviced regions have resulted in a significant
negative impact on communities, and result in store closures and a loss of jobs, wages
and retail earnings.

For example, the 2010 Hunter College report, prepared for the NYC Department of
Planning, and the City Public Advocate, ultimately found that the addition of a
combined superstore grocery component has been documented to have a net negative
impact on economic growth for a community when studied over a five year period.
Key findings of the College report were:

Wal-Mart store openings kill three local jobs for every two they create by
reducing retail employment in every county they enter.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-58

Wal-Marts entry into a new market does not increase overall retail activity or
employment opportunities. Research from Chicago shows retail employment did
not increase in Wal-Marts zip code, and fell significantly in those adjacent.

Wal-Marts entry into a new market has a strong negative effect on existing
retailers. Supermarkets and discount variety stores are the most adversely
affected sectors, suffering sales declines of 10 to 40% after Wal-Mart moves in.
Stores near a new Wal-Mart are at increased risk of going out of business. After
a single Wal-Mart opened in Chicago in September 2006, 82 of the 306 small
businesses in the surrounding neighborhood had gone out of business by March
2008. The value of Wal-Mart to the economy will likely be less than the value of
the jobs and businesses it replaces. A study estimating the future impact of Wal-
Mart on the grocery industry in California found that, the full economic impact
of those lost wages and benefits throughout southern California could approach
$2.8 billion per year.

Chain stores, like Wal-Mart send most of their revenues out of the community,
while focal businesses keep more consumer dollars in the local economy: for
every $100 spent in locally owned businesses, $68 stayed in the local economy
while chain stores only left $43 to recirculate locally.

Wal-Mart has thousands of associates who qualify for Medicaid and other
publicly subsidized care, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. For instance in Ohio
Wal-Mart has more associates and associate dependents on Medicaid than any
other employer, costing taxpayers $44.8 million in 2009.

Likewise, The Loyola University of Chicago study found and then advised the local
governments as follows:

The fact that Wal-Mart is a wash in terms of sales revenue for the city and
jobs for local residents has particular relevance to current policy debates about
the need for new Wal-Mart stores, or for that matter, more big box
developments in Chicagos neighborhoods. Such stores are not producing the
new opportunities and a financial boon for the city as was promised or forecast
by some. As Tom Otto at the West Humboldt Park Development Council,
commented, What this study confirms [is that...there is a pie and youre just
divvying it up differently in terms of sales, number of jobs; its just shifting.

This means that communities should not be so quick to see the addition of a Big Box
store as a panacea to local economic struggles. The development of such a store is

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-59

one alternative, but not the only one. Leaders suggested that big box developments
should be viewed as one strategy in the citys arsenal to address economic
development, but not the only one.

Based upon the above referenced studies, and the extensive literature searches each of
the studies rely upon, the starting point for the economic justification for the
disruption of the communitys plans, at the behest of the developer should be a
comparison of actual retail wages paid for grocery and gas station clerks at the Big
Box, against existing wage rates paid by the local retailers, and additional adjustments
to the impact of lost tax basis caused by closing of existent businesses, lost tax base
due to secondary impacts of blight and lost opportunities for the sale of locally grown
and produced goods, and the development of owner occupied business opportunities.
J ust looking at gross tax revenue produced by the Big Box without offsets caused
by Big Box secondary impacts is an incomplete socio-economic analysis.

Response III.Q 17g:

The business practices and product lines sold by Walmart compared with Costco are
significantly different. Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 14. In addition, given
Yorktowns average annual household income, the Applicant asserts that the
availability of lower cost goods benefits the local community by allowing local
dollars to stretch farther in a difficult economic climate. Also, the provision of local
shopping opportunities will reduce the amount of money local consumers spend on
gas to access Costco stores outside the trade area (800 Yorktown residents currently
hold a Costco membership card despite the fact that no Costco store exists within the
stated trade area), and will bring new customers from outside Yorktown into the
market area.

Also, the Applicant asserts that there are no projected impacts to liquor stores as
Costco, will only sell a limited selection of beer and wine products on the floor. See
Response III.Q 3e for more information.

Comment III.Q 17h - (Document 92.8, Sheila Schraier):

The Correct Conclusion

As it stands now our conclusion for the market segment of Transportation & Auto is
that the introduction of Costcos Gasoline fueling station will result in the most
severe adverse impact to the economic well-being of the existing business in the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-60

study area, as well as adversely impacting the character of the community through
blighting of the existing businesses; all of which cannot be mitigated. The conclusion
is even worse for the Food at Home category because their unmet spending
potential has an even greater negative amount in both dollars as well as percentage
of existing sales. Therefore, as previously stated, we can conclude that the DEIS is
not only deficient in this area of study but, has also failed to properly analyze the
alternative of having no filling station in the DEIS. We can recommend only that the
DEIS be declared incomplete. Further, based on the current DEIS, we can only
conclude that the proposed application for the entire project be denied. Certainly, the
application for a special use permit must be denied.

Other Deficiencies in DEIS and Information Needed

1-As per Section Q2b of Final Scope Discuss the potential effect on local
competitors, both large and small. Include a discussion of existing jobs that may be
lost....

This has been almost entirely overlooked. Please provide analysis of jobs lost from
existing businesses; show the net jobs from Costco after the losses in existing. Their
contention that there will be no impact, especially in light of the foregoing study, is
spurious at best.

2-As per section III. Q page 11 The retail Market Analysis prepared by their
applicants consultant shows that there is ample demand for the project.

This completely and specifically ignores the 2 categories mentioned above, therefore
it is vague and not to the point of the question in the scope. Please have applicant
show how this conclusion relates to the data he has presented.

3-As per section lll.Q page 11 This (their conclusion from the market study) is
consistent with the results of the commercial character assessment prepared by the
Applicants consultant

This is a self fulfilling circular argument in that the conclusions of the market study
are being done by the same consultant. Again, the applicant needs to have a deeper
study showing the potential impacts and how they relate to job and tax losses.

4-As per section lll.Q page 19-10 the project will create 200 permanent direct jobs
Its (Costcos) overage hourly wage is $20.07


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-61

The applicant shows a total payroll of $8,207,000 which they base 200 jobs times
their average wage. They do not show the wages broken down by category, their own
promo pieces show a wage for part-time starting at $11.00. Please have applicant
provide calculations and analysis broken down by job types so that the DEIS shows
the actual impact on the job market and answers the spirit of the question in the
scope.

5- In a memo from the Ryan Law Group, dated 1/25/12, they contend on pages 16
and 17 that the applicants conclusions in the pDEIS that Costco will not adversely
impact businesses selling similar goods; and that their conclusion in the pDEIS that
no mitigation measures are required is unsupported because the pDEIS does not
adequately demonstrate that there are no potentially significant impacts to existing
businesses in the community.

We feel that this comment remains germane and still unanswered. While the pDEIS
was not made available to us, even though it was Foiled, please provide that section
for comparison to show where the applicant has tried to comply with their (Ryan Law
Groups) comment. Please have the applicant comply with this request from Ryan
Law Group.

6-In order to achieve a level of relevance necessary for a proper analysis please have
applicant provide the following:

A- Show projected sales by their 9 categories and detail what percentage will come
from existing sales versus untapped available sales. Provide a listing of the relevant
stores broken down into the above categories, detailing the impact as a percentage on
their existing sales, and projections on loss of sales and personnel accordingly.
Provide projections on the same 9 categories of the impact to their gross margins by
the applicant by category.

B-Provide an analysis of the projected loss of tax revenue for the above relevant
stores when bighted.
C-Provide in your list the stores in the liquor category which was left out of your
analysis, or if you do not intend to sell liquor upon opening, how it will impact in the
future (unless a deed restriction or some other code restricts these sales, in which case
please state).

D-Show a detail by job type category, showing projected number of employees,
starting wages, and average turnover for the employees that will be hired. Provide
NYS UI % rate for existing stores in NY to assist in analyzing turnover/layoff costs.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-62

7-As per section III.Q.3 page 11 Proposed Mitigation the applicant asserts that no
mitigation measures are required, but then they go on to give Some examples of
Costcos nationwide community involvement One example that they have discussed
with the town has been their 1% of pre-tax profit, designated annually for local
charitable organizations

In as much as their Public Relations campaign has alluded to this as being a part of
what they will do for Yorktown, have applicant confirm that this is a program that
they will or will not make available to Yorktown, provide projections for 1 five years
of the sales and amount expected to give. Provide details of how the program will be
monitored, how often and when payments will be made

Response III.Q 17h:

1. Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 2 on competitive impacts and III.Q 8 as to how the
Project will not adversely impact local businesses, both large and small. There is no
indication based upon the Applicants Commercial Character Assessment that any
jobs will be lost that can be directly attributed to the Project. Refer to FEIS Response
III.Q 1 for more information on jobs generated.

2. Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 17a pertaining to more detailed information
regarding the Applicants Market Study, which demonstrates the demand for the
project.

3. The Applicants Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment are detailed
for the application of the Project. Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 1, III.Q 2, and III.Q
12 regarding jobs, taxes and property values.

4. Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 1 and III.Q 7a regarding jobs, hourly wage
information and types of jobs.

5. The Applicant asserts that the Market Study in Appendix K of the DEIS and the
amended Community Character Assessment in Appendix F of this FEIS do
adequately discuss and demonstrate any potential impacts to existing businesses in
the community.

6a. According to the Applicant, the request for projected sales by the 9 categories and
to detail what percentage will come from existing sales versus untapped available
sales is unavailable. The percentage spent in each category varies by store, and it is

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-63

difficult to conclusively predict the percentage in each category that will come from
existing sales versus untapped available sales.

6b. Based upon the Applicants analysis there is no indication of any tax revenue loss
resulting from the Project. The Applicant indicates the Project will be good for
business in the Town, as it will act as a regional draw to attract more customers to the
area (See FEIS Response III.Q.1).

6c. The Applicant has stated that Costco will sell beer and wine on the floor but it will
not sell liquor at this location. Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 3e for more information.

6d. Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 1 and III.Q 7a regarding jobs and wages.

6e. Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 7b regarding information about Costcos annual
pre-tax profit giving program.

Comment III.Q 18 - (Document 94.2, Alan Weger), (PH2, Alan Weger):


I would also add that I have discussed the traffic situation with many people who live
in this area, several of whom specifically mentioned that the traffic problems on
Route 202 and Route 6 was a major factor in their decision to live elsewhere.
Therefore, it is quite possible that any property taxes generated by the Costco project
will be offset by declining property values, as the general area becomes a less
desirable place to live.

Furthermore, I think it is likely that a store of this size will likely lead to adverse
impacts on local business. We did witness substantial loss of local business when the
Home Depot store opened nearby. I did live on Westbrook Drive during the planning
and construction of the Cortlandt Town Center, and I dont feel that the adverse
impacts were appropriately planned for. It seems very likely that we are heading in a
similar direction with respect to this project.

Response III.Q 18:

The Applicant asserts that the Project will not cause a decline in property values.
Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 12.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-64

A Market Study and a Commercial Character Assessment were conducted by the
Applicant to determine the potential impacts on local businesses and the area. Based
upon the results of these studies, the Applicant asserts that there would not be any
adverse impacts on community character or displacement of local businesses. Please
also refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 1, III.Q 3 and III.Q 5.

Comment III.Q 19 - (Document 97.3, Greg Kravtsov), (PH2, Greg Kravtsov):


Furthermore, since Costco following in footsteps with Walmart has become such a
heavy importer of Chinese manufactured goods and products (well over 50%), our
respondents asked to use the most stringent observation and enforcement of all
federal and state trade regulatory legal statutes which federal government supplied
ailing American manufacturing industries in their fight against Chinese dumping
practices. Namely: Communist government of Peoples Republic of China routinely
disregards 35 USC 271 Law illegal use of foreign intellectual property without
proper license, such as provisions for computer-aided design/computer aided
manufacturing of numerous steel carved molds for plastic injection molding used in
majority of Costco carried products for example computer mouse by Logitech Co.
manufacturer. Specific patent violated is US Patent #6462840 3D monitor and
tactile scanner. Furthermore, US Anti-Money Laundering Statue and U.S. Foreign
Trade Corrupt Practices Act are being routinely violated by Costco and Walmart
(with Walmart Mexico bribery scandal).

We ask Yorktown Planning Board to stipulate on Costco permit our local residents
right to hold Costco products sold in Yorktown to same high standards regarding
above mentioned federal trade statutes, enforceable on local level even after products
had cleared US Customs and border patrols as other laws (such as wetland laws) are
being enforced above federal and state standards. We feel that is is our patriotic right
and duty to initiate such observance and enforcement on local level of what federal
government is trying to do to protect American manufacturing from unfair Chinese
dumping on federal level. As a side note it was estimated by leading economists that
overwhelming portion of wealth amassed by Chinese Communist government
connected syndicates (tens of billions of US $) had been earned through violation of
existing above mentioned US Anti Money Laundering and US Foreign Corrupt
Practices Statutes. Our US local pertinent patent holders are in process of filing
appropriate complaints for patent infringement and expect full cooperation with local
authorities in investigation and enforcement efforts.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-65

Response III.Q 19:

Comment noted. Costco will be legally required to comply with all applicable laws
relating to the importation of goods from foreign countries. The Applicant asserts that
there is no factual basis for the allegation in this Comment that Costco has violated
various Federal statutes.

Comment III.Q 20 - (Document 100.1, Steve Winkel):

Its not that Im opposed to big box retailing. Ive worked for a big box for 18 years.
But there is a difference between a large chain, with locations sized appropriate to
their surroundings and this behemoth, which will change the character that brought so
many of us here in the first place.

Im not going to lie... Costco is a very nice place to shop. The deals are great, their
return policy is terrific. And from what I hear, they are actually a good place to work.
Decent pay structure, excellent benefits. And 200 additional jobs in this economy is
not a bad thing. But we need to be clear that it wont be all plus jobs.

If Costco opens, first thing that is going to happen is BJ s is going to cut its
payroll.., probably by 20%...maybe by as much as a third. Thats the way retail
works. Business is going to decline and stores, especially chains, have productivity
expectations they need to meet. So through a combination of attrition and individuals
working fewer hours... there will be fewer people earning their living at BJ s.

Within two years, BJ s closes. How many people in town do you think are going to
pay $50 to two different Warehouse clubs, especially when the new guy in town is
bigger and better? Very few. So thats probably 120 people that are going to lose their
jobs. What else could happen?

What about the mall? The combination of a weak economy, the loss of the movie
theater and the rise of Cortlandt Town Center has reduced the J V Mall to a shadow of
its former self. Do you think that creating another monster shopping destination three
and a half miles away might impact the mall? So figure 3-4 years down the road, a
strong possibility that the mall closes, too. Thats maybe 500 local people out of
work.

What about the supermarkets? We have a wonderful gourmet market in Turcos, we
have DeCiccos we also have generally aging or small A&Ps, we lost Food

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-66

Emporium. If we get a Costco. .. or if Wal-mart figures out a way to become a Super
Wal-mart, how many food shopping options do you think will remain in town?

Do we need additional business along that corridor? Absolutely. Who wants to look at
an abandoned motel and a closed gas station? But what sort of businesses does the
town need? What sort of businesses would make the town better?

We want businesses that encourage people to get out of their cars and linger in this
town. We want people to eat, walk and shop other local businesses and continue to
tell people what a wonderful area this is. A cluster of restaurants, retail, housing. A
nice small hotel would address the severe lack of lodging options in this part of
Westchester. Do you think that the local catering halls like Crystal Bay, Osceola
Manor, and Villa Barone might book more events if guests had a place to stay? What
about a normal state-of-the art supermarket? We deserve it. Because sometimes you
need less than a quart of mustard. Do you think Costco is going to do any of that?

I heard a local realtor speak a few weeks ago. He indicated that Costco is one of the
things that someone would look for in a prospective town. Well, Route 6 does not
have a Costco, but it is the major shopping corridor in this area. Would anyone argue
that the value of houses in Cortlandt is higher than those in Yorktown? Im not an
expert, but I looked at a lot of houses before I bought mine and that corridor is a
cheaper place to live than where I bought.

Response III.Q 20:

This Comment states numerous benefits that Costco can provide to the Town of
Yorktown, but is concerned about impacts on existing businesses in the area. As
stated previously, based upon the Applicants Market Study and Commercial
Character Assessment included in the DEIS, the Applicant asserts the Project will not
adversely impact existing businesses in the Town of Yorktown.

This Comment also raises concern regarding BJ s and Costco coexisting successfully.
Such comments are speculative and, based upon the Applicants research, there are
several locations throughout the area where BJ s and Costco coexist. Please refer to
FEIS Response III.Q 5 for more information on BJ s and Costco coexisting
successfully.

In addition, as the Applicants Market Study indicated, the stores in the mall have a
different market niche and, are not likely to be adversely impacted by a Costco. The
existing BJ s has demonstrated that the inclusion of this type of big box retailer does

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-67

not significantly impact stores in the mall. For example, if shoppers are looking for
shoes or a particular item of clothing, they are not likely to go to Costco. Instead, they
are likely to go to a retailer with a full line of shoes or clothes in the mall or
elsewhere.

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q.2, III.Q.5 and III.Q.17a for more information on the
anticipated impacts on the supermarkets referenced in this Comment.

Similarly, the Applicant asserts that the specialty food stores and gourmet stores are
not likely to be significantly impacted, as they cater to a different target market.
Although smaller supermarkets could be adversely impacted, external market forces,
rather than Costco, are likely to impact the viability of these stores long term (e.g., the
closure of A&P nationally). Applicant asserts that if the smaller supermarkets survive
these external market forces they can likely co-exist with a Costco since: (1) only
members can shop at Costco and only a portion of the population in Yorktown will
purchase a membership; and (2) smaller supermarkets offer a convenience that larger
stores do not and differentiation in product packaging (not all consumers want to
store multiple bulk purchases necessitated for those that shop at Costco).

Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 12 for an explanation of the Projects anticipated
impact to property values.

In terms of a need for a local hotel, Section IV. Alternatives in the DEIS looks at a
hotel/motel option. However, in the Applicants opinion there is not a strong enough
market to support a Hotel/Motel option and the former motel (the London Inn) closed
down many years ago. A proprietary market study undertaken for a new 84-room
limited service hotel, to replace the Peekskill Motor Inn, showed a limited market.
However, the owners could not obtain financing more than 5 years ago when the
market was more favorable, and the Applicant believes that it is not likely that a new
hotel would survive there now. Additionally, after years of planning and difficulty
obtaining financing, a new Holiday Inn Express just recently broke ground in
Peekskill, on the border with Cortandt, which will likely further depress the market
for additional hotel/motel uses in the area. Refer to DEIS Section IV Alternatives
Hotel or Motel Development for more information.

Comment III.Q 21- (Document 102.1, Scott Carson). (PH2, Scott Carson):


The current real property taxes generated by the site are $110,490.05:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-68

$ 16,424.49 to the Town of Yorktown, $16,455.36 to Westchester County (2010) and
$77,610.20 to the Yorktown Central School District (2011).

Based upon an assessed value of $25 million, the Applicant anticipates the proposed
Costco to generate approximately $797,195 annually in property taxes:
$92248 to the Town, $91,657 to the County and $613,290 to the Yorktown Central
School district in special District taxes, in addition of $113,608

I, like everyone else I know, came to Yorktown not for the shopping, but for the
schools.

I think we can agree that our schools are awesome.

One of the tax benefits to having Costco will be a substantial tax contribution to our
school district. I wondered how that would affect my tax bill, so I decided to do the
math.

Yorktown Schools

Current tax revenue from the proposed site: 77610
Costco estimates 613290
Improvement from current 535680
Yorktown 2012-2123 [sic] Budget 92,175,000

Town of Yorktown School Tax Levy = 74,740,987

Costco contribution in percentage terms 535,680 divided by 74,740,987 =

0.007167152

or 7/l0s ths [sic] of a percent

My school tax bill after STAR = 6412

Multiply 6412 x (.007) percent = 44.88

I will save a grand total of $45/year.

Id rather pay $1/week than suffer up to 1000 more cars per hour on 202.
Any money I save will be burned up in fuel wasted sitting in traffic on 202.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-69

Response III.Q 21:

Applicant asserts that the Project will provide positive impacts on the school district.
Based upon the Applicants analysis, the Project will generate $613,290 in property
taxes to the school district, making it one of the largest tax payers in the Town. Refer
to FEIS Response III.Q 1 on the net gains in tax revenue by the Project.

Also, refer to FEIS Responses III. K 98 and III. K Introductory Response which
specifically address the level of traffic being added as well as a description of the
Applicant funded roadway improvements as well as the separate and independent
improvements being completed by NYSDOT. It is important to note that NYSDOT
actually expanded their project at significant additional expense in anticipation of the
Applicant funded improvements which are designed to supplement and complement
the NYSDOT project.

Comments III.Q 22a (Document 103.1a, Babette Ballinger), (Document 152.1a, Babette
Ballinger):

I request that the following comments be entered into the proposed development
DEIS public hearing record so that they might be satisfactorily addressed in the
projects Final Environmental Impact Statement.

RE: Section III Q -Pages 1-38 Retail Market Analysis (including Appendix Vll.K)
I have reviewed documents in the DEIS and elsewhere regarding the planned project
for a Costco warehouse store on Rte. 202/35.

The DEIS attempts to justify the addition of a 150,000 square foot warehouse club
by using a patently outdated model of consumer retail behavior. Assumptions are
made about the distances that consumers are willing to drive to purchase goods
based on national rather than regional or local averages, with an adjustment to
reflect local market conditions.

There is no data on what this adjustment might be or how it varies from a national
average. I kindly request that the developers of the proposed Yorktown Costco
project provide and make public detailed written documentation that use the local
population from the 2010 census, including the local mean income for a family
based in the Westchester County.

The retail market analysis looks at the cannibalization between existing Costco
stores (excluding proposed new stores) but not other retail establishments (like BJ s

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-70

down the road). We would expect Costco to do its own market analysis to justify an
additional store within its existing network of stores that details how it would impact
other, competitive, retailers. It is not enough to just make a blanket claim that it will
not cause undue hardship or blight. We have too many anchor stores that are
currently rated in retail language as D or failing or almost failing and too many
empty big box stores in our landscape. What is the real impact of adding another big
box warehouse?

Response III.Q 22a:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q.1 and III.Q.7a on taxes and jobs, FEIS Response
III.Q.5 on Costco and BJ s coexisting, FEIS Response III.Q.8 on gas stations and
blight and FEIS Response III.Q.12 on property values.

Comments III.Q 22b (Document 103.1b, Babette Ballinger), (Document 152.1b, Babette
Ballinger):

We note that the applicants consultant quoted Reillys Law of Retail Gravitation as
the source and the application of the formula to determine distances that consumers
will travel to buy goods. Leaving aside that this formula that was derived in 1931
and the many factors have changed since then, to simply to rely on this formula to
calculate distances that people will travel to shop suggests a superficial analysis.
This formula does not take into consideration the cannibalization of other Costco
locations and the fact that it is already negotiating to add a store less than 14.7 miles
away in Carmel. We kindly request the promoters of the Yorktown Costco to
provide and make public more detailed, current and localized documentation.

The use of three kinds of trade rings to segment shopping habits by frequency and
distance, while appropriate for general shopping, makes much less sense for
warehouse club shopping in which consumers typically purchase large quantities of
items and therefore make purchases less frequently. Accordingly to subsequent
analysis, the data provided breaking down the number of households in these three
rings with their disposable income is flawed.

The population of Yorktown and Northern Westchester in general has declined in the
last five years. The Costco study allows for an increase in population and an increase
in number of households by 2015. This makes the demographic projections made in
the DEIS suspect. We kindly request the applicant Yorktown [sic] to provide and
make public more accurate population and demographic study of the area explaining

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-71

the basis upon which realistic numbers are derived.

Response III.Q 22b:

The Applicant asserts that Reillys Law of Retail Gravitation is widely used and
accepted by academic scholars across the country
21
. This is not to say that other
models do not exist, but the Applicant opted for Reillys Law. In regard to Reillys
Law of Retail Gravitation, the Applicant asserts that the use of these trade rings is
standard practice and are routinely used to analyze impacts for proposed retailers (for
example, see recent Patterson Costco EIS). If the Applicant had used a single larger
trade area instead of trade rings, this might have raised a concern about
underestimating impacts to local businesses especially fueling stations and grocery
stores. Furthermore, the comment does not state why the Reillys Law of Retail
Gravitation is considered outdated.

Comments III.Q 22c (Document 103.1c, Babette Ballinger), (Document 152.1c, Babette
Ballinger):

The analysis makes no mention of the impact of the growth of Internet sales as a
modifier of consumer shopping habits. In fact, the DEIS asserts, for the purposes of
this analysis, it is assumed that the current year market conditions will not change
between 2010 and 2015. There is not a single, serious study of retail that does not
devote extensive analysis of changes due to widespread growth of internet shopping.
We kindly request the promoters of the Yorktown Costco provide and make public
more accurate and timely study of consumer habits allowing for the current growth in
internet sales and its impact on consumer shopping habits.

The net result of these shortcomings leads to the conclusion that this retail market
analysis is self-serving to the applicant and does not reflect the real impact a Costco
would have. Our concern is that these erroneous figures are used as the basis for how
much this will change our local economy and tax base.

For your information:

The following statistics are from the Department of Labor and Other Budgeting on
how American Families spend our money- The highlighted items constitute about 20-

21
See California State University, http://www.csun.edu/~sg4002/courses/340/340_lab_gravity_model.html
and Syracuse University, http://srufaculty.sru.edu/james.hughes/100/100-6/reilly1.htm.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-72

22% of the typical family budget, and are the items that Costco is said to sell.

Housing (including utilities and fuel) 34%

Insurance and Pension Plans 11%

Entertainment 5 %

Health Care 6%

Education 2%

House Furnishings 3.2%

Housekeeping Supplies 1.2%

Food (at home) 6.8%

Restaurants 5.2%

Alcohol 1%

Personal Care 1.2%

Life Insurance .6%

Reading .2%

Apparel and Services 3.6%

Gas 5.6%

Transportation (vehicle purchase 13.4%
and insurance)

Base on the 2010 census the Gross Income of the targeted area (8-10 miles) family is
around 80,000 gross or $52,000 net dollars- 20% of that figure is around $10, 400.00.
Based on 92,000 households in the targeted area (not allowing for cannibalization to
Carmel or other new store areas) total available dollars would be 956,800,000- not the
1,615,920,153 Costco projects.-


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-73

This would mean that in order to meet their figures they would aggressively go after
existing market business-

Response III.Q 22c:

The issue of growing internet sales is a global phenomenon and is not within the
control of Costco or any retailer. Moreover, the Applicant asserts that the impacts
from internet sales will continue to impact local retailers whether or not Costco enters
the trade area as consumers within the market area will continue to buy products
online from both Costco and other retailers, with or without the physical presence of
the particular retailer.

This Comments calculation of market area spending potential considers only
businesses within 8-10 miles of the Site, covering the inner (five-mile) and
middle (eight-mile) market areas but omitting most of the outer market area,
which extends up to 18.8 miles from Project Site. The Applicants retail market
analysis, on the other hand, evaluated the entire outer market area, and thus captured
the full spending potential of potential Costco consumers. The Applicant asserts that
the Comments calculation underestimates potential spending on household
furnishings and appliances, apparel, and housing-related product categories, where
consumers are likely to travel longer distances and engage in comparison shopping.
See DEIS Appendix K at 3. Furthermore, the Applicant asserts that its estimate of
unmet spending potential underestimates potential market leakage, as it considered
only the middle and inner market areas for six of nine product categories, despite the
likelihood that consumers within the outer trade area will also purchase items in those
categories (e.g., sports and entertainment) at Costco.

The Applicants Retail Market Analysis also relied upon proprietary Claritas data,
which is based upon actual retail expenditures and, according to the Applicant, is thus
more accurate than extrapolation from general census data. The Applicants
consultants methodology has been employed in other EISs to analyze unmet
spending potential for a variety of proposed retail projects. For example, HR&A's
2013 "Supermarket and Retail Market Analysis" for a project before the Town of
New Castle used proprietary retail sales figures from ERSIs Business Analyst Online
to identify existing retail sales and the additional supportable square feet of retail for
all of the defined Trade Areas. ESRI, similar to Claritas, is a third-party data provider,
which provides sales data for defined geographies based on the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) retail industry categories. In an independent
review of the HR&A study, AKRF, a consultant for the Town of New Castle,
supported the findings of the HR&A retail analysis, which utilized a methodology

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-74

similar to that employed here by Costco. See: Chappaqua Crossing Competitive
Effects Analysis, 2013.

Comments III.Q 22d (Document 103.1d, Babette Ballinger), (Document 152.1d, Babette
Ballinger):

TRADE AREA-

Assumptions:

Population is based on a 10 mile radius according to the 2010 census from the center
of Yorktown. The Costco proposed middle market is 8 miles. This is realistic
considering both the geography and available roads in the area and the fact that there
are five other Costco warehouses within a 30 mile radius (see DEIS pg 5- Retail
Analysis Methodology)

Again, the population in this area is decreasing, not increasing.

HOUSEHOLD BASED EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL

Again, using 2010 Census data, households within the inner and the middle market
(10 mile radius) represent around 92,253 households based on 2.64 persons per
household for a population of 244,098.

Median income is approximately $80,000 in Yorktown, but the bigger population
base of Peekskill and Ossining have a dramatically lower mean income.

Estimates Existing Sales

Pg VII DEIS Retail Market Study says $419,897,087

IN CONCLUSION, given the size and the product line of the proposed Costco,
the consumer trade areas CAN NOT absorb the retail space without driving out
of business all the other retailers and causing severe retail BLIGHT in Yorktown
and other immediate corresponding areas Kindly provide evidence, not opinion,
that this is not the case.

Response III.Q 22d:


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-75

The Applicant asserts that the population projections and household based
expenditure potential are based on data provided by Claritas, which allowed a match
of the geographic extent of the trade area to the household expenditure data. The
Applicant asserts that Claritas data and mapping services allow a more accurate
reflection of the spending characteristics of the actual trade area, rather than relying
on generalized studies. Furthermore, despite the moderate decrease in population as
shown in the 2010 census, the Applicants Market Study found that the Project is
anticipated to capture a significant share of the $1.7 billion in sales leakage that is
currently being spent outside of Yorktown. According to the Applicant, population is
not necessarily a complete predictor of spending potential as factors other than
population growth also impact spending potential, including but not limited to size
and number of households, consumer sentiment, oil prices, tax structure, etc.

Comments III.Q 23a (Document 103.2a, Babette Ballinger), (Document 151.1a, Babette
Ballinger):



Re: Section III.Q Fiscal and Economic Impacts

According to the applicant a retail analysis supports the demand for the proposed
project. The document lists households within a 5 mile radius, an 8 mile radius, and
lastly an outer area with the estimated potential to spend more than $1,583,485,550
and lists a leakage of $773,493,955 of unmet spending potential with in the middle
(8 mile) market area.

I kindly request that the applicants to support the claim that Costco would not cause
undue hardship to any existing businesses. We are looking for clear definition other
than their opinion.

According to the 2010 Census, the population within a ten mile radius of Yorktown is
only 244,000. Westchester County claims 2.6 people per household thereby making
around 92,252 households with a mean household gross income of $79,619.00.
Further, according to the Department of Labor which categorizes how Americans
spend their money, the average family allocated to categories Costco sells is 20-22

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-76

percent. If 100% of these items were purchased at Costco and not in any of the other
merchants in Yorktown and its hamlets less the current volume being done the
numbers are clearly overstated.

Section III.Q b. Socio-Economic

Refer to appendix VII.K
The retail market analysis prepared by the applicants consultant concludes that for
the three consumer market areas, there is over 1.7 billion in lost annual sales or
leakage that can be potentially captured by the proposed Costco. The results of the
commercial character assessment prepared by the consultant also suggests that the
proposed Costco is not expected to adversely impact the commercial character of the
study area. The actual trade area tends to be much smaller than the proposed Costcos
trade area.
I kindly request that the applicants of the Yorktown Costco project provide and make
public the detail of how they get these figures to support their claim they will not
cause undue hardship to any existing businesses with the numbers clearly defined.

Response III.Q 23a:

The Applicant asserts that Costco shoppers are likely to come from beyond the ten
miles projected in this Comment, as noted in the Applicants Retail Market Study. As
the trade area enlarges, there are more consumers/more spending potential, which will
tend to reduce impacts on local retailers. The Applicant asserts that by drawing a
smaller trade area(s), the impacts are not so readily absorbed, as spending potential is
lowered, and the impacts on local retailers tend to be more evident. Therefore, the
Applicant asserts that the trade area selected in the DEIS reflects the worst case
scenario for local retailers. Furthermore, the Applicants analysis factors in
population projections beyond 2010 and there is currently no competing Costco
within the trade area.

Refer to FEIS Response III.Q.17a regarding leakages in the trade area.

Comments III.Q 23b (Document 103.2b, Babette Ballinger), (Document 151.1b, Babette
Ballinger):

RE: Proposed Costco in Carmel.
I kindly request that the applicants of the Yorktown Costco project provide and make
public an updated study adding in the proposed Costco in Carmel, New York, and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-77

other Costcos that are within their proposed trade area of the Yorktown store.

According to a Forbes Magazine analysis by the Trefis Team dated J anuary 13, 2011.
Cannibalization [sic] could be a threat or, in other words, Costco building too many
competing stores in any one area. Although Costco has low market penetration in
North Eastern area, it faces the threat of cannibalization of its own sales if it has to
expand aggressively. The company claims that cannibalization was part of the
negative comparable store sales growth in 2009. It appears that they may be doing so
in our area in Carmel.

Carmel is only 14.6 miles from center of town to center of town-which means that the
middle area radius for both stores overlaps-Because of the main roads leading to each
store, I would suggest that Carmel will be closer for anyone using 684 and all
Yorktown has to offer is 202/35 and the Taconic. That would limit the trade area.

I believe that none of their figures considers the impact of this new store.

The developer estimates that during the construction phase the proposed project
is estimated to generate $553,125 in sales tax revenue but they provide no breakdown
of how that figure was derived. Since one main argument in the DEIS is that this
project would be bringing substantial tax relief to Yorktown please have the applicant
provide a detailed breakdown of how this figure was derived and how much of this
figure is a direct benefit to the people of Yorktown.

The DEIS claims that during the construction phase the project would to [sic] create
350 temporary full-time equivalent construction jobs at the project site. However, no
detail on what these jobs are and where these workers would come from are detailed.
I kindly request that the applicant/s [sic] of the Yorktown Costco project provide and
make public what these jobs are and where these 350 people will come from. Please
also have them provide details and include how many of these jobs are they Union
jobs since so many of our residents are unemployed unionized construction workers.

Response III.Q 23b:

The Costco referenced in this Comment was proposed to be located in Patterson, not
in Carmel, New York, as part of a development called Patterson Crossing Retail
Center. The Applicants consultant has reviewed the Patterson Crossing EIS, and
asserts the following points. First, it appears that there is some nominal overlap in the
Patterson and Yorktown trade areas. This type of overlap is typical in retail
environments where each retailer attempts to maximize the capture of consumers

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-78

within their projected trade area. This overlap does not necessarily mean that the
stores in question will not remain viable. More likely, the overlap will cause each
store to have a slightly reduced profit margin compared with the profit margin if the
competitive store was removed from its trade area. The Applicant asserts that if an
analysis of Costco stores nationwide was undertaken, one would see that nominal
overlap in trade areas is common, as is the overlap of rival big box retailers. For
example, the existing Costco stores located in Port Chester, New Rochelle and
Yonkers have driving times of approximately 17 to 22 minutes between them. The
Project in Yorktown has a driving time of about 34 minutes to Costco in Port Chester
and about 22 minutes to a Costco that was proposed in Patterson. All three existing
Costcos in Westchester County are about the same driving distance apart or are even
closer together than the Project would be to the existing Costcos. This shows that
these stores have overlapping trade areas, but it does not impact the success of these
stores, as they are all thriving economically.

Second, neither a Commercial Character Assessment nor a Retail Market Study was
undertaken as part of the analysis by the Patterson Crossing developers consultant
22
.
Conversely, with the Project, the Applicant provided both a Commercial Character
Assessment and a Retail Market Analysis showing both surplus and leakage within
the trade area.

Third, the Yorktown Costco trade area used inner, middle and outer trade rings of 5, 8
and up to 19 miles in its analysis. In comparison, the Patterson Crossing Costco trade
area used trade rings of 3, 10 and 20 miles. The Applicant asserts that the size of the
trade rings for both Costco stores is similar, though the middle and outer trade rings
for the Yorktown Costco are slightly smaller, indicating an approach that would
overestimate, rather than underestimate, impacts.

Lastly, the methodology used by the Applicant to determine trade areas for nine
different retail categories was very similar to the methodology employed in the
Patterson Crossing Costco EIS. Although there was no market study for that EIS,
both consultants used the same formula to determine the distance shoppers are willing
to travel for different types of retail merchandise categories, and based their trade
areas on those formulaic calculations. The Applicant asserts that this formula is
currently the industry standard, as can be seen in other retail EISs that have been
prepared in recent years. Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 3b, III.Q 17c and III.Q 22b
regarding how this standard can be seen in other retail EISs.

22
The Patterson Crossing developers consultant and the firm hired by Richard Stanton, an
attorney representing a number of Yorktown citizens to critique the proposed Yorktown Costco, is Tim
Miller Associates.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-79

Please refer to FEIS Response III.Q 7a regarding more information on the
construction jobs.

Comments III.Q 23c (Document 103.2c, Babette Ballinger), (Document 151.1c, Babette Ballinger):

Re Section III Q-5 Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts.
Once fully operational, the project will create approximately 200 permanent direct
jobs with annual earnings of approximately $8,207,680. That is an average of
approximately $41,058 per year per person. For a 35-hour work week this comes to
approximately $22.50 an hour, however there is no detailed description of what those
jobs are or where those jobs are or if those jobs would be filled by Yorktown
residents.

I kindly request that the applicants of the Yorktown Costco project provide a detailed
description of those 200 jobs including detail on how many of those jobs are
guaranteed to be in Yorktown with Yorktown Residents and/or residents of the 5
hamlets.

I kindly request that the applicants of the Yorktown Costco project provide detail on
the other comparable Costco stores mentioned in the DEIS regarding number of
employees, how many are local, how many are part time and how many are full time,
and what the average wage is. This important component of the DEIS requires facts,
not supposition and relevant on-site locations, not figures based on Washington State,
Oregon, or elsewhere that would not impact our local economy.

Response III.Q 23c:

Please refer to FEIS Responses III.Q.1 and III.Q.7a for more information regarding
the permanent jobs created once the Project is fully operational.

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q.1, III.Q.5 and III.Q.7a for employment information for
the Project and nearby Costco stores.

Comments III.Q 23d (Document 103.2d, Babette Ballinger), (Document 151.1d, Babette
Ballinger):

Section III-Q-11

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-80

According to the DEIS, Costco designates 1% of annual pre-tax profit for local
charitable organizations but again no relevant detail is provided.

I kindly request that the applicants of the Yorktown Costco project specify how many
dollars were provided to organizations in Port Chester, NY and Brookfield, CT., and
what determines eligibility and what organizations have to do to access this gift.
Additionally, what is the pre-tax profit of those stores so that the citizens of
Yorktown can have a realistic idea of what this would actually mean in dollars?
Finally, are membership fees from the specific locations included as much if not all of
the profits Costco claims seems to come from their membership fees, and only a
small amount from the sales of goods and services?

Response III.Q 23d:

Refer to Response III. Q 7b for information on pretax profits for charitable giving. As
charitable funding is neither a significant adverse environmental impact and as it is
not being proposed by the Applicant as mitigation, Costco is not required under
SEQRA to specify the amount of dollars provided to other organizations in the area.
See generally 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5). However, a few examples of Costcos charity
work include donating emergency generators to the Norwalk Housing Authority and
Person to Person program. The generators will help these programs to maintain self-
sufficiency and the ability to meet the needs of clients in instances of power
outages
23
.

Also, membership fees are included in Costcos profit calculations. This information
is available in Costcos annual report.

Comments III.Q 23e (Document 103.2e, Babette Ballinger), (Document 151.1e, Babette
Ballinger):

For Your information:

Westchester County lists 2.64 persons per household. Westchester County has a mean
per capita income of 47,814 and a median household income which is 40% higher or
79,619.

Based on these figures there are 94,425 households in a ten mile radius.

23
Norwalk Patch. http://norwalk.patch.com/articles/norwalk-fd-oem-donate-power.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-81

Response III.Q 23e:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 24 - (Document 109.5, Julian Charnis):

I understand that Costco will bring some revenue to our town. I dont agree that the
savings to Yorktown taxpayers will be worth the negative impact on the quality of life
for all those who must use rt. 202 west of the Taconic Pkwy.

Response III.Q 24:

NYSDOT began construction of their improvements on Route 202/35 at Pine Grove
Court (NYSDOT P.I.N. No. 8561.34) in April 2013 and have since completed a
major portion of the work. Based on discussions with the NYSDOT Design Group
and as indicated on the project website (https://www.dot.ny.gov/35-202atpinegrovecourt) the
project is scheduled to be completed by Summer 2014. Refer also to FEIS Section
III.K Introductory Response.

Comment III.Q 25 - (Document 117.1, Megan S. and John M. Flynn):


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-82



ECONOMIC BENEFITS/COSTS TO YORKTOWN

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the project applicant as well
as the applicants hearing comments claim the project will generate almost $10
million in sales tax revenues during the first year of Costcos operation. The applicant
described this direct impact as a benefit to Yorktown. However, Yorktown will
gain additional sales tax revenues only if Costcos presence results in purchases that
would otherwise not occur. In other words, if the presence of a new store causes me
to purchase food there that I used to buy at the A&P, Yorktown gains no additional
sales tax revenue. A new store can only deliver additional sales tax revenue to the
extent that

It draws consumer spending from jurisdictions (Connecticut, for example)
that do not contribute to NY sales tax revenue

Causes local consumers to purchase more goods than they currently do.
Therefore, we seek answers to the following questions:

What percentage of the projected the sales tax revenues are expected to come
from these two categories?

Why does the DEIS and applicants public statements claim the remaining
percentage of sales and tax revenues, which are merely intercepted from other
stores, as positive impacts of this project?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-83

The DEIS is optimistic about sales leakage and the likelihood that Costcos success
will not lead to the failure of competing retail stores in Yorktown. However, Sears
Retail Holdings, which operates two of these stores, is widely believed to be a deeply
troubled company and at risk of being unable to compete with wholesale clubs like
Costco. Consider for example, Reuters November 16 report on the companys third
quarter earnings:

Same-store sales in the United States fell 3.1 percent, including a 1.6 percent decline
at Searss namesake department stores and a 4.8 percent fall at Kmart. Same-store
sales at Sears Canada fell 5.7 percent.

Sears... has been closing stores, tightly managing inventory, selling some real estate
and shedding assets.

Since Sears-operated stores anchor two separate shopping centers in Yorktown, their
demise would be of great harm to the towns economy. Thus, we have the following
question:

What assistance would Costco provide Yorktown in repurposing retail space
vacated by Sears into other tax-generating uses? Please indicate what forms such
assistance would take and the specific resources that would be provided.

Response III.Q 25:

This Comment raises a question regarding the percentage of projected sales tax
revenues that are expected to be drawn from consumer spending in jurisdictions that
do not contribute to NYS sale tax revenue and/or cause local consumers to purchase
more goods than they currently do. Obviously, the location of a Costco, or any other
retail establishment, in a community does not increase disposable income simply by
its presence in a community. The amount of disposable income available (spending
potential) is beyond the control of Costco or any other retailer. The Applicant is
unable to project an exact figure for this sales tax revenue; however, it does not
anticipate that a Costco would cause consumers to purchase more goods than they
now do. Rather, the Applicant asserts that the Project would encourage goods to be
purchased locally. Currently, almost 800 Yorktown area residents are Costco
members, and the proximity of a new store would be expected to generate additional
members. According to the Applicant, most of the current members travel to
Yonkers, NY or Brookfield, CT (the closest existing Costco locations north and south
of Yorktown) to shop at Costco. Therefore, building a Costco store in Yorktown

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-84

would increase State, County and local tax revenues from those members who
currently travel out of state or down County to shop at Costco. In addition, the
Applicant asserts that residents who currently shop for consumer goods outside of
Yorktown at non-Costco locations would be more likely to purchase such products at
a Yorktown Costco, further increasing Town (and potentially County and State) sales
tax revenues.

In addition, this Comment poses the question, Why does the DEIS and Applicants
public statements claim the remaining percentage of sales and tax revenues, which are
merely intercepted from other stores, as positive impacts of this project? In its first
year of operations, the Applicant anticipates Costco to generate $9,587,500 in State,
County and local tax revenues, one of many socio-economic benefits detailed in the
DEIS (DEIS at III.Q-4). While the Applicant does not claim that all of the proposed
projects revenues would have otherwise been spent outside the Town of Yorktown,
Westchester County and/or New York, its Market Study indicates over $1.7 billion in
leakage from the trade area that could be potentially captured by the Project. Thus,
the Applicant anticipates that the Project would encourage more goods to be purchased
locally, thereby increasing local tax revenues.

Furthermore, the Applicant asserts that the comments regarding Sears Holding Corp.,
and their financial outlook, are unrelated to the Project. The article referenced in this
Comment does not indicate that the Sears-operated stores in Yorktown are at risk of
closure, or what impacts the Project may have on such stores, nor does the
Applicants analysis. Additionally, the potential closure of Sears is a corporate
decision, which would depend on a number of variables unrelated to the Project.

The Town Board has determined in its Comprehensive Plan that the Project Site is an
appropriate location for large-scale retail use. Refer to DEIS Section III.A and FEIS
Section III.Q Introductory Response.

Comment III.Q 26 - (Document 119.5, Olivia Bell Buehl):

Blight and Jobs
The developer says that Costco will not hurt existing businesses or blight the
community; moreover, it claims that Costco will add 200 jobs to the local economy.
The real facts, and what the applicants own report (see page 8 of the Retail Market
Analysis: Volume 3, Section K) shows, is that the grocery business category in
Yorktown has no extra sales potential to support an additional store. Nor does the
DEIS talk about the real impact to existing grocery stores, existing employees, or the
tax loss impact to the town if these other businesses close or contract. Further, it does

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-85

not discuss the impact to the quality of life in our town without these businesses. The
DEIS acknowledges more than 100 relevant businesses (their numbers and terms,
not mine), but its does not detail how many jobs will be lost. The conclusion is that
Costco will have no impact, which is patently contradicted by the data in the Retail
Market Analysis.

As I mentioned earlier, the projection for the Costco filling station is up to five
truckloads of gasoline a day. Thats more than a million gallons a month, the
equivalent supply of five to eight regular size gas stations. At $4 a gallon, thats $48
million a year. Costcos own report shows that the existing 15 gas stations in
Yorktown sell $86 million a year. The DEIS also states that this category, like the
grocery business category, has no potential for increased sales. Again, this appears in
the developers own report. This means that for Costco to meet its fuel sales
projections, it must capture more than half the sales from existing Yorktown filling
stations.

As with the grocery category, what the DEIS does not say is that when this happens,
the job loss will be well over 50 employees. Four or five gas stations are likely to
close, resulting in blight in the form of boarded-up filling stations. Who in their right
mind is going to rent them? These empty buildings will also lower the tax base,
shifting dollars from our community to Costcos corporate office.

Response III.Q 26:

Based upon the Applicants Market Analysis and the Commercial Character
Assessment, the Project is not anticipated to result in the closure of anchor stores
(which is one of the factors in determining blight) or to have a significant adverse
impact on community character or displacement of local businesses. The Applicant
asserts that this Comment provides no factual basis for its supposition. The Applicant
further asserts that it is not possible to estimate the number of jobs, if any, that may
be lost. The Applicant does not assert nor does the Applicants analysis show that
the Project will directly cause a net decrease in jobs in the Town. The DEIS does not
state that Costco will have no impacts; however, the Applicant asserts that no
significant, adverse socio-economic impacts are anticipated under SEQRA.

In determining the trade area, the Applicant took into account local market
conditions, including the number and location of similar retailers, including Costco
stores, in the area, as well as topography and geography (access to the Site). The
Applicants Market Study was based on a worst-case scenario, which tends to
overstate the impacts to fueling stations and food at home retail categories. For

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-86

instance, the Applicants Market Study limits the size the trade area for grocery
product lines to the smallest possible area, which increases the impact in the trade
area. According to the Applicant, the likely reality is that the grocery product lines
will draw from a significantly broader trade area than indicated, which will diminish,
rather than concentrate, adverse impacts to Yorktown retailers. Refer to FEIS III.Q
Introduction and FEIS Response III.Q 23a for information on the delineation of the
trade area.

The Applicant asserts that the potential, though unlikely, closure of gasoline stations
would generate no adverse impacts on the community character of Yorktown. As set
forth in the Applicants Community Character Assessment, no gasoline station in the
Yorktown Five Hamlet Study Area is an anchor or partial anchor, which
functions as a primary shopping destination and drives business to stores in the
surrounding areas. See DEIS Exhibit K, Attachment A. Refer to FEIS Response III.Q
3 on limited offerings, as the fueling station will only sell gas. Also, refer to FEIS
Response III.Q 8 and III.Q17a regarding the analysis on the proposed fueling station.

Comment III.Q 27 - (Document 119.8, Olivia Bell Buehl):

Taxes

The applicant says that Costco will bring in $92, 000 in town, $631, 000 in school,
and $91,000 in county taxes.
The real facts are that based on an assessment of $25 million, any number of other
projects would also bring in a comparable tax increase. Nor does the study bother to
adjust this number for any financial burden the project will impose on the town, such
as the cost of additional police. Although the DEIS refers to an estimated 106
additional police trips, that number is not backed up with the projected cost. That
information should be provided in detail. Every study on big box discount stores
shows that they result in a net loss in taxes for the surrounding community. For
example, look at the Barnstable study for the details, reflecting the opinion of
unbiased experts. (The Barnstable Fiscal Impact Analysis Report by Tischler &
Associates is attached.)

Response III.Q 27:

The DEIS analyzed the ways in which the Project could potentially impact the Town.
The DEIS states that in the Yorktown Police Departments letter of May 25, 2011, the
Police Chief indicated that the Department has historically been understaffed. It was

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-87

further indicated that the Project could result in an increase of 106 annual calls for
service. This translates to an average increase of two additional calls for service per
week. The Applicant asserts that these two weekly calls could be handled by existing
personnel and/or redistribution of existing manpower. Should the Town Board
determine that additional personnel would be warranted, the Applicant asserts that the
demand would be a reflection of the overall Town needs, attributed to current
conditions with only a minor increase resulting from the Project.

In response to the comment concerning the Barnstable study; the Applicant asserts
that this study is not a direct comparison and cannot be used to determine the fiscal
impacts of the Project. The Barnstable Study, which is over 10 years old, analyzed
"big boxes" in general and their impact on the Town of Barnstable on Cape Cod, a
seasonal resort area. Costco was not identified in that study.

Comment III.Q 28 - (Document 119.10, Olivia Bell Buehl)

Jobs
The applicant says that Costco pays an average of $19 per hour and will hire 200
people.
The real facts are that the number of part time jobs is far greater than the full time,
and Costco says in its own promotional materials that pay starts at $11 per hour.

Response III.Q 28:

According to the Applicant, there is roughly a 50/50 mix of full time to part time
employees at surrounding Costco stores; the majority is not part time. Please also
refer to FEIS Responses III.Q.1 and III.Q.7a.

Comment III.Q 29 - (Document 119.11, Olivia Bell Buehl), (PH2, Olivia Buehl):

The transcript for Public Hearing 2 is provided in Appendix B.

Conclusions and Request for Information
Again and again the developer goes out of its way not to reveal all the facts. If the
townspeople and the Planning Board are to make an informed decision, we need all
the facts, not just the ones that make it look like a great deal. Therefore, I am formally
requesting the following information from the applicant so that my fellow members
of Yorktown Smart Growth and I we [sic] can evaluate the project in a fair and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-88

unbiased manner. Further, once we have this information in hand, we need the time to
do a proper analysis, hire professionals to evaluate the answers, and submit our
comments.


a. What are the projected dollar sales of wholesale vs. retail?
b. What are the criteria used to determine which is which? What is the
quantity of an item one must purchase for it to be classified it as a
wholesale item?
c. Which of the nine categories of goods in the Retail Market Analysis are
considered wholesale and which are considered retail?
d. What are the projected dollar volumes of each so we can ascertain how
much of the business is legitimately wholesale and how much is
traditional retail?
e. If for instance, the entire jewelry department is retail, what is the
percentage of square footage and dollar sales volume it represents as
compared to the total square footage and sales volume?

Response III.Q 29:

It is estimated that 35 percent of Costcos total warehouse sales will be wholesale.
Therefore, the rest and the majority of the sales are made by retail customers.



Blight and Jobs

a. What are the projected sales by Costcos nine business categories
b. What percentage in each category will come from existing sales versus
untapped available sales?
c. What is the projected impact on the relevant stores broken down into the
above categories, detailing the impact as a percentage on theft existing
sales, and resultant loss of sales and personal?
d. What is the projected impact on the same nine categories to their gross
margins?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-89

e. What are the projected losses of tax revenue from the above relevant
stores resulting from blight?
f. Does Costco intend to sell liquor upon opening? Does a deed restriction or
other code restrict these sales in perpetuity? If not could the decision to
sell liquor change in the future? Has Costco opened stores in other
locations without selling liquor and later added it? If there is any
possibility that liquor could be sold at some future date, why were the
stores in the liquor category left out of the analysis? Please add these
stores to the Retail Market Analysis if that is the case.
g. Detailed information by job type category is missing. What is the
projected number of employees by job categories, starting wages, and
anticipated average turnover?
h. What is the NYS UI% rate for existing stores in New York State to assist
in analyzing turnover/layoff costs?
i. Regarding payments made to Port Chester in the 1% give-back-to-
charities program, how much has been donated since Costco came to that
town? And to which organizations? If it is not being done in Port Chester,
please provide that information for another similar geographic location.
j. Based on projections for the first five years of sales in Yorktown, how
much does Costco anticipate would be given to the charities program?
k. How will the program will be monitored and how often and when will
payments be made?

Response III.Q 30:

a-d. The questions raised by the commenter in subparts a, c and are not relevant to the
Site Plan Approval of the Project. The questions address topics that are unrelated to
the environmental impacts of the Project under SEQRA or Site Plan review under
New York State law. Refer to FEIS III.Q Introductory Response.

According to the Applicant, the information requested in Subpart b regarding existing
sales versus untapped available sales is unavailable. The percentage spent in each
category varies by store, and it is difficult to conclusively predict the percentage in
each category that will come from existing sales versus untapped available sales.

e. Based on the Applicants Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment,
there are no projected losses of tax revenue from relevant establishments resulting in
blight/displacement, as no blight/displacement or community character impacts is
anticipated to occur from the Project.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-90

f. According to the Applicant, Costco has no plan to open a liquor pod on the
outside of the building. To sell liquor, New York State law requires a separate sales
area with its own entrance and exit. By law, in store Costco can only sell beer and
wine products on the floor. Additionally, the Applicant does not have adequate space
to include a liquor pod on the outside of the building. Also, the Site Plan does not
include a liquor pod, and it is not part of the application. Assuming that it was
proposed to be added, the new proposal would have to go through another review in
front of the Planning Board in Yorktown.

g. The detailed information by job category is not included because it is determined
by the manager and needs of the individual store. The figure for average salary
($41,058) was provided from the Costco Facts Sheet and is accurate based on a full
time employee who has been with Costco for four years.

h. This question does not relate to the environmental impacts of the Project, and thus
is not subject to SEQRA.

i. Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 7b regarding the one percent give-back-to-charities
program in which Costco designates one percent of annual pretax profit to local
charitable organizations.

j. The pretax profits of an individual store do not coincide with what Costco may
donate to the local community. This is why these dollars were not included in the net
fiscal impacts/benefits to the Town of Yorktown. And five year projections cannot be
calculated.

k. Costcos corporate donations policy is not based on individual stores profits or
sales. Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q.7b and III.Q.23d for information on pretax
profits for charity. As charitable funding is not an adverse environmental impact, but
is instead a public benefit and is not being relied upon by the Applicant to mitigate
any adverse impacts, Costco is not required under SEQRA to specify the amount of
dollars provided to other organizations in the area.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-91



Alternatives

What are the estimated tax assessments for each projected alternate use by
category: school, town, and county compared to those for Costco?

Response III.Q 31:

Annual property tax generation for each of the alternatives illustrated in Section IV of
the DEIS was provided in Table IV.5. The Applicant asserts that the overall annual
property tax generated for each alternative should be sufficient to make a relative
comparison of the value of each alternative (with regard to tax generation) when
compared with the Project.

Comment III.Q 32 - (Document 122.1, Al Boutross):

Claus.


Mindful of the large amounts of money promised to our town, our schools,
and to the County, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that such money flowing
into the coffers will ever result in decreased taxes. On the contrary, the schools, for
example, will simply spend the additional income and continue to tax us to the
maximum allowed. Similarly, the government entities.

Response III.Q 32:

The Project will provide additional taxes to the Town of Yorktown. Refer to the DEIS

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-92

Section Q and FEIS Introductory Response and Response III.Q 1 for more
information on the Projects projected tax revenues. How the Town and schools
decide to allocate that revenue is beyond the scope of the SEQRA review process.

Comment III.Q 33 - (Document 129.1, Peter F Kennedy, Greyrock Accounting Systems Inc.):

I am a resident of Putnam Valley however I have my business in the hamlet of Shrub
Oak. My firm Greyrock Accounting Systems, Inc. is a management and consulting
company that works with over 200 professional retail gasoline stations and for those
near the proposed Costco site I am concerned.

The majority of the gas stations in this area are individually owned. They are family
run businesses, many of them residents of Yorktown and l am worried about their
livelihood. Having worked in the oil industry since 1977 I can truthfully attest that
despite the retail pump prices increasing to record levels, the gasoline retailer
typically earns no more than 20-cents a gallon....and this is before expenses. Rents
today have also escalated to $15K or more per month and the cost of the credit card
exceeds $5 -$7K per month. Any loss of volume will have a seriously negative effect
on the overall profitability of these small businesses.

I ask your consideration in removing the gasoline component from the Costco
application. The livelihood of many of these small businesses will be in jeopardy.
Sure, that local gas station will still be at the corner however chances are that it will
be operated by someone new. Someone who no longer has the funds to adequately
stock the store, landscape the property, light the driveways safely at night and even
clean the bathrooms properly. Where there are currently local jobs for 5 -10
employees at each gas station, these New operators will work most of the hours
themselves, laying off many to simply meet the demands of the overhead.

I have served on the Putnam Valley planning board as well as 2 terms as a Town
Councilman I totally understand and appreciate how difficult your volunteer jobs
are. I hope what I have shared with you today is of some assistance. If you think it
would help your due diligence I would be happy to discuss this further with the board
in person.

Response III.Q 33:

The Applicant asserts that the potential change is ownership of gas stations in
Yorktown is speculative and has no relationship to the environmental impacts of the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-93

project. Also, many gas stations provide ancillary services besides gasoline. The
Applicant asserts that their profit is from these other types of services such as oil
changes or automobile repairs, and convenience stores
24
. Refer to FEIS Response
III.Q 8.

Comment III.Q 34 - (Document 134.4, Olivia I. Buehl):

Relevant Research
Numerous studies on the impact on retailers after a big box store comes to town
provide powerful evidence that such stores, including warehouse clubs, destabilize
local retailers. For example, Competing with the Discount Mass Merchandisers,
by Kenneth E. Stone, Ph.D., of Iowa State University, looked particularly at the
impact of a WalMart on Iowa towns with populations of from 5,000 to 30,000. The
study concluded, The shopping habits of customers fundamentally change after the
introduction of discount mass merchandisers. They purchase more of their
merchandise at the mass merchant and less at local merchants. The result is the loss
of many stores across the state.

Another study published in 2012 in the Economic Development Quarterly, The
Impact of an Urban WalMart Store on Area Businesses: The Chicago Case, by
David Merriman, J oseph Persky, J ulie Davis, and Ron Bairnan, came to the same
conclusion. It also found that the arrival of a WalMart generated no significant
increase in net employment rates or net tax revenues. The abstract states: This
study, the first on the impact of a WalMart in a large city, draws on three annual
surveys of enterprises within a four-mile radius of a new Chicago WalMart. It shows
that the probability of going out of business was significantly higher for
establishments close to that store. This probability fell off at a rate of 6% per mile in
all directions. Using this relationship, we estimate that WalMarts opening resulted
in the loss of approximately 300 full-time equivalent jobs in nearby
neighborhoods. This loss about equals WalMarts own employment in the area. Our
analysis of separate data on sales tax receipts shows that after its opening there was
no net increase in retail sales in WalMarts own and surrounding zip codes. Overall,
these results support the contention that large-city WalMarts, like those in small
towns, absorb retail sales from nearby stores without significantly expanding the
market.

A 2009 working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Mom-and-
Pop Meet Big-Box: Complements or Substitutes? echoes this theme. Among its

24
http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/340191/facts-about-gas-prices-and-oil-profits

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-94

conclusions: The entry and growth of Big-Box stores has a substantial negative
impact on employment growth and survival of single unit and smaller chain stores
that operate in the same detailed industry as the Big-Box. This negative impact
attenuates with distance from the Big-Box. That is, the impact is largest if the single
unit or smaller chain store is within 1 mile or 1 to 5 miles of the Big-Box store
relative to being 5 to 10 miles from the Big-Box. The authors note that an exception
to this pattern is chain restaurants. Does Local Firm Ownership Matter? by David
A. Fleming and Stephen J . Goetz, both of Pennsylvania State University, published
in 2011 in Economic Development Quarterly, raises an important question. The
conclusion as stated in the online abstract follows:

Economic growth models that control for other relevant factors reveal a positive
relationship between density of locally owned firms and per capita income growth
but only for small (10-99 employees) firms, whereas the density of large (more than
500 workers) firms not owned locally has a negative effect. These results provide
strong evidence that local ownership matters for economic growth but only in the
small size category. Results are robust across rural and urban counties.

A report by Richard K, Gsottschneider, CRE, Understanding The Tax Base
Consequences Of Local Economic Development Programs, commissioned by the
city of Concord, New Hampshire, looked at the issue of whether new development
in a town can inadvertently cause property values to decline at other locations within
the town, among the reasons cited for such declines were two that have bearing for
Yorktown:

Retail values were relatively high in the major development corridors,
but the assessment data indicates that older retail areas, in and around the
downtown, were losing value as a result of additional competition.
Alternate uses have not been found for these declining areas.
Commercial and industrial encroachment into residential neighborhoods
was having a negative impact on residential property values. Since
residential property represented 57 percent of the municipal tax base, the
overall impact on assessed values was sizeable.

These are only five of numerous studies. For more relevant research, see The Big Box
Swindle, by Stacy Mitchell, copies of which I have submitted to the Planning
Department.

To fully understand the impact of Costco on existing businesses requires looking at
all retail businesses, not just those that the applicant has decided to focus on. By that I

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-95

mean any business that sells a product or service that appears on the Costco Product
Index.

Response III.Q 34:

The Applicant asserts that some of the research studies cited do not pertain to the
Project, as Costco is a wholly different type of retailer compared with Walmart.
Please refer to FEIS Response III.Q 14.

In terms of the potentially relevant studies cited, it is beyond the scope of the DEIS to
review and comment on each individual study, and it should be pointed out that
studies to the contrary also exist.
25
However, refer to FEIS Responses and III.Q 17a-f
regarding the projected impacts on the food at home and fueling stations.

Comment III.Q 35 - (Document 42.6, Yorktown Smart Growth):


Building a Costco Wholesale Club at the intersection of the Taconic Parkway and
Rte. 202/35 would result in serious traffic problems, noise, air pollution, toxic runoff,
and other adverse environmental effects.

If we believe in our town motto Progress with Preservation, do we really want
Yorktown to be dominated by strip malls as Yonkers, Port Chester, and New
Rochelle are?

And, contrary to what we are being told, Costco would almost certainly not boost the
local economy, especially when the impact on existing retailers and the cost of
additional government services are factored in.

Maintaining the character of Yorktown doesnt mean sacrificing economic strength
and resilience. It does mean encouraging the kind of balanced development that
ensures our towns economic health today and in the future.

25
http://business.pages.tcnj.edu/files/2011/07/kababikthesis.pdf

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-96

Response III.Q 35:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q.2 and III.Q.8 for impacts on existing retailers and
III.Q.4 and III.Q.15b for impacts on governmental services.

Comment III.Q 36 (Document 139.4, Jonathon Nettelfield):

Page l-37: Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts. The DEIS states Once fully
operational, the project will create approximately 200 permanent direct jobs with
annual earnings of approximately $8,207,680. No analysis of jobs lost (for example
at other retailers that may close as a result of Costco) is included in the DEIS so in
order to evaluate the net potential to Yorktown, this information should be included.

Response III.Q 36:

Based upon its analysis, the Applicant asserts there will be no net loss of jobs as a
result of Costco. Refer to DEIS Section III. Q and FEIS Section III. Q Introductory
Response.

Comment III.Q 37 (Document 139.5, Jonathon Nettelfield), (PH2, Jonathon Nettelfield):


Page l-38: Retail Market Analysis. (including Appendix VII.K.) The DEIS attempts
to justify the addition of a 150,000 square ft warehouse club by using a patently
outdated model of consumer retail behavior. First, assumptions are made about the
distances that consumers are willing to drive to purchase goods based on NATIONAL
averages, with an adjustment to reflect local market conditions. There is no data on
what this adjustment might be or how it varies from a national average.

Response III.Q 37:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 22b and III.Q.23a.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-97



Second the retail market analysis looks at the cannibalization between existing Costco
stores but not other retail establishments (like the BJ s over the road). We would
expect Costco to do their own market analysis to justify an additional store within
their existing network of stores but this does not tell us how it would impact other,
competitive, retailers. We note that the consultant quoted Reillys Law of Retail
Gravitation as the source and the application of this formula to determine distances
that consumers will travel to buy goods. Leaving aside that this formula was derived
in 1931 and many factors have changed since then, simply to rely on this formula to
calculate distances that people will travel to shop suggests a very superficial analysis.

Response III.Q 38:

Refer to FEIS Responses IIIQ.2 on competitive impacts, III.Q.5 on Costco and BJ s
coexisting, III.Q 15a on category killer and IIIQ.22b on Reillys Law.



Third, the use of three kinds of trade rings to segment shopping habits by frequency
and distance, while appropriate for general shopping, makes much less
sense for warehouse club shopping where large quantities of everything are purchased
less frequently. Accordingly the subsequent analysis, breaking down the number of
households with their disposable income in these rings, is flawed.

Response III.Q 39:

Refer to FEIS Response III.Q.22b on Reillys Law.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-98



Fourth, the analysis makes no mention of the growth of internet sales as a modifier to
consumer shopping habits. In fact it asserts, for the purposes of this analysis, it is
assumed that the current year market conditions will not change between 2010 and
2015. There is not a single, serious study of retail that does not devote extensive
analysis of changes due to widespread growth of internet shopping. The net result of
these shortcomings leads to the conclusion that this retail market analysis is self-
serving to the applicant and does not reflect the real impact a Costco would have.

Response III.Q 40:

Refer to Response FEIS III.Q.22c on the impact of internet sales.

Comment III.Q 41 (Document 150.1, Small and Medium-sized Businesses of Yorktown):

Refer to Document 150 in Appendix 1 for a complete list of the (25) Businesses

We are a pro-economic growth group of small and medium-sized businesses of
Yorktown and surrounding areas voicing our strong opposition to the proposed
COSTCO Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility along Route 202. Creating an
environment in which locally owned independent businesses can thrive and multiply
is at the core of any public private partnership that Yorktown officials should
promote.

We are a group representing companies of all sizes, such as mom and pop shops,
grocers, fuel suppliers, and manufacturers, committed to protecting our interests as
business taxpayers and united to fight this potential threat to our businesses. We, local
businessmen align with the concept of hamlet shopping upon which the adopted
Yorktown Comprehensive Plan is based. COSTCO will eliminate the hamlet for us
all, and our businesses will be highly affected by the proposed project.

In this fragile business climate, any whole seller in our business community will ruin
us, as COSTCOs excessive wholesale discounts will have horrific ramifications for
all businesses along Route 202. COSTCO is the predator type of business that causes
traffic problems that will drive away our customers. It will simply absorb our
businesses, drastically hurting us, unless you decide to pass on this project. Should

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-99

COSTCO be built, we, the small and medium businesses, will feel the high toll of
this.

Response III.Q 41:

The analysis conducted by the Applicant asserts that the Study Area can absorb
additional retail space, based on the findings of the Retail Market Analysis in
Appendix K of the DEIS. Also, refer to Section III.Q of the DEIS regarding
community character and FEIS Responses III.Q.1 on regional draws and consistency
with Town Comprehensive Plan, III.Q.2 on competitive impacts and III.Q.3b on
relevant retailers.



The last question we have is what if COSTCO itself becomes unprofitable and may
close; will there be any small and medium-sized businesses to make it up for this
giant box store? By then we will all be out of business.

Response III.Q 42:

In addition, based on the Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment
prepared by the Applicant, as well as the responses to comments in this FEIS, the
Applicant asserts that the Project will not cause significant adverse impacts on
existing businesses in the area. Please refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 1 and IIIQ. 2 on
taxes, jobs and competitive impacts.

Comment III.Q 43 (Document 153.1, Babette Ballinger):




_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-100

Regarding Section III Q pages 1-38 of the Retail Market Analysis (including
Appendix VII.K) the DEIS attempts to use patently outdated models of consumer
behavior to justify their means. I kindly request that the developer of the Yorktown
Costco project provide and make public the details upon which it bases its claim that
Costco will neither impact existing local market conditions nor cause hardship to
retailers and other consumers within the local trade area.

Studies have been done to estimate the effects of Costco and Sams Club, both
wholesale big box stores, on local grocery prices using a unique dataset of warehouse
club entry dates and locations matched with city-level panel data on prices of a range
of items from the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association Cost of
Living Index (ACCRA COLI).5

See Appendix for Referenced Studies

Response III.Q 43:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 15, III.Q 17 and III.Q 39.

Comment III.Q 44 (Document 172.39, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society):

According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 3.8 million people in New York State
alone watch birds and other wildlife, and generate approximately $1.6 billion in
ecotourism revenue annually. One only join [sic] the more than 4,000 visitors to
Teatown Reservations annual EagleFest to witness the power of ecotourism
firsthand. Degradation of our natural resources has a real financial impact on our
community. When taken with the loss of small businesses in the local economy and
increased fire, police, and highway maintenance costs the potential tax revenue from
the proposed development begins to look paltry in comparison.

Response III.Q 44:

The Applicant asserts that there is no basis to conclude that the Project would degrade
any ecotourism currently occurring. The comment is speculative and non-specific
about the claimed negative effect that the Project would have on ecotourism.
Finally, the Comprehensive Plan denotes the area for development, not preservation.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-101

Comment III.Q 45 (Document 174.9, Stephen L. Steeneck):

The DEIS show a section called; III. Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation
Q. Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts and is therefore submitted as EXHIBIT 7.
Under b. Socio Economic it states In 2015, households residing in the inner market
(5 mile radius) are closest to the project site are projected to have the potential to
spend $ 424,941,769 in convenience-oriented retail products. Are we are [sic]
residents of the Town of Yorktown so wealthy that for the year of 2015 these
numbers are the numbers in which we can expect to spend on convenience-oriented
retail products. If that were true, how come there are a number of businesses that are
already vacant and currently out of business along the Route 202 span to Lexington
Ave, westbound. In fact, these numbers MUST be wrong and calculated based on
wrong data. The question is, how in EXHIBIT 7 (Demographics) can a Town of
36,081 population with a Median Household Income of $ 72,720 be able to reach and
support these numbers? In fact, the numbers just dont add up and the Town of
Yorktown DOES NOT support these numbers period. Please have the Costcos
respective Attorneys and Representatives address these numbers and provide further
clarification.

Response III.Q 45:

The Applicant asserts that the formula used by its consultant is standard in calculating
spending potential (FEIS Response III.Q.22b). Local retail sales and spending
potential do not necessarily intersect. As the Applicants consultant has demonstrated,
much of the household income for retail is being spent outside, rather than inside, the
trade area. Vacant storefronts are likely due to a number of factors, some of which
relate to leakage, and others which relate to a variety of other retailing trends and
individual corporate ownership decisions. Most of the storefronts were vacant
preceding Costcos announcement to open and some of these storefronts have been
re-tenanted since the Applicants analysis in 2011-2012.


It must be noted that EXHIBIT 8, shows page 8 and page 10 respectfully as to
pertaining to The DEIS under Retail Market Study. There is a graph on page 8
which clearly shows the DEIS reporting an OVER SUPPLY to the market in the
Inner Market Area (5 mile radius) which means that Food At Home is over
supplied by $ 40,186,895. Also, OVER SUPPLY of $18,176,520 in the area of
Transportation & Auto Expenses. What concerns me is very simple. These number

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-102

are OVER SUPPLY NOT under supply. This means simple math and a
SATURATED MARKET. The concern is that within a 5 mile radius there is too
much supply and not enough demand. I do believe we are one of the ONLY towns in
Westchester County that is actually shrinking in size. Our Population has decreased in
size since the last Census. Even with development the Population of the Town of
Yorktown is not growing and as such, we cannot afford to saturate an already
saturated market place. This will cause current businesses, who pay local taxes, to
relocate, close or just go out of business. Is this the type of Sustainable
Growth we are looking for our Town. NO, this is the wrong type of businesses to
come into an already saturated market and kill local businesses. Costco states that
both they and BJ s do co-exist in other areas. Well, lets point the facts as facts. In the
City of Yonkers, there is ONE Costco, NO BJ s or any other wholesale club.
Additionally, Costco has its own entrance ramp on Route 87 in which to reach
Costco. Also, the roads like Central Avenue in the City of Yonkers are Three (3)
lanes in each direction. NOT one (1) lane in each direction. The DEIS states that there
is a Costco and a BJ s in Long Island, very close to each other, some .86 of a mile.
Well, lets address the facts. Costco is in Melville Long Island, which is a hamlet of
the Town of Huntington in the County of Suffolk. The BJ s is in Farmingdale, which
is a village within the Town of Oyster Bay and is in the County of Nassau. Why is
this important, well the facts are this and not as described to in the DEIS. The two
stores are not even in the same town or same county. Lets not forget that the roads in
Long Island are much bigger and the traffic is just horrible. FACT, NO OTHER
TOWN OR CITY IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK HAS 2 WHOLESALE CLUBS.
In fact, the Town of Yorktown already has a BJ s and now adding a Costco will cause
extreme trouble for the local business and by Costcos own statements in the DEIS
PROVES that there is an OVER SUPPLY of goods and services within a 5 mile area
of the Project it cannot be more clear as to what will happen next, should this
Project be allow to proceed further.

Response III.Q 46:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 15 and III.Q 17a for more information regarding the
Applicants Market Study.

Refer to FEIS Response III. Q 5 on how BJ s and Costco are able to coexist within the
same area. Furthermore, the statement made in this Comment regarding that no other
Town or City in the State of New York has two wholesale clubs is not correct. There
is a Costco and a BJ s located in Westbury, New York, with the same zip code of
11590. According TO Costco, its store is viable, and that appears to be the case of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-103

the BJ s
26
. However, the Applicant cannot speculate on the sales generated by BJ s and
that information is not publicly available.


It is a fact that BJ s Wholesale Club is less than .5 a mile from this Project and as
such, lets look at the details. BJ s is less than 80,000 Square Feet in size and have
NO gasoline filling station. Well, the Costco Project is over 151,000 Square Feet in
size and will have a gasoline filling station. What does this mean? It means that what
will be next for BJ s, a petition to the Town of Yorktown for a large building? How
about adding gasoline? BJ s will complain that the Town of Yorktown will have
treated them unfairly and discriminated against them due to allowing the Costco
Project to be nearly double the size of BJ s own location and has cost them undue
harm by allowing Costco to have gasoline, which it will not have granted BJ s. Is
this fair competition? NO, in fact it is selective competition and NOT allow two to
compete for business, PERIOD. This alone will create other issues and cause major
harm for more businesses, locally. Is it fair for one to have double the size and the
other to have gasoline, while limiting the other? NO. This is a catch-22 and creating a
new debate as to what is fair for one is fair for all. Lets remember the figures as
shown and proven above. The current marketplace is currently saturated for gasoline.
The Planning Board will be removing businesses from the Project area and
replacing them with a NON LOCAL Huge Corporation that does not keep the money
local. In order to be local, you must live local and spend locally. Costco is NOT local,
they do not live here, they are a Washington State Based Business who decided to
come to the area, to saturated marketplace and just put local businesses out of
business. These local businesses are our friends, our family and our neighbors. They
PAY LOCAL TAXES and feed our economy. We need to stand up and say here in
our Town of Yorktown, we protect our local businesses and we do all we can to help
them grow, we do not allow big businesses to come into our Town (like Locusts) and
kill our local economy. The Planning Board needs to stand up for our local businesses
and send the message that we are here to help you grow. The Planning Board is here
to make sure you will survive and grow. I urge the Planning Board to consider the
small businesses whom are directly affected, to protect them from undue harm and
allow them to grow with progress. Not to help drive them out of business. We must
stand up and say, here we help our local business and there is Sustainable Businesses
out there that can actually help GROW our economy WITHOUT adding massive

26
According to Maryann DiGuiseppi, Secretary of the Westbury-Carle Place Chamber of
Commerce, both Costco and BJ s have been located in Westbury, NY for at least 10 years and while the
Chamber does not keep any official statistics on how they are doing, both are still in business.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-104

traffic to the Project area. I implore you all to consider all of the fact and see what
this Project will do to our local economy and our local businesses.

Response III.Q 47:

The Comments assertions regarding BJ s unfair treatment by the Town is not
pertinent to environmental impacts. The Applicant asserts that BJ s and Costco attract
different demographics and also notes that the gas station component of the Project
will be for Costco members only. Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q.2 on competitive
impacts and III.Q.5 on Costco and BJ s coexisting.

Based on the Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment prepared by the
Applicant, as well as the responses to comments in this FEIS, the Applicant asserts
that the Project will not cause significant adverse impacts on existing businesses in
the area. Please refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 1 and IIIQ. 2 on taxes, jobs and
competitive impacts.


To prove the above statements is EXHIBIT 9, this exhibit is found under Section VII
Appendices K. Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment,
Commercial Character Assessment. 1.0 Introduction paragraph 2 states, As one of
the criteria to help determine the potential impacts of the proposed Costco store, vis-
-vis other retail, this analysis focuses on ascertaining whether the development of the
proposed project would adversely impact the viability and character of the
surrounding concentrations of commercial activity with the Town principally those
establishments that carry all or part of Costcos product line (relevant retail
establishments) to the extent of causing displacement and a significant blighting
influence on surrounding retailers. That is to say, the issue is not potential economic
disadvantages caused by competition per se, but to potential adverse impacts on
existing retailers, resulting in some physical injury to the community such as
neighborhood blight. What more can I address to this statement. Costcos own DEIS
is saying they are going to put local businesses OUT of business and the most
powerful statement is resulting in some physical injury to the community, they are
admitting they are going to HURT out local economy. Simple, pointed out and
proven by the DEIS. This is another reason why The Planning Board MUST deny this
Project and say sorry we are NOT here to hurt our local economy, in fact we are
here to help it grow. Again, we need Sustainable Growth and it should be noted for

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-105

the record that Costcos respective Attorneys and Representatives contained within
the DEIS are saying we are going to hurt your local economy. This is crystal clear
and cannot be allowed to destroy our local economy.

Response III.Q 48:

This Comments statement Costcos own DEIS is saying they are going to put local
businesses out of business, takes a sentence from the DEIS out of context. The
quoted sentence describes the scope of the Projects socio-economic analysis, not its
findings. The Project will include a broad mix of middle market merchandise, and
will likely compete, to some extent, with nearby retailers. However, the results of the
Applicants Commercial Character Assessment in the DEIS indicate that the Project
is not expected to create blight or significant adverse impacts to community
character in existing commercial concentrations in the Yorktown Five Hamlet Study
Area.

In Westchester, Costco stores exist in Yonkers, Port Chester and New Rochelle and
the Chambers of Commerce in these communities have endorsed Costco as a good
neighbor that contributes to the community and does not adversely impact local
businesses.


In EXHIBIT 10, this exhibit is found under Section VII Appendices K. Market
Study and Commercial Character Assessment, Commercial Character Assessment.
Section 3.0 - Findings. It states, Overall, there are in excess of 400 establishments
and 198 retail establishments in the Study Area. Of the 198 retail establishments
inventoried, the survey results indicated the presence of 98 relevant retail
establishments, almost 50 percent of the retailers observed in the Study Area. All I
can say is wow, 50 percent of the local businesses and this is Costcos respective
Attorneys and Representatives own numbers. Personally, they excluded a number of
businesses, like bakeries and others. Costco sells baked goods and has a bakery on
site for just that. Why are these bakeries not listed? Still 50 percent of the businesses
with over 400 identified, that is a scary number. If Costco does in fact come into the
area, that means that 50 percent of Local business will be affected. Is that
competition, NO, it is totally destruction of almost 50 percent of the local businesses.
Lets say that 50 percent of those 50 percent have to leave or go out of business, how
much in taxes will the Town of Yorktown Lose? YES, if we lose 10 percent, 20
percent, 50 percent or even all 50 percent of these businesses who are directly

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-106

affected, what is the real cost or NET LOSS to the town in taxes ? These businesses
pay local taxes and inspire local growth of our local economy. Should be negate the
50 percent that the DEIS and Costcos respective Attorneys and Representatives
ADMIT too? Should we say to those 50 percent sorry, the Town of Yorktown is NOT
open for your business, we are OPEN for big NON-Local businesses ? The truth is
the hard truth, the DEIS paints a bleak picture for 50 percent that they are including,
not the real numbers and I will state below.

Response III.Q 49:

Refer to FEIS Response III.Q 3 for specific information as to what establishments
were considered relevant retailers and why certain businesses are not considered
relevant.

Please refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 1 and IIIQ. 2 on taxes, jobs and competitive
impacts.


In EXHIBIT 10, page 16 does state in paragraph 3, No retail anchors or partial
anchors in the Study Area were found to be in danger of going out of business,
including the nearby BJ s store. The in-line retail establishments located in the BJ s
Shopping Center could potentially be affected if the BJ s store were to close.
Another example of the fact that direct competition will adversely affect BJ s and
cost a strain on the local businesses, as these facts are supported in the DEIS and
Costcos respective Attorneys and Representatives state as such. This cannot be
dispute and is very clear. Add a Costco and remove almost 50 percent of the
Local Businesses. This is clearly stated in the DEIS, FACT. Why would any Board or
anyone allow this to hurt our already struggling local economy? In fact, The Planning
Board will directly be hurting and putting close to 50 percent of the local businesses
OUT OF BUSINESS. Is that the message The Planning Board is trying to send?

Response III.Q 50:

Contrary to this Comments statements, the DEIS does not suggest that Costco will
adversely affect BJ s and cause a strain on local businesses. The DEIS supports the
opposite, that BJ s and other local businesses will not be adversely impacted. The

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-107

DEIS states that no retail anchors or partial anchors in the Yorktown Five Hamlet
Study Area were found to be in danger of going out of business, including the BJ s
store.

The Project will likely compete, to some extent, with nearby retailers. However,
based on the Applicant's Commercial Character Assessment the Project is not
expected to adversely impact the commercial character of the area.


In EXHIBIT 11 is pages 5 and 13 respectfully as reported by the DEIS under
Commercial Character Assessment. The first page or page 5, states in paragraph 2
About two thirds of the occupied commercial establishments in the Route 202
corridor is devoted to relevant retail merchandise. Whereas, page 13 does state,
About 60 percent of the occupied commercial establishments in the Yorktown
Heights hamlet is devoted to the sale of relevant retail merchandise. Again, further
proof that the DEIS and Costcos respective Attorneys and Representatives are stated
material fact that this Project will affect local businesses. It is very clear that this
affect is NOT in the positive, in fact they will be negatively affected. This will not
bode well for our existing businesses, Is it the intention of The Planning Board to hurt
local businesses? Or is it the real true intention to help and assist local businesses
grow and support our local economy. In fact, several politicians have stated the Stop
Local in there running for public office. This directly hampers and affects the local
businesses in a negative way. I urge The Planning Board to stand up for the Local
Businesses and keep our Town growing with Sustainable Growth, not with a Big Box
NON-Local Store trying to destroy local businesses.

Response III.Q 51:

Please refer to FEIS Response III.Q.50.


In EXHIBIT 12 is a listing of the affected businesses that Costcos respective
Attorneys and Representatives and the DEIS does point too. The First is Attachment
A and pages Al A2. This represents what the DEIS feels are the affected
businesses on Route 202 from the Taconic State Parkway to Lexington Ave West.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-108

The correct numbers are as follows. The DEIS lists 27 Businesses in that Corridor. Of
which 7 of them are Vacant, of which 1 is for sale. PLEASE NOTE:

These are Costcos respective Attorneys and Representatives own Numbers and
stated in the DEIS. This makes for a total amount of 19 businesses in that corridor.
The DEIS states that 13 of these 19 are affected by the impact of Costco. This makes
for 13/19 or 68.42 % of the businesses that are listed in the DEIS own documents.
This does not include a few businesses that should be listed, like bakeries, liquor
stores and such. This number is staggering on its own yet what really really concerns
me is the following numbers. You cannot include a business for sale with these
FACTS. Therefore, 7 Vacant Businesses out of 26 Total Business listed for a grand
total of 26.9 % are VACANT. 1f you want to include the business for sale, then the
numbers are larger, 8 Vacant Businesses out of 27 for a Grand Total of 29.6 %
VACANT. This is extremely disturbing due the fact that Costco is NOT here and
there are already over a 26% vacant rate for the businesses within a 2 mile
downstream of the Project. The numbers are staggering and just goes to prove the
fact that a Costco is NOT needed on this location. In fact, if by Costcos own
admissions in the DEIS, this 26+% Vacant Rate will increase due to 68.42% of the
local businesses being directly affected. This is NOT sustainable growth, this the
sound of closing doors for the businesses in the 2 miles area west of the Project.
This is just scary numbers and as such, SHOULD BE ALLOWED to DIRECTLY
DAMAGE the 68.42% of the Local Businesses on the Route 202 Corridor. In fact,
what should be addressed is the high vacancy rates that exist in this area. It is up to
The Planning Board should strike down this Project and see what it can do to assist
our local businesses in bringing in the RIGHT GROWTH that FITS with the Town of
Yorktowns own Comprehensive Plan.

Response III.Q 52:

Please refer to FEIS Response III.Q 3 on how relevant retailers were determined
and why certain types were excluded.

Furthermore, not all establishments were listed in Attachment A; therefore the
Applicant asserts that the 26.9 percent vacancy rate cited in this Comment is
inaccurate. As reflected in Attachment A, all the vacancies were included but many
establishments were excluded from the list of relevant retailers for the reasons
stated in FEIS Response III.Q 3. Also, the Applicant asserts that vacancies are caused
by a variety of factors and are unlikely caused solely by a new development.
Furthermore, the Applicant notes that directly affected does not mean they will be
driven out of business.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-109

Also refer to FEIS Section III. A, Responses III.A 3 and III.A 5.


As also referenced in EXHIBIT 12 is a list of Yorktown Heights, downtown area,
pages A-9, A-10 and A-11. These are pages that are provided by Costcos respective
Attorneys and Representatives and the DEIS. Here are the numbers and provided by
these documents: A total listing of 60 Businesses on all three pages and of that 35
Businesses are Affected by Costco. YES, thats right, 35 businesses affected. That
gives a Grand Total of 35/60 or 58.33% of the Businesses Located in the Center of
Yorktown. Of those affected are, A&P, CVS, TJ MAXX, Turcos and Big K-Mart.
Those are all anchor stores and hold the key to the plazas that they are located. I feel
like I must explain that the total amount of 60 stores, that I state are the stores that are
NOT vacant. If you were to add the vacant businesses/stores then the grand total of
Businesses/stores would be 83 total listed. There is a reason I am stating this, because
it shows 23 out of 83 stores are vacant in the Town of Yorktown, Center of
Yorktown. This figure pains me greatly as the numbers are 23 out of 83
businesses/stores that are VACANT for a Grand Total of 27.71%. Why add to that
number? Why hurt the businesses that are fighting for their share of the business in
The Center of Yorktown? We have a 27.71 % vacancy rate and Costcos own DEIS
claims to hurt an additional 58.33 % of the Businesses/Stores located in the Center of
Yorktown. This is totally unacceptable and should not be allowed to happen.
Whatever happened to helping the local businesses and supporting them? The
Planning Board owes it to the Local Businessmen/Businesswomen to help them and
not hurt them. By allowing this Project and Costco to come to the Town of
Yorktown, it will destroy the fabric of our Local Economy. I strongly urge The
Planning Board to stand up and fight to keep what keeps Yorktown different from the
rest. We Shop Local, we stand united in our fight to help our Local Businesses and
we support them. The Planning Board will directly he hurting the owns who pay The
Town Taxes, Support our Local Community and most of all they are our friends,
neighbors and family.

Response III.Q 53:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 50 and III.Q 52. As noted in Response III.Q 52, the
Applicant asserts that the vacancy rate for retail and service establishments stated in
this Comment is inaccurate.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-110

Comment III.Q 54 (Document 174.19, Stephen Steeneck):

Please address the real cost or loss of Taxes based on the above listed number of
Businesses being forced out due to the Over Supply of Business in the Project area?

Response III.Q 54:

The Applicant notes that directly affected does not mean they will be driven out of
business. Refer to FEIS Response III.Q.1 regarding taxes resulting from the Project
and how the Applicant asserts no adverse impacts on existing businesses.

Please address how come certain businesses were not included in the DEIS
Study? IE: Like bakeries and Liquor Stores, and such associated stores.

Response III.Q 55:

Please refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 3 regarding relevant retailers.


Please address how much in real taxes will be captured, should Costcos
respective Attorneys and Representatives decide to grieve the taxes on such said
property?

Response III.Q 56:

The Applicant has stated that it does not anticipate filing a real estate tax grievance
for the subject property, and any suggestion at this time that one would be filed is
speculative. Moreover, the amount of any such grievance, assuming one were to be
filed, would depend upon a future Town appraisal of the market value of the Property,
and could not be reasonably projected at this time. Accordingly, there is no basis for

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-111

estimating the amount of real estate taxes that would be reduced in a future grievance
process were one to arise, and any such efforts would be entirely speculative.


Please provide a P & L Statement (Profit and Loss Statement) whereas Costco
and their representatives will do an independent study to show and reflect all of
the businesses that are referred to in the DEIS with the Taxes they pay and what
would be the effect on the Town of Yorktown, should a Costco come into the
Town of Yorktown and the effects TAX wise would be reflected in this P & L
Statement. This would give the Town of Yorktown a clear statement of what
Costco would bring, should this effect of Local businesses be shown with dollars
and cents.

Response III.Q 57:

Real estate taxes are based on the market value of real estate and not on the profit
and loss statements of individual businesses, so the survey suggested in this
Comment would not yield relevant information relating to real estate taxes.
Moreover, tax returns or profit and loss statements from other business within the
trade area are not available. Also refer to FEIS Section III.Q Introductory
Response. Refer to DEIS Section III.Q, FEIS Section III.Q Introductory
Response and FEIS Response III.Q.1 regarding tax revenues and commercial
character of the Yorktown Five Hamlet Study Area.

Please FOIL request the Local Governments of Port Chester and Yonkers to PROVE
the revenue that the Town of Yorktown would receive in terms of Taxes and Sales
Taxes. Whereas, the DEIS makes certain statements, lets prove them with what was
told to the Local Governments of Port Chester and Yonkers and what the full results
were. This way the Town of Yorktown (Planning Board) would see very clearly what
the assumptions of the DEIS and the actual numbers, the difference would be. A full
and complete comparisons would be stated and easy to see the numbers, these
numbers would not lie and as such would be stated with real facts [sic].


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-112

Response III.Q 58:

The expected tax revenues to a municipality from a new development such as Costco
depend on a multiplicity of variables, so that a comparison of the tax revenues
generated by one store in one municipality would not be applicable to the revenues
expected to be generated by another store in a second municipality.


With numbers like 68.42% directly affected within 2 miles West of the Project and
58.33 % of the Businesses in the Center of Yorktown, would can [sic] only see what
is coming should this project be allowed to continue. What is most important, though,
is the vacancy rates seen now, over 26% and over 27% respectfully. This shows that
our local economy is fragile and in-dire need of some help to jump start it. NOT to rip
it apart by allowing a Costco to enter into an already fragile economy. Also, the DEIS
own numbers prove that it will remove businesses from our economy. The real
numbers in terms of taxes will NOT offset these loss of local businesses and in fact
will be a NET LOSS for The Town of Yorktown.

Response III.Q 59:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 50, and III.Q 52, as well as FEIS Responses III.A 3
and III.A 5.


We have come to a point in time for The Town of Yorktown to really put forward
what will affect our future generations to come. Please remember, NO OTHER
TOWN or CITY in the State of New York have two Wholesale Clubs, PERIOD. We
only have 36,000 population and we have over supply in the affected area, why
destroy and kill our local businesses?

Response III.Q 60:

Refer to FEIS Response III. Q 5 for map of existing Costco and BJ s locations, along
with a Table listing Costco and BJ s locations in the area within a 5 mile distance of
each other. Also, refer to FEIS Response III.Q 47 for an example of two wholesale

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-113

clubs located in the same zip code.

Comment III.Q 61 (Document 180.3, Gia Diamond):

The economic component of development that hinders the growth of small and
medium-sized businesses in favor of predator type conglomerate, such as COSTCO,
can hardly be deemed as sustainable development.

Response III.Q 61:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 1, 2, 3, 15 and 17.

Comment III.Q 62 (Document 180.4, Gia Diamond):

While Costco may add to the tax base, it is not clear that the added taxes will be
greater than the tax revenues lost from the closure of other businesses in the
Crompond Hamlet.

Response III.Q 62:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 1, III.Q 2.

Comment III.Q 63 (Document 138.2, Wayne Jeffers, Barrier Motor Fuels, Inc.):

My company, Barrier Motor Fuels, Inc. (Barrier) is a consultant to many gasoline
station operators throughout Westchester. Barrier was one of the largest motor fuel
distributors in the area. I help retail gas stations with their investment strategies with
regards to gasoline and diesel volume, as well as anticipated convenience store sales.
In this regard, I review traffic volume and anticipate volume over the term. I consider
competitors that exist and which may potentially enter or exit the market place. In
general, the gas business is somewhat static in that overall consumption does not vary
much and new competitors are generally restricted from the market place due to
zoning restrictions. Usually changes in volume at existing units are due to new
investments. In the case of Yorktown that is now considering abandoning the earlier
approved long-term development strategy, the Comprehensive Plan, specifically on
Rt. 202, by allowing COSTCO retail/wholesale store to include a gasoline facility in

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-114

this location, COSTCO expects to sell high volumes of gasoline which are anticipated
to reach nine hundred thousand gallons per month which is almost twice the existing
volume of gas sold at all of the stations on Rt. 202 in Yorktown. This new volume at
the intersection of Rt. 202 and the Taconic State Parkway will come first from the gas
stations and then from the new volume of traffic the COSTCO fueling helped bring in
the local Yorktown area putting more pressure on the existing heavy traffic.
Previously successful stations will experience reductions of motor fuel volume of
over fifty percent and an associated reduction in convenience store sales.

COSTCO project may entail litigation against the Town of Yorktown, which it may
not be currently anticipating. One such litigation is the Certiorari, which will
significantly lower the assessed value of gas stations and, accordingly, taxes that may
be generated. Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in the
U.S., which means an order by a higher court directing a lower court, tribunal, or
public authority to send the record in a given case for review. In this case, where
businesses have significant loss in volume and income, changes the value of the real
estate upon which the business is located. Every gas station in Yorktown will
experience volume reductions in gasoline and store sales, if COSTCO opens due to its
large volume of gasoline sales, which, obviously, will come from the surrounding
marketplace. Additionally, historic margins will be compromised as COSTCO, often
accused of predatory pricing to attract consumers into its stores, sells at margins that
cannot be met by local retailers. COSTCO may seem to represent a substantial
increase in tax revenue to the Town for their property on the surface, but does not
take into account the losses from Certiorari claims which may offset the Towns entire
gain.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-115

Response III.Q 63:

The Applicant asserts that the potential for litigation surrounding the impact of the
Project on the assessed value of other gasoline stations is speculative. There is no
evidence that the Project would lower the assessed value of other gas station
properties in the Town, nor is there any evidence that the owners of such properties
are contemplating litigation or would prevail in a certiorari proceeding. The potential
for class action litigation against the Town is also speculative. Further, in the event
that litigation were filed and a plaintiffs class were certified, lawful competition from
a new gas station would not, in the Applicants analysis, give rise to a cognizable
claim for lost profits against the Town. In addition, as described in FEIS Responses
III.A 3, III.A 5, III.A 6 and III.A 8, the Project is consistent with the
recommendations of the Yorktown zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan.

Refer also to FEIS Response III.Q 26 and Response III.Q 33.

Comment III.Q 64 - NOT USED


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-116

Comment III.Q 65 (PH2, Jim McKeen):

I want to talk about a different "T" word, taxes. We've been promised a rather
substantial figures of taxes benefits as a primary benefit for having Costco come to
town, both, for money for the town but also for the school district.

It is not uncommon for local municipalities to incorporate IDAs, Industrial
Development Authorities, to negotiate with someone like Costco and in the process
reducing those tax benefits. I would like to know specifically whether the town has
any plans to incorporate an IDA to negotiate with Costco. [PH2, page 67, lines 23-
25], [PH2, page 68, lines 1-13]

Response III.Q 65:

The Applicant has not applied for IDA financing or a tax exemption and has asserted
that it does not intent to file for one in the future.

Comment III.Q 66 (PH2, Jim McKeen):

And secondly, I think that considering that Costco has offered specific figures on
taxes, that we get it in writing and those are figures that they will stand by, since this
is considered to be a main benefit for the town. That's all, thank you. [PH2, page 68,
lines 14-20]

Response III.Q 66:

Comment noted. The ultimate amount of tax revenues will depend on variables that
cannot be conclusively determined at this time.

Comment III.Q 67 (PH2, Stephen Steeneck):

Moving forward. Anyway, my questions are as follows. Demand a P&L statement,
which is a profit and loss statement for those that don't know, for all the local
businesses that are affected according to the DEIS, which you know. I would like the
P&L statement for all the taxes that they pay.

Basically what that means is, you take up all the businesses, put them all together and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-117

see what the taxes revenue that they generate. Now you look at what Costco is going
to generate and you know what you don't want me to talk about, the sixty-eight
percent that is affected in that downstream area, if you lose ten percent of that, that's
two businesses. What if you lose more than ten percent what's going to happen then.

Now your tax is going to be adversely affected. People think oh, we are going to
have a tax break, well, it is thirty-five to forty dollars. Michael Grace's new budget is
seven percent increase -- over seven percent, excuse me. [PH2, page 84, lines 16-25],

Response III.Q 67:



Anyway, needless to say, I'll continue. Second question -- the first question is P&L
statement, profit and loss for all the affected area and businesses. Second, the
Planning Board should foil the local governments of Port Chester and Yonkers and
see what the DEIS or their preliminary DEISs contain and it's stated in terms of taxes
and revenues, and then ask for three years running for now and to see what they are
actually paying now.

So, you have a before and you have an after picture. Do you understand what I
mean? [PH2, page 85, lines 19-25], [PH2, page 86, lines 1-7]

Response III.Q 68:


Comment III.Q 69 (PH2, Peter Pergola):

I think they have absolute right, my taxes are going through the roof, I live in this
town and it is not that I am looking for a job, I am looking to stay here. And I can't
afford to stay here when we are going to lose $700,000.00 a year in taxes. And that's
the whole key here. [PH2, page 97, lines 18-24]


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-118

Response III.Q 69:

Refer to DEIS III.Q 1 for a discussion of the Projects anticipated generation of taxes to
the County, Town and School District.

Comment III.Q 70 - (Document 113.3, Lauren Hirsch):

Yorktown already experiences significant litter problems that is not only bad for the
environment, it erodes the beauty of our town, and hence reduces the value of our
homes (if you were looking at buying a home in Westchester County, would you
consider buying where there is litter all over the sides of the road, or in a town, where
the roads are kept pristine).

Response III.Q 70:

The Applicant asserts that there is no indication of a projected loss in property values
due to the Project (see FEIS Response III.Q.12 on property values). Refer to DEIS
Section J , which explains how Costco proposes to deal with litter concerns.

Comment III.Q 71 - (Document 145.4, No Costco Petitions (8)):


As concerned citizens and taxpayers who live in the White Hill/ Mill Pond area, the
undersigned wish to state our opposition to the proposed the Costco warehouse store
for many reasons.

Small businesses will be adversely affected by Costcos ability to undersell
them, resulting in more empty stores in Yorktown Heights and along Rte. 202.
Closure or reduced revenues will offset real estate and sales taxes generated
by Costco.



_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-119


Response III.Q 71:

Refer to DEIS Section III.Q Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts and FEIS Responses
III.Q.1 and III.Q.2.



Yorktown Planning Board should be exercising its due diligence by exploring all
adverse impacts of COSTCO before making a mistake of approving this project. You
have responsibility as the Town Supervisor and Members of Yorktown Town
Planning Board to help Yorktown achieve its potential with careful consideration of
interests of small and medium-sized businesses. It is up to you to help us avoid the
threat of existence as businesses once and for all.


Response III.Q 72:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5, III.A 6, and III.A 8 as to how the
development conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-120

Refer to the Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment prepared by the
Applicant and included in DEIS Appendix VII.K, and FEIS Responses III.Q 1, 2, 3
and 11, which show that the Project is not anticipated to adversely affect existing
businesses in the Town.

Comment III.Q 73 (Document 157.2, Michael Matero):

I have been a resident of Yorktown since J uly 1971. As you know this town has
grown quite a bit since then.

Yorktown is still a nice place to live, but it is gradually becoming another ugly Long
Island eg: overdeveloped, traffic jams, pollution and strip malls.

Last but not least, BJ s is down the street from where Costco wants to build,
imagine the possibility of one of the warehouses closing down due to one competing
against the other. Plywood doesnt look good covering windows and doors of a
vacant building.

Response III.Q 73:

Refer to the Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment prepared by the
Applicant and included in DEIS Appendix VII.K, and FEIS Responses III.Q 5 on
Costco and BJ s coexisting.


There is growth, then there is sustainable growth. Lets plan together and together
we will overcome the vacancies that exist now. Lets not add more of them to a
saturated market.

Please keep Yorktown going strong and keep our economy safe. Lets buy local and
share with our local businesses, they need us and we need them. Now is the time to
say thank you to those that have mortgaged their houses, took out loans and spend all
their hard earned money to start a local business. Saying thank you by driving them
out of business, that is not the purpose of The Planning Board and it is NOT the intent
of the Town of Yorktowns own Adopted Comprehensive Plan for the future. Please
stand up and say, this does not apply to our town and we cannot in good faith pass
any of this without thinking directly who we are hurting in the process. The Planning

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-121

Board will be putting businesses out of business, by allowing a massive Project to
directly hurt our Town. Lets progress while we preserve our town.

Thank you very much for taking the time to see why this Project and Costco is very
bad to our Town. I urge you to vote NO and keep our local businesses strong.

Response III.Q 74:

Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response on how the Project is consistent with the
Town of Yorktowns Comprehensive Plan. Also, the Project will likely compete, to
some extent, with nearby retailers. However, the Applicant's Commercial Character
Assessment suggests that the Project is not expected to adversely impact the
commercial character of the area or negatively impact the tax base in the Town. Refer
to Response III.Q 1 and Response III.Q 2 for more information.

Comment III.Q 75 (Document 120.1, Olivia Buehl, Yorktown Smart Growth):

As secretary of Yorktown SmartGrowth, I am submitting these six copies
of BIG BOX SWINDLE by Stacy Mitchell. This review by Philip Langdon in the
New Urban News, August, 2008, says it all:

Mitchell does an engrossing job ... one of the most informative books yet published
on how chain stores expand and on the damage to communities and the built
environment.
Philip Langdon, New Urban News, J uly/August 2008

One copy is for you. Please pass on the other five copies to the Planning Board for
their consideration with respect to the Costco DEIS.

Response III.Q 75:

Refer to DEIS Section III.Q Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts regarding potential
impacts to businesses in the Town. Responses to specific comments are addressed in
the corresponding section of this FEIS. Refer to the Market Study and Commercial
Character Assessment prepared by the Applicant and included in DEIS Appendix
VII.K, and FEIS Responses III.Q 1, 2, 3 and 11, which show that the Project is not
anticipated to adversely affect existing businesses in the Town.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-122


This is a place where we have progress with preservation. Right down the road we
have a BJ s. [PH2, page 81, lines 24-25], [PH2, page 82, line 1]

Response III.Q 76:

Refer to Response FEIS III.Q 5, as well as FEIS III.A Introductory Response.

Comment III.Q 77 - (Document 26.1, Bill Primavera):

Im a part-time realtor

In addition to revitalizing the businesses along the Route 202 corridor, Costco will
also add 200 quality jobs to the upper Westchester region, and that means more
people buying and selling houses, which is great for one of the major business sectors
of Yorktown.

And speaking of employment, I especially like the fact that Costco truly stands apart
in the way it trains and treats its employees. Costco pays among the highest wages in
the industry, and employee turnover rates are low, understandably.

these well-paying jobs benefit not only the individual employees, but also the rest of
Yorktown Please, say YES to Costco!

Response III.Q 77:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 78 - (Document 43.1, Walter and Barbara Felber):

We are writing to voice our opinion as to the opening of a Costco on Rte. 202.
Yorktown is in desperate need of more businesses and competition.

...all the vacant stores and empty land is an eye sore. It has been a wonderful place to

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-123

raise a family. However, unfortunately, most young people cannot afford to pay the
taxes here and therefore have to leave. We need more tax money coming into this
town, along with more jobs and a wider, safer 202. Hopefully, Costco can help make
this happen.

Response III.Q 78:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 79 - (Document 45.3, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and

The site has periodically been the subject of development proposals which have never
gone anywhere, including for a conference center and hotel use and for retail shops,
reportedly because the economics of the proposals didnt work.

Wince Whites left the area over 20 years ago, we dont have anything other then
BJ s, unlike other areas of Town. And although traffic is much worse consistently on
Route 6, Mohegan Lake has seen dramatic retail and restaurant development over the
years. And what we have gotten has been lured away to Cortlandt!

Response III.Q 79:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 80 - (Document 45.15, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and

Finally, there are already big box stores in Yorktown, so it is disingenuous to claim
letting Costco in would change the nature of our Town. In addition, Costcos
treatment of its employees is much, much better than Walmart, a chain of stores
frequently used as a model of what the Town would be allowing on this site. It is
disingenuous to try and paint Costco with same brush. Costco starting salaries are
higher, they promote from within, and most importantly they provide benefits for at
least 90% of their employees. The pricing model is different, the number of products
offered is much lower, so they will not carry blanket lines of products, leaving plenty
of room for competition. And, the DEIS identifies spillage that shows just how

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-124

much room there really is for addition retail in Yorktown. Costco has an enviable
reputation as a good business model, with its record of higher wages, promotions
from within and benefits for more than 90% of its employees. And Costco and BJ s
merchandise lines are not the same there is of course some overlap but there is a
different focus within each chain.

One big difference will be the fueling station. We have heard many concerns from
those representing the local gas stations that approval of this project with the fueling
station will drive many of them out of business. We should remember that only
Costco members can purchase from their fueling station, so competition to local
stations will be limited. And Yorktown stations are already higher priced than stations
outside Yorktown, especially in center of Town. They have been ripping us off for
years.

For all these reasons, we respectfully urge you to approve the Costco proposal.

Response III.Q 80:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 81 - (Document 46.1, Emily and Edward Tarasov):

I am writing to say that my husband and I completely support the building of a Costco
in Yorktown...Costco products are superior We have always found their quality
control in all departments to be excellent.

In addition, they would offer well paying jobs to our residents, Costco is known for
its good treatment of its workers.

Costco would ensure enhanced competition. It would revitalize shopping on rt 202,
and it seems that many rt 202 businesses are in favor of Costco.

Costco, from my understanding, is sensitive to protect the environment. And
Yorktown would gain from Costco taxes.

We heartily support Costco coming to Yorktown!!


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-125

Response III.Q 81:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 82 - (Document 47.1, Gloria Vasquez):

Please listen to the majority residents in Yorktown who WANT Costco! I am one of
them. Give me my Costco!

Response III.Q 82:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 83 - (Document 48.1, Marketa Esaili):

Costco is the highest recognized warehouse club

Costco will be great contributor to Yorktown taxes

The more jobs we have in the town, the less commuters will be on the road, less
gasoline usage And thus less air pollution.

Response III.Q 83:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 84 - (Document 51.1, Pro Costco Letters (29)), (Document 73.1, Louis and
Ann Saraceno, Pro Costco Letters):

I am writing to support the addition of Costco to Yorktown because it will help
revitalize the businesses along Route 202 and boost tax revenue for the region. And,
note specifically:

Many business owners along Route 202 support Costco, as seen recently in
the press;


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-126

Consumer dollars are currently being lost when residents drive to Danbury,
Port Chester or Yonkers to shop but they will remain in the area.
The Yorktown Central School District will gain an estimated $613,290
increase in school tax revenue each year; and

Local town services will gain an estimated $213,483 in tax revenue each year.

(Refer to Appendix for the 29 Pro Costco signatures)

Response III.Q 84:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 85 - (Document 53.1, Ken Manning, Chamber of Commerce):

I am the President of the Port Chester-Rye Brook-Rye Town Chamber of Commerce.

...there is a Costco in Port Chester and I have had the honor of being there at the
ribbon cutting.

At the beginning there was a lot of talk on how it was going to hurt many local
businesses, but as time went by I noticed that it brought many new customers into
Port Chester.

The store serves our community very well and does not put a strain on any other
business in the area.

They have a special market that the smaller stores dont have they carry items in
bulk.

The smaller stores sell individual items.

Even with a Super Stop in Shop right next to it- they both are thriving.

Response III.Q 85:

Comment noted.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-127

Comment III.Q 86 - (Document 54.1, Kevin Cacace, President of KTC/gam):

Together with Stew Leonards and Home Depot, Costco in Yonkers opened in 1999
at a new retail development site along the NYS Thruway.

Prior to its opening, Costco management worked in partnership with both our
Chamber and the City of Yonkers to ensure that many qualified Yonkers residents
were given the opportunity to fill many of the newly created jobs at the store. Costco
continues to be a valued member of our Chamber and business community.

It is our opinion that Costco has directly benefited our City through increased tax
revenue, hundreds of new jobs, and their participation in numerous community
events. Additionally, the Store is highly regarded for offering a wide variety of
quality products at wholesale prices. We believe the competition from Costco has
encouraged the local competition to improve their products and services resulting in
better values for local consumers.

We are confident that Costco can be a great addition to your Community.

Response III.Q 86:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 87 - (Document 55.1, William M. Mooney and Marissa Brett):

The Westchester County Association (www.westchester.org) is the preeminent
business membership organization In Westchester County. The Association is
committed to business advocacy, economic vitality and to providing a strong and
clear voice for the interests of businesses on the regional, national and International
levels. Its key objectives are promoting positive economic development in the region;
fostering business development; and providing its members with access and
interaction with key public and private sector individuals, agencies and organizations.

As the leading business organization in Westchester County, we fully support the
development of the parcel at Route 202 and the Taconic State Parkway for Costco.

It will bring $10M in road improvements to the area, create over 300 new
construction jobs to an industry that has been hardest hurt in the recession, and add
300 permanent jobs.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-128

Additional benefits will be the real estate and sates tax revenues that will be generated
during a time that municipalities and school districts are managing tight budgets with
the 2% property tax cap.

This is the type of repurposing of a parcel of properly that the Blueprint for
Westchester encourages within our communities.

Response III.Q 87:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 88 - (Document 56.1, John Ravitz):

The Business Council of Westchester (BCW) is excited to learn that a new Costco is
being built in Yorktown. This project will immediately create 300 construction jobs
as well as 300 permanent jobs which will be a huge benefit to the Yorktown
community.

The BCW is pleased to learn that Costco will be a strong participant in helping the
local community in numerous ways, which includes 10 million dollars in improving
local roads, paying real estate taxes and giving 1% of their gross sales back to the
municipality.

The BCW welcomes this new business into Yorktown, and we look forward to
working with the Yorktown Chamber of Commerce to continue to bring more
economic development to Westchester County.

Response III.Q 88:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 89 - (Document 61.1, Anthony Grosso):

time I served the community as a Town Board Member and as a member of the
Yorktown Conservation Board.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-129

I wish to talk about Town Taxes and Taxes that will affect the town with the
Costco Property.

76.85% of the Taxes collected in Yorktown come from residential homes.
The next largest group comes from commercial development which is 10.70%
followed by
Condo/Co-Ops at 5.76% and public utilities at 4.14%.
Other commercial units at 1% and agriculture/vacant at 1.54%.
These numbers came directly from the town Assessor. As you can see the lions share
of taxes are generated from the single family home. The rest of the pie makes up the
balance and should someone own a business in Yorktown and reside here that person
gets hit twice. With that in mind lets go on to the Costco Property.
A thriving business such as Costco who wishes to come to Yorktown would generate,
according to the DEIS, $5.2 million dollars in State Sales Tax, which the state uses to
return to communities with some of its needs.
The County portion of the State Sales Tax would generate $3.9 million dollars of
which is returned to the community based on a portion of the census population in
relationship to its portion to the County Population.
To give you an idea of the monies that are generated by sales tax in 2011 our budget
called for $4.5 million dollars. We collected from the County $4,693,000.
In 2012 our budget remained at $4.5 million and to date we have received $2,378,000
which represents the first two payments. You can readily see the importance of sale
tax revue from this business venture.
To give you an example of why its important to spread our commercial base lets
look at the Costco property School Tax, it amounts to $ 613,000 in school tax, plus a
small amount of sales tax.
If you take a 9 acre piece of property and change zoning to some sort of residential
you could possible build 68 units with an average of 2 children per unit or 136
children to be educated. Multiply 136 children times $25,470.00 per child. The cost
of education would be $ 3,463,920. Taxes generated by this piece of property would
not return enough tax dollars even if it was a mixture of business and private homes.
These figures come from the Superintendent of Schools in the Yorktown School
District.
I believe the choice is simple. Commercial or single home development one would
chose the commercial development over private homes. And I am sure this is a no
brainer. It is not that I am against education, its about balance. Unless we balance the
equation we as a community will fall in the same direction that our country is heading
for.
In addition to the taxes this development, Costco and the State of NY, will see to it
that the road will be widened from Strang Blvd thru Pine Grove Traffic signal.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-130

Response III.Q 89:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 90 - (Document 62.1, Rose Marie Panio), (PH1, Rose Marie Panio):

How often do we have an opportunity to bring in private money and infuse it into the
local economy at this level? Especially in this economy!

How often can we add almost $1,000,000 to our revenue side without adding to our
pupil population (at a cost of $28,000 per pupil)?

How many single family homes would we have to build, using precious open space
and adding an average of 3 pupils per household to make up the revenue?

With 23,000.000 Americans out of work, have we become such elitists that we thumb
our noses at about 200 jobs, and many, many more construction jobs in the interim
from both private and public entities? Even a part-time job could help a senior pay
their property taxes, a youngster earn some tuition money, and put a lot of money into
our local economy.

What about the current cost of food. Food has gone up to the point where families are
deciding they can no longer purchase certain foods to feed their families. As a former
retailer, I know the only way to control cost is by competition! Given the cost of gas,
traveling to other communities to save on your food bill no longer makes sense.

Once again, after all due diligence is done, and every i is doted, you cant say no to
everything.

Response III.Q 90:

Comment noted.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-131

Comment III.Q 91 - (Document 66.4, Domenick Mascioli), (PH1, Domenick Mascioli):

The transcript for Public Hearing1 is provided in Appendix B.
Costco will not hurt business that has been here but will bring successful businesses
to this area as we are 20 to 30 years behind the times. Costco sells quality goods.
Costco with 613 stores nationwide, that has to tell you something. It will bring
quality and value; eliminate traveling to Danbury, Brookfield, Yonkers, and White
Plains. With the price of gas everyone would rather shop in their own area and
support their local businesses.

Response III.Q 91:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 92 - (Document 68.3, William Rubin):

My name is William Rubin and I have been a Yorktown resident for 23 years, and a
Costco member for 20 years. Like many local Costco members, I am tired of having
to drive to Port Chester, Brookfield and Nanuet to do my Costco shopping, giving
them my tax dollars, and am thrilled at the prospect of having a high quality retailer
and employer such as Costco coming to Yorktown. There has been an active
discussion about the Costco proposal on online forums, and I am tired of hearing all
of the claims given by the opposition why this is such a bad thing for Yorktown and
may even be the end of Yorktown as we know it.

The opposition has claimed that local merchants will go out of business if Costco
opens, but cant (or wont) say how many have been similarly impacted by BJ s.
They even claim to have a study showing that stores have closed and jobs were lost in
other towns where Costco has opened, but neglect to mention that the study was
talking about a Walmart, because, after all, all big box stores are the same to them.

I still remember the Homart shopping center proposal 17 years ago, which the anti-
development people opposed and which the town foolishly rejected, saying well
wait for the state to fix the traffic problem first. What was the result of that? Home
Depot and other retailers went to Cortlandt. They got the property and sales tax
revenue


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-132

Response III.Q 92:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 93 - (Document 68.4, William Rubin):

There was one other issue that has been brought up many times online but for which I
did not have a complete answer until yesterday, when I was spending over $100 at
Costco in Brookfield, CT instead of Yorktown. That is the the claim that Costco will
put BJ s out of business because they are the same store. Anyone who has shopped at
both stores knows that this is incorrect, and the DEIS lists several area locations
where they co-exist. But I had no concrete proof of just how wrong it was until I
drove past a sign announcing that a new BJ s was opening soon on Federal Road in
Brookfield, a mere quarter of a mile from a Costco that has been open for twenty
years, and about the same distance as they will be apart in Yorktown. So now we
have proof that not only does BJ s feel that they can co-exist with a nearby Costco,
we have a current example of BJ s spending money to build a store to compete with
Costco not far from Yorktown. And as for competing with local stores, an article
about BJ s in Brookfield said that small stores in the area experienced an increase in
customers because of Costco, mirroring what the owner of Staples Plaza in Yorktown
has said.

The same people who are complaining about traffic and environmental issues which
they claim that Costco will cause tell us that what is called for in the Comprehensive
plan is smart and should be built there. As I understand it, the plan calls for an office
building, with all of its resident arriving and leaving during rush hour, when traffic on
202 is at its worst can be good, while Costco is bad? And wouldnt everything being
built there create environmental issues similar to what its being claimed that Costco
will cause? How smart is that?

The truth is, 202 is a major retail corridor -- dating back to Whites Department Store,
and probably before that -- and Costco is a perfect fit. It will help to revitalize the
towns retail standing, give the town and school district much needed tax revenue,
and put Yorktown back on the regional retail map. Approving Costco is the smart
thing to do. I look forward being able to Shop Local at Costco in Yorktown.

Response III.Q 93:

Comment noted.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-133

Comment III.Q 94 - (Document 69.1, J.W. Pettit):

We need big stores like Costco; my wife and I shop at Costco in Connecticut.

Response III.Q 94:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 95 - (PH1, Joseph Visconti):

I have been a resident of Yorktown since 1978, I am also the Chamber of Commerce
President. [PH1, page 55, lines 15-17].

I do have four letters of support I want to put it into the record, I am going to give
them to you. The first letter is from the business Council of Westchester. The second
is from the Westchester County Association, two of Westchester organizations that
support Costco. The third and the fourth letter are from the Port Chester/Rye
Chamber of Commerce and the Yonkers Chamber of Commerce. As the chamber
president I speak to the chamber -- public chamber presidents and the letters are very
favorable on Costco in their town.

The Westchester County Association has what they call a blueprint for Westchester,
which is a -- designed to bring business into Westchester County. I see that we -- I
am impressed with all the expert that are working on this project, both from Costco,
the Planning Board and others, and I am not going to pretend to know more than
them.

What I do know is that the membership in the Yorktown Chamber of Commerce is
hurting. Thirty percent of the construction trade is not working today. We have an
opportunity here to bring jobs to Yorktown. We have an opportunity here to bring
several hundred thousand dollars to the school district.

I see our kids working in car washes so that they can spend -- they can make money
to buy t-shirts. There is nothing wrong with the kids working for their t-shirts, but
they shouldn't have to do that, when we have an opportunity to collect several
hundred thousand dollars for the Yorktown School District, almost a victory.

This building is going to be here, this company is going to be here for a long time, the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-134

company is not failing. They have -- they do billions of dollars every year and they
are not going to come to Yorktown and build a building that is not going to work.
They are making a major, multi-million dollar investment in Yorktown, and quite
frankly in this economy we should welcome that. [PH1, page 56, lines 4-25], [PH1,

Response III.Q 95:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 96 - (PH1, Aaron Bock):

I am the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Yorktown Chamber of Commerce
and I have been involved in town, locally. I was a prior supporter of BJ s and I -- the
town and the chamber, both, recognize that the Route 202 corridor presents a unique
opportunity for business development in town, which must be encouraged by your
board's actions in dealing with this application.

A primary impact of an organization like Costco is on the existing business
community and I want to address that portion of the DEIS this evening. The
Chamber of Commerce of almost five hundred members consisting of major retailers
like BJ s, the J efferson Valley Mall and private retailers throughout the community
support this project.

We believe that the market analysis contained in the DEIS is accurate and complete
and we believe that the commercial character assessment as well is accurate and
complete.

The impact analysis in the report says that the proposed Costco store will not have an
adverse impact on the overall strength and character of the existent commercial base
in Yorktown. That commercial base which the Chambers of Commerce represents.

I can say safely that we have not as a Chamber of five hundred members heard a
single word in opposition to this project from our membership, because it benefits our
membership. It brings customers to Yorktown, it keeps customers in Yorktown and
that is the life blood of our community represented by the Chamber of Commerce.

So, the chamber urges you as a Board, to accept the DEIS as complete, to further this
project to completion, [PH1, page 58, lines 23-25], [PH1, page 59, lines 1-25], [PH1,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-135

page 60, lines 1-15]

Response III.Q 96:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 97 - (PH1, Jay Kopstein):

I support the Costco. Costco's quality is significantly better than most similar stores
and their customer service is superb. [PH1, page 65, lines 3-6]

Response III.Q 97:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 98 - (PH1, Charles Monaco):

All I have to say is that ...I think that this Costco project will be very beneficial to the
growth of the 202 corridor. [PH1, page 110, lines 10-13]

...Last Friday I was going up U.S. 1 and I saw a Costco, which I've never been to, and
I said just let's pull in. And I just pulled in the road and as I came in the road in New
Rochelle, on the left was a beautiful gas station, and it said Costco.

And I said to myself, why is this gas station beautiful, and I am going to tell you why
it's beautiful. Because the price was $3.87.9 cents, and that morning, in town, in town
that morning I paid $4.17. I think Costco is a very nice company to come in will do
the right thing and a lot of stuff I am hearing, but in the interim Bravo to the
professionals. And I am all for Costco. [PH1, page 110, lines 21-25], [PH1, page
111, lines 1-11]

Response III.Q 98:

Comment noted.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-136

Comment III.Q 99 - (PH1, Tony Grasso):

I served the community as a Town Board Member and as a Member of the
Conservation Board. In fact, we wrote the first wetlands ordinance here in town.

If you look at the graph that I have on the easel, you will note in front of you that
76.85 percent of the taxes collected in Yorktown were paid by the individual
homeowners. The next largest group is the commercial development which pays
10.70 percent, followed by condos and co-ops which pay 5.76 percent and public
utilities which pay 4.1 percent.

Other commercial units pay 1 percent, and agricultural and vacant land pay 1.54
percent. These numbers came directly from the town assessor. As you can see from
the lions share of taxes that are generated from a single-family home, the rest of the
pie makes up the balance and should someone own a business in Yorktown where he
resides, he gets hit twice.

With this in mind let's go to the Costco property. A thriving business like Costco,
who wishes to come to Yorktown and generate, according to the DEIS, 5.2 million
dollars in state sales tax, which is returned to the communities with some of their
needs.

The county portion of the state's sales tax will generate 3.9 million dollars which is
returned to the community based on a portion of the census population in relationship
to the portion of the county population. This is a hard figure to come to unless you
have a formula right in from of you to work. I tried getting this from the county, but
it would take days and they just kind of pushed me off on that.

To give you an idea of moneys that are generated by sales tax in our 2011 budget, it
called for 4.5 million dollars. We collected from the county four million six hundred
and ninety-three thousand dollars. In 2012, our budget remained at 4.5 million
dollars and to-date, we have received two million three hundred and seventy-eight
thousand dollars, which represents only two payments.

You can readily see the importance of sales tax revenue from this business venture.
To give you an example why this is important to spread our tax space, let's look at the
Costco property.

The school tax there will come to $613,000.00 in school tax, plus a small amount
from the sales tax. Now, if you take a nine acre piece of property and you change the
zoning of that property to some sort of residential development and you put

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-137

sixty-eight homes there, with an average of two children, you are talking of a hundred
and thirty-six children to be educated.

Now, you multiply that number by $25,470.00 per child. The cost of educating
children in that small subdivision would be three million four hundred and sixty-three
thousand nine hundred and twenty dollars.
Taxes generated by this piece of property would not return enough tax dollars even if
it was a mixture of business and private homes. These figures come from the
superintendent of schools from the Yorktown school district.

I believe the choice is simple. Commercial or single-family home development, one
would choose commercial development over private homes, and I am sure there is
no -- this is no brainer. It is not that I am against education, it is about balance.
Unless we balance the equation, we, as a community will fail in the same direction as
the town -- as the county -- the government is -- the federal government is heading
for.

In addition to taxes, this development, Costco, and that the State of New York will
see that the road will be widen from Strang Boulevard through Pinewood with a
traffic signal. -- I am looking forward for the Costco development [PH1, page 111,
lines 23-25] , [PH1, page 112, lines 1-25], [PH1, page 113, lines 1-25], [PH1, page
114, lines 1-25], [PH1, page 115, lines 1-14]

Response III.Q 99:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 100 - (PH1, Alan Elliot):

We always seem to get level two stores, this is the first time that I am aware of, that
we are finally getting a level one, quality store and I take my money outside of
Yorktown and I go to a quality store, that's called Costco in Danbury and I go there
about twice a month, because the prices are cheaper, quality is up. [PH1, page 131,
lines 21-25], [PH1, page 132, lines 1-4]

Response III.Q 100:

Comment noted.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-138

Comment III.Q 101 - (PH1, Joe Foley):

I am also a small business owner and I have been a business owner in Yorktown
Heights since 1979. [PH1, page 156, lines 22-25]

So, I think to some degree a lot of the retail environment and I think the small
business environment will still be able to thrive with BJ s here. Obviously the taxes
are -- and most of the other stuff that has already been said before, I just -- I had a
little different spin on the small business and I think we will be successful with the
addition of Costco and also it will help us to be able to purchase better products for
our businesses so we can run our businesses.

I think it will also make BJ s possibly be a better store of their own and improve what
they are doing right now. So, I just -- as a small business owner I support the project.
[PH1, page 157, line 25], [PH1, page 158, lines 1-15]

Response III.Q 101:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 102 - (PH1, Louis DAmico):

Like Rose Marie said, let's not say no to everything. Home Depot, remember that. Is
the gentleman from Cortlandt still here? Well good, thanks to all this hysteria twenty
years ago, Home Depot picked itself up and moved to the other side of Lexington
Avenue. We get all the traffic, Cortlandt gets all the revenue.

Let's not be stupid again, okay. These guys have done their homework, they may
have left a few things out. You cannot not blame them. I am sure when they come
out with all their reports like this, you know they do a lot of figures.

However, I am still going to go to Richie to by my appliances, I am still going to go
to A&S to buy my cold cuts. Yeah, I'll go to Costco, I am a member of Costco. I like
a lot of stuff they got. But that doesn't mean that I am going to abandon my small
businesses that I have been using here for years. [PH1, page 159, lines 10-25] ,
[PH1, page 160, lines 1-10] Costco is a good thing. This is a good project. It is
good for the community, it is good for the town. Let's do it. [PH1, page 160, lines
15-17]


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-139

Response III.Q 102:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 103 - (Document 89.1, Bill Primavera, Costco Support Postcards (156)):

On behalf of Costco Wholesale, I am forwarding to you 156 postcards of support for
its coming to Yorktown by residents who are already members, but must now travel
down county or to Connecticut to shop there.

This represents business being taken away from the Yorktown community on a
regular basis.

Please particularly note the enthusiasm and spontaneity shown for Costco in the
comments sections.

Would you please consider these as 156 individual pros from your fellow citizens
who know and appreciate Costco, its people and level of service?

Please refer to Appendix for the 156 post card signatures

Response III.Q 103:

Comment noted.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-140

III.Q 104 - (Document 91.1, Al and Thelma DeJoseph):

I have been a resident of Yorktown Heights for 50 years. I have seen Yorktown turn
away many companies such as IBM, Kohls, and Home Depot to name a few, not to
mention how many years it took the J efferson Valley Mall to be approved.

Yorktown wanted to keep it a bedroom community. It did nothing to help with our
taxes, which are very high. We need a lucrative store like Costco to help us out,
especially during these trying economic times. Costco is a company that is very much
for the consumer and bends backwards to satisfy their customers. As for the gas
station, Costco gas in Connecticut is at least 35-45 cents less per gallon cheaper than
any price in Triangle Shopping area. As a result the gas stations near Costco in
Brookfield, Connecticut have lowered their prices quite a bit to remain competitive. I
shop at the Brookfield Costco and will continue to do so as long as Yorktown
continues to drag its feet or until another town beats Yorktown to this wonderful
opportunity. Sad to say, when I use gas to drive to the Connecticut Costco, I also shop
at their stores because of the convenience, which is therefore taking business away
from Yorktown. I have seen some people that object to having Costco in Yorktown,
yet shop in Costco in Brookfield. Do they worry about overcrowding Connecticut
roads? Lets do the right thing for Yorktown taxpayers and vote YES to Costco.
This is too big of an opportunity to let slip away for the people of Yorktown.

Response III.Q 104:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 105 - (Document 95.1, Joseph Straci), (PH2, Joseph Straci):


My name is J oseph Straci and I am a resident of Croton- on- Hudson, which is
actually my post office address but, In fact I reside in the town of Cortlandt. My next
door neighbors property is partially in the town of Yorktown, which put me
approximately 200 feet from Yorktown. My two daughters and their families live in
Yorktown and most of my involvements both social and community have been in
Yorktown for the past 30 plus years.

I was in attendance at the last meeting of this planning board, which held a Public

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-141

hearing on the matter of Costco coming to Yorktown and heard the many well
intentioned speakers go through their 5 minutes of fame, some of them depicting a
scenario of Fire and Brimstone: Traffic nightmares, Ambulances stranded on 202,
Police Department overwhelmed with traffic and criminal mayhem, small businesses
going out of existence, declining home values, school children lost in a sea of
unwilding traffic, Fire Trucks stuck on an impassable route 202 and all this was
presented by proponents of Yorktown for Growth....this kind of Growth sounds to me
more like a Cancerous condition rather than an opportunity for true Progress.

Truth be said COSTCO, to me, will act like an anchor store for the town of Yorktown
very much like a Nordstrom or a Lord and Taylor do at The Westchester, not put
small businesses out of Business but rather bringing more small businesses which in
turn will bring more revenues to Yorktown, getting rid of the Blight that we see all
along Route 202, and surrounding areas, making it possible for Seniors to remain
residents of their beloved Yorktown, where they have spent most of their lives and
where their Friends and families are and, not being pushed out of town because they
can no longer afford to live here, by lowering their taxes and perhaps having the
opportunity of having a local part time or full time job and providing more services
for them.

Enabling young families to settle in a more affordable Yorktown by lowering taxes
and providing Greater subsidies to our schools, and providing Local J obs and careers
opportunities as well. Having had the privilege of reviewing in greater detail the kind
of commitments and care that Costco brings to the table, by having a Team of highly
professional people whom have addressed every possible concerns and passed the
rigorous scrutiny and approval of no less than 21 Authorities, I feel very comfortable
in coming to the conclusion that COSTCO is a Great Corporate Citizen and will bring
a Renaissance to a town in need and deserving of a Brighter Future.

I urge every Yorktown resident to get on board in helping promote Progress, True
Growth and a brighter future for Yorktown by SAYING YES TO COSTCO!!!!

Response III.Q 105:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 106 - (Document 105.1, Eugenio Ruiz):

How is the new Costco site less or more environmentally harmful than BJ s right

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-142

across the street?

If anything, business will positively impact the region.

The opposite, not granting Costco a permit will, in all likelihood, stunt the economy
in the region.

Besides, competition is the driving spirit of America.

We need Costco around. Its an inevitability that will elevate the region to higher
grounds.

Happiness is the nature of the Soul.

Response III.Q 106:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 107 - (Document 106.1, Hilda Bodian):

Why people want to keep Costco from coming to Yorktown is unbelievable. Dont
they realize all the tax dollars leaving Yorktown to shop elsewhere? How about the
jobs it will create?

People against Costco do not want to bring Yorktown into this century. You have to
realize the possibility of other business coming here because of Costco.

As you can see I am all for Yorktown allowing Costco to build here

Response III.Q 107:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 108 - (Document 110.1, Jeanne Gilholm):

My family and I agree that going ahead and letting Costco come into Yorktown
would be best for the Town. Weve heard so many good things about the store, the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-143

low-cost gasoline and the great products they sell.

We are FOR bringing Costco to Yorktown.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Response III.Q 108:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 109 - (Document 112.1, Ann Hickey):

As a Yorktown resident I am concerned with the future of this town on many levels.
Certainly I am concerned about the environment and preserving the beauty of
Yorktown. I am also concerned about the economy of our town, the viability of
businesses and jobs, and our tax base. I am strongly in favor of Costco coming to
Yorktown because not only will it bring many job opportunities to the area but it will
contribute considerably to our tax revenue. The high taxes in Yorktown are paid
overwhelmingly by individual homeowners. We need businesses to offset this tax
burden! As far as ruining the beauty of Yorktown, which is one of the reasons given
by the opposition, I fail to see how that is relevant given the site that was chosen.
There is no beauty to ruin there. The site is now an eyesore that houses a closed,
dilapidated old motel and gas station. Certainly a thriving business would be a vast
improvement. I am all for keeping our parks and open spaces but that part of 202 is a
commercial strip and I think it makes sense for it to be developed this way. As far as
traffic concerns, there is always going to be traffic on 202 but it
should be helped considerably by the improvements that Costco is committing to. My
understanding is that Costco will be spending up to $3 million to widen 202 in the
area of Stoney St.

I attended a public meeting of the Board that was meant to give people the chance to
give their opinions about this project. The first part of the meeting was a very
informative session in which the Board explained all the various studies it had
conducted; the environmental impact was addressed, the traffic study was presented,
and Costco management described their plans. I was very impressed by the level of
detail in the presented information, especially the traffic study, and by the credentials
of the people who had conducted the studies. They were clear, concise, and in my
view gave all the right reasons to move ahead with this project. People were then
asked to give their opinions pro and con. This is when the meeting completely fell

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-144

apart. Each person was asked to take up about 5 minutes to express their views. I
stood in the back of that room for 4 and 1/2 hours waiting for my turn to speak which
never came. Most of the people who were in favor of Costco stuck to their 5 minutes
but the naysayers rudely and defiantly spoke for at LEAST 20 minutes with many
speaking in such a condescending manner as to imply they were the only ones who
understood the situation. I do not know why the Board allowed such behavior. It was
in your power to limit the amount of time each person had. As a result of the people
who abused the privilege, I and many others in favor of Costco never got to speak.

One person took up an inordinate amount of time describing every possible doomsday
scenario from fires, to accidents, to the evacuation of Indian Point. Another
gentleman proceeded to tell us not once but 3 times that he was an architect that
graduated from Cooper Union. He went on to criticize Costcos building plans down
to the level of how many parking spaces they had allocated. I think I would trust
Costcos architects and planners to know what they are doing since they have done
this successfully many times. Then we had to listen to a gentleman from Cortlandt
who had no business speaking at all since this is about Yorktown. Another speaker
was worried about Yorktowns small businesses. That issue was addressed at the
beginning of the meeting when it was stated that the Yorktown Chamber of
Commerce endorsed this project. That means businesses in Yorktown are by and
large in favor of Costco. But that wasnt good enough for another person who said
that every single business should be asked individually whether they are in favor or
not. And what happens if one of them is against it? Do you stop the project?

There is no way you can possibly answer all the questions and concerns of the people
who spoke against Costco. It is an unending litany of negativity and doomsday
predictions. If you did manage to address each and every one of them it would take
years. And then there would be more questions. By that time Costco will have moved
on because the simple fact is that Costco doesnt need Yorktown, Yorktown needs
Costco. If we push them away we are left with the same blighted site, the same traffic
problems, no new jobs and no new tax revenue. Many Yorktown residents will
benefit from the many jobs that Costco will bring to our area. Who are we to turn our
nose up to these jobs when people are hurting in our economy? Costco is a first class
organization not a fly by night business. I am also tired of people treating
corporations like they were the enemy of the people. Corporations provide jobs and
benefits and I would venture to say that a good number of people who live in
Yorktown are employed by one and are able to live here because of it.

I hope that the Board will use its good judgment, look at the facts, and come to the
conclusion that Yorktown should move ahead with this project. If we say no to this
project, what will we ever say yes to?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-145

Response III.Q 109:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 110 - (Document 118.1, Janet McGonagle), (Document 126.1, Marino
Scarpone Jr.), (Document 127.1, Marino Scarpone Jr.):

I am town resident writing you to express my support for the proposed Costco
Application.

New business development is critical to the towns future well being and
sustainability.

Response III.Q 110:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 111 (Document 121.1, Christopher D. John):

I am writing to you in support of the proposed plan to develop a Costco in our town.
While the pros and cons of this opportunity have been discussed at length, in my
opinion the increase in the commercial tax base is the most significant reason for
support. I have lived in this community for six years and in that time I have seen too
many businesses leave, continuing to depress the tax rolls. This in turn has increased
the burden on individual taxpayers, resulting in what is now a tax rate that has
seriously impacted the housing market and quality of life.

It is my hope that the addition of Costco in a responsible way, which is by most
accounts a strong corporate citizen, will encourage further business development and
begin to bring tax rates to a sustainable level.

One of the greatest attractions of Yorktown is the significant amount of green space
and the town is rightfully proud its motto of progress with preservation. However,
it is time that our town embraces the beginning of that motto and not always be held
hostage to the end.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-146

Response III.Q 111:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 112 (Document 143.1, Bill Primavera):

Citizens for a Progressive Yorktown did not ask supporters of Costco to write again
and again, which the opposition has done, as I understand it, but I would like to offer
one last sentiment collectively on our supporters behalf as we meet the deadline of
the open period.

That is, time and again, Yorktown citizens have shared with me their conviction that,
should the Costco application not be approved, that would be the death of the
Progress with Preservation slogan of the town.

As one neighbor shared with me just over this past weekend:

If the Town does not welcome a great company like Costco with open arms, we will
perpetuate our reputation of the last 30 years for being anti-business. What other
decent company would want to spend money or time trying to buck the elitist, anti-
development forces that want to keep Yorktown in the 19th century?

Please consider the importance of the Costco question, not only for its immediate
benefits to the town but also for its very future as a viable business opportunity for
other companies.

Response III.Q 112:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 113 (Document 154.1, Gregory Smith and Family):

I just wanted to drop a short note to the planning board to voice my strong support for
Costco coming to Yorktown. My wife and I have lived on Park Lane (very close to
the proposed site) for 7 years and are raising our two children with the intention of
being in Yorktown for a very long time. The Citizens For a Progressive Yorktown
have done a solid job of outlining the great benefits Costco can bring to our town and
everyone we talk to in our neighborhood strongly supports Costco. Thanks for taking

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-147

our support into consideration.

Response III.Q 113:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 114 (Document 156.1, Judyth Stavans):

Your question or comment: My husband and I support the opening of Costco at the
proposed location. We welcome the jobs and tax dollars that will come with this
business. While we love the rural, tree-covered parts of Yorktown, this location is
anything but rural. As we have blocked businesses from coming to Yorktown, they
have gone to Cortlandt. As a result, we have already suffered the increase of traffic
and loss of small businesses, but we receive little of the income. With BJ s already
across the street from the proposed site, we dont see anything but a positive outcome
from welcoming Costco to our town at this point in time.

Response III.Q 114:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 115 (Document 163.1, Rose Anne Carozza):

Please allow this letter of full support for Costco to be part of your file. Not only is
Costco a super store to shop, the benefits of having it in Yorktown are tremendous!!
They have agreed to every item that was placed upon them in order to open here. You
would be surprised how many families already belong to Costco and travel to
Yonkers, Pelham, New Rochelle and Danbury to shop, including myself and my
children!! BJ s is adequate, but in no way comparable to Costco. Costco has an
amazing Bakery Department and their Meat and Seafood Departments are amazing!!
Produce is always fresh and available, something I have complained about to BJ s.

There will always be families that will shop the smaller stores, and those that will stay
with BJ s- theres plenty of families to spread the shopping around!! As far as the gas
goes, it is definitely a savings but you have to belong to Costco to use it, so other
stations will still get business. Even now, I am amazed how some of the more
expensive stations still have followers with cheaper gas right across the street!!! I am

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-148

excited for the grand opening of Costco in Yorktown!!!

Response III.Q 115:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 116 (Document 164.1, Paul Pucci), (Document 173.1, Christine Pucci):

I am town resident writing you to express my support for the proposed Costco
application. New business development is critical to the towns future well being and
sustainability.

Response III.Q 116:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 117 (PH2, Andrea Wagner):

MS. WAGNER: Good evening, Andrea Wagner, I am a resident, a business owner,
136 Upland Road, and I am here 22 years and also a Yorktown Chamber of
Commerce Board Member. I'd like to speak in favor of the Costco project.

I have heard that they were rated number one and I wanted to know what that was and
I looked it up and basically was told that it was an independent study by the American
Customer Satisfactory Index, which is an economic indicator that measures the
satisfaction of consumers across the United States. That is no small feat.

To be number one, they are doing something right, they have chosen Yorktown, they
have done their homework, and I feel that the fear that has been talked about, with the
traffic, with the environment I would like the studies that have been done by the
professionals have the most impact on their decision.

There is a lot of car carrying members that live in Yorktown, those are the same cars
private cars that are on our roads that travel out of Yorktown to go to Costco. The
site is also, from what I understand, a part of a large revitalization plan.

There is going to be improvements on the Route 202 corridor regardless, but their

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-149

generous addition and into improving our community, will also promote job growth,
new life to the area and that is progress with preservation. Thank you. [PH2, page 25,
lines 16-25], [PH2, page 26, lines 1-25], [PH2, page 27, lines 1-6]

Response III.Q 117:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 118 (PH2, Chuck Catalfamo):

MR. CATALFAMO: Ladies and gentlemen, board members, my name is Chuck
Catalfamo, I live at 2306 Depeyster Drive, in Glasbury Court. Costco coming to
Yorktown, a no brainer. First of all, the thousands in taxes that they will pay, got to
help, will some three hundred temporary employees and from what I hear, over two
hundred employees that will be there forever.

That will give us an alternate for shopping, a different type of shopping. They will
construct highway improvements. As the traffic, which is a detrimental to all of us
here in Yorktown, there should not be any additional traffic. With the traffic
improvements that they propose [PH2, page 38, lines 22-25], [PH2, page 39, lines
1-12]

MR. CATALFAMO: Recently with the Costco meetings someone said that his
experience dictated that if Costco comes to Yorktown, BJ s will go out and the BJ s
shopping center will dry up. Not so. Before BJ s got there, there was a shopping
center -- [PH2, page 39, lines 13-25],

MR. CATALFAMO: Okay. Well, some of the owners in Costco said they would
welcome a Costco and and BJ s owner said that they also would learn -- they also
would love it because they learned that whenever a Costco is built even near a BJ s,
businesses in their area would do better.

Putting together a list of positives and negatives, more positives than negatives. I
implore the Board that respectfully okay this petition. [PH2, page 40, lines 7-17]

Response III.Q 118:

Comment noted.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-150

Comment III.Q 119 (PH2, Barry Levine):

MR. LEVINE: Hi everybody, Barry Levine, I live off of Mohansic Avenue, not too
far from BJ s and have been an active member of the Chamber of Commerce. I heard
these comments that remind me now, I just want to be real quick, it might be a little
redundant, but I want to do it real quick.

I am tired of seen realty signs around Yorktown and think it is time for the progress
of Yorktown. This is blight, business brings business. Regarding the amount of tax
to it, things have changed drastically over the last few years. The UPS truck, Santa
Clause, the delivery of products from Amazon, no one likes to go shopping, there is a
competition.

I am sure that we would shop -- I am sure that we all shop by the internet. I recently
had the opportunity to shop in the build shopping center in Yonkers. There was a
Stew Leonards, a Home Depot, Whole Foods, Shop Rite on Tuckahoe Road and any
retailer and of course a Costco.

At a meeting that took place a few months ago, the manager of Staples, the shopping
center, welcome the idea of Costco. Bed Bath and Beyond said they would stay in
Yorktown of they knew that Costco was coming. Since our last meeting the Town of
Yorktown -- the Town of Cortlandt announced the expansion of the town shopping
center.

During the gas shortage of a couple of weeks ago, Shell station on Route 202 was
cited by the federal government for gouging price of gasoline, and that's about it. Let
us work together with the Costco project, we all stand to benefit. Thank you. [PH2,
page 68, line 1], [PH2, page 69, lines 1-25], [PH2, page 70, lines 1-18]

Response III.Q 119:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 120 (PH2, Pete, Pergola):

And I have another question. I've been in that area, I am working right at FDR Park,
we are doing the comfort stations there. That is a blighted area, that area needs a
development like Costco. [PH2, page 99, lines 18-23]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-151

Response III.Q 120:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 121 (PH2, Pete, Pergola):

Knocked down, how long is it going to take for one someone else to come in there
-- and want to propose something. Another ten years, another seven million dollars
worth of taxes [PH2, page 100, lines 20-25], [PH2, page 101, lines 1-11]

Response III.Q 121:

Comment noted

Comment III.Q 122 (PH2, William Mascalla):

Good evening. My name is William Mascalla, I've been in Yorktown since 1960, and
before I make a couple of comments I just would like to remind the Board, that the
last two speakers and the two so called experts are part of the petroleum industry in
Yorktown, the industry that the day after Sandy lowered their prices fifty cents, and
one in particular, got cited by the Attorney General.

So, I would say that anything they've got to say is irrelevant because they have an
agenda and they would boost that agenda. Anyhow, okay.

I was here like I said since 1960, when the J efferson Valley Mall was proposed all of
the nay sayers and the chicken littles, the sky is falling and Canada is going to be part
of the union and the price of fish and the amount of gas is going to go down the tubes.
Never happened.

They said Yorktown will be a dust ball. The center of Yorktown they are asking less
than $35.00 per square foot, is that a dust ball? Second, I heard that a lot of ex
politicians are against the mall. Why? They are ex politicians because we threw
them out, so it should be irrelevant to them.

I ask the Board to make their judgment, not on the comments you hear from people
that have something to gain or to loose. If ask the Board, if the mall at the -- if

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-152

Costco is allowed under the zoning and they meet the criteria that Yorktown sets for
any other store, then you should approve it. If they don't, then you should disapprove
it.

I happen to feel that Costco will be a major contributor to the well being of
Yorktown. Second of all, I have heard people say oh, other stores BJ s is going to go
out of business, Costco will be here four years and then it is going to go out of
business. They don't know retail, I built retail, I own retail and I rent retail.

They don't know what it is to put the key on the door and wait for business to come to
them. So, they are not experts. These people did demographics, they know what you
ate fors breakfast yesterday. That's why they give you a fifty pound box of fruit
loops. They know what is going on.

So, like I said, judge the applicant on the merits of the law and what they are going to
contribute to Yorktown, not on what people have to say about it. Thank you. [PH2,
Page 87, lines 19-25], [PH2, Page 88, lines 1-25], [PH2, Page 89, lines 1-25]

Response III.Q 122:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 123 (PH2, Dan Ciarcia):

First off, you know as a resident I am -- literally my driveway is a thousand feet away
from this project and every day when I pull out and go to work I've got to look at the
run down gas station and hotel, and think about all the things that could have been
and during my tenure of doing this, all those things that could have been have come
and gone and the bottom line is, nothing has happened, the things that have happened
that we have to live with a homeless shelter and if this project doesn't go forward and
goes down, who knows what may end up there.

So, unlike some of these other applicants the what I have to look at would be the what
if we don't take this opportunity and do something. If you look back I would I say, I
would characterize it as a synergistic effect, which has happened in the past and
which this applicant is doing and that's when you take private funds and public funds
and leverage each others commitment to something, to really get ahead instead of you
know, a project going away and losing and opportunity to actually fix something.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-153

The examples I would cite, and I am sure they've come up before those, but when we
did the Stoney Street realignment project, which many thought was for BJ s, which
was actually funded by -- to some extent by the Adrians who were looking to develop
the property across from BJ s, and in that particular instance the town, the Adrians and
the state DOT all worked together.

Then when BJ s opened, which helped revitalize the -- what was then the old -- well, it
was the Building Design Center, but it was previously Weitz, it was a shopping center
that really needed the revitalization. I think I would be afraid to say that BJ s help that
happen.

J ust like when we bisected the Levine piece, the site that the hardware store was set
on, which was on -- I mean I love the store it was very convenient for me to get my
hardware, but to see the attractive bank branch there as opposed to the Old Midway
Hardware, is an improvement to the neighborhood.

So, along those lines what I would like to say is that, I think this is an opportunity
much like some of the other opportunities and things like the French old golf course
that I don't think would've been the end of the world, when people came up here,
maybe not this theater, but spoke about BJ s and that was going to be the end of the
world, and also another point I think is important to make, is that you know, with all
the impacts we talked about the watershed and possible you know, additional you
know, thermal impacts, pollutants and all that, the town once in a while, and this
should be cited in the DEIS really needs to take credit for all of the open space that
the town has acquired with no fanfare or thank yous from the DEP for all their land
all their watershed that we go to preserve.

So, I think when the town proposes something like this along its limited commercial
corridors, that ought to be considered and perhaps the developer here can even further
those ambitions to the town to all -- to get additional open to help even subsidize the
town doing that, because that all balance helps the quality of life in Yorktown and
even helps offset this type of developments. Thank you. [PH2, page 113, lines 19-
25], [PH2, page 114, lines 1-25], [PH2, page 115, lines 1-25],, [PH2, page 116, lines
1-24]

Response III.Q 123:

Comment noted.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-154

Comment III.Q 124 - (PH1, Bill Primavera):

everybody that I talk to in the real estate industry is very, very, anxious for Costco
to be here, because one of the questions we get when people consider moving to
Yorktown is, is it a Starbucks kind of town and is it a Costco kind of town. And this
is very much true by our statistics.

A Coldwell banker in -- at the end of 2011 did some research and talked to may first
time home buyers and said, what do look for in your first home. The main thing they
looked for it that the home be in good condition, and I thought the next thing would
certainly schools, but it is not. You know what the second thing is, great shopping,
and the other thing -- oh, the third thing is schools by the way.

And you know what they like the least, high taxes. So, I think just in the environment
of Costco it takes care of two of these problems, it gets us great shopping and it helps
with our taxes. That's all I have to say except that my public relations firm is active
and when I received a call from the representative for Breslin and Costco, I research
who I work for, and I knew a lot about of Costco, but I didn't know anything about
Breslin.

But, when I researched I liked everything that I read, what I particularly liked is that
Wilbur Breslin whose quoted once as saying, "I always leave a place better than I find
it". And I think that's what Costco will do that if it comes to Yorktown. Thank you.
[PH1, page 165, lines 10-25], [PH1, page 166, lines 1-20]

Response III.Q 124:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 125 - (Document 93.3, Ben Falk), (PH2, Ben Falk):


Costco is the first viable development proposal with a developer willing to listen to
our concerns and spend money on improvements that will protect or enhance our
quality of life as well as that of the site.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-155

Response III.Q 125:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 126 - (Document 93.16, Agin and Cyme Mujaj), (Document 93.16, Barbara

Finally, there are already big box stores In Yorktown, so it is disingenuous to claim
letting Costco in would change the nature of our Town. In addition, Costcos
treatment of its employees is much, much better than Walmart, a chain of stores
frequently used as a model of what the Town would be allowing on this site. It is
disingenuous to try and paint Costco with same brush. Costco starting salaries are
higher, they promote from within, and most importantly they provide benefits for at
least 90% of their employees. The Costco pricing model is different, and the number
of products offered is much lower, so they will not carry blanket lines of products,
leaving plenty of room for competition. And, the DEIS identifies spillage that
shows just how much room there really is for addition retail in Yorktown. Costco has
an enviable reputation as a good business model, with its record of higher wages,
promotions from within and benefits for more than 90% of its employees. And Costco
and BJ s merchandise lines are not the same.

Response III.Q 126:

Comment noted.

Comment III.Q 127 (Document 178.2, Henry Steeneck):


Article 2. Costco Settles membership Class Action lawsuit.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-156

Response III.Q 127:

The referenced Article 2 (FEIS Appendix A) relates to a lawsuit in which Costco
changed its membership renewal policy so that the renewal period would commence
at the date of renewal. While not related or relevant to the potential environmental
impacts of the Project, the Applicant has learned from Costco that this new policy
will apply to the Project.



Article 4. Costco attempts to settle gasoline lawsuit.

Response III.Q 128:

The lawsuit has nothing to do with the environmental effects of the Project.



Article 5. Price setting of items sold.

Response III.Q 129:

The referenced Article 5 (FEIS Appendix A) relates to a lawsuit finding that Costco
had violated Omegas copyright laws by selling lawfully acquired Omega watches at
reduced prices. The lawsuit is unrelated to the Project and not relevant to the potential
environmental impacts of the Project that is currently before the Planning Board.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-157



Article 6. Another gasoline lawsuit.

Response III.Q 130:

The referenced Article 6 (FEIS Appendix A) is the same lawsuit as Comment III.Q
129; refer to FEIS Response III.Q 129.

Comment III. Q 131 (Document 178.9b, Henry Steeneck):


Article 9.

Now an additional point I feel urgently need to address is the DEIS projection that 60
percent of the local businesses will be effected. These businesses like Kmart. Are
already struggling, and with an impact of 60 percent this will affectively put Kmart
out of business which if it can do to Kmart what will it do to those lithe MOM and
POP stores already hurting from the poor economic conditions. Those Mom and
Pops are what built Yorktown. Talk about Shopping Local yeah right. The
Yorktown Chamber of Commerce, says the group favors Costco but, In fact there are
only a small handful of members that have voted in favor for it. Some have stated
they were not even asked. What is going on? Are there minutes to reflect their
position as a whole. Again, We are talking about Local men and women much like
yourselves, Residents and Taxpayers already strapped. What will happen to them if
another Box store enters Yorktown.

I foresee more vacate stores and land which the Town does not need or can afford.
We moved away from the places such as Yonkers, Mount Vernon, and even New
York City to escape such issues.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Q-158

Response III.Q 131:

Refer to FEIS Section III.Q Introductory Response regarding the impacts to local
businesses. Furthermore, the Comment regarding Kmart and their business outlook is
unrelated to the Project. The Applicant asserts that there is no information indicating
that the Kmart in Yorktown is struggling. The Applicants Market Study and
Commercial Character Assessment analysis shows that the Projects impact on Kmart
would not be significant. Refer also to FEIS Response III.Q 25.



Response III.Q 132:

Article 12, Costco Workers Win Class Certification for Bias Case, was not referenced
in the comment letter, but was attached. This relates to a lawsuit alleging gender bias,
in which the court certified a class action, thereby allowing the lawsuit to proceed as a
class action. The lawsuit is unrelated and not relevant to the potential environmental
impacts of the Project that is currently before the Planning Board.

III.R CULTUREAL, HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.R

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Cultural, Historical and Archeological Resources

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
III.R-1

Section III.R Cultural, Historical and Archeological Resources

Comment III.R 1 - (Document 74.2, Chris Kehoe, Deputy Planner, Town of Cortlandt
Dept. of Technical Services Planning Division):

The Town of Cortlandt Department of Technical Services respectfully offers the
following comments on the project:

Due to the Taconic State Parkway being classified as a Scenic Byway and is listed on
the National Register of Historic Places, please consider requiring significant planted
buffers where appropriate.

Response III.R 1:

As illustrated on DEIS Site Landscaping Plan, LP-1, the Applicant has proposed a 30
to 40-foot wide planting buffer within the DOT right-of-way adjacent to the Taconic
State Parkways southbound lanes and off-ramp. Plantings are proposed along the
top of the embankment to maximize the proposed buffer and provide screening of the
proposed development. The Applicant continues to work with the DOT toward
approval of the proposed landscape plan, which will ultimately be considered by the
Planning Board as part of the Site Plan Approval.

Comment III.R 2 (Document 158.1, Dale Saltzman):

I have always maintained that keeping a communities [sic] mental health is directly
influenced by the land we live on and our relationship to it. Our agricultural heritage
and forested hills are very very important to each person that moves within them. In
the section of Costcos DEIS on Cultural and historical significance the stone walls
and other land features are not deemed important.

Response III.R 2:

This Comment suggests that loss of woodlands and stone walls will be detrimental to
the communitys mental health. The Site currently has approximately 2,000 linear
feet of stone walls. Approximately half of such walls are located in the vicinity of the
nursery and they will be removed during construction. The remaining half (1,000
feet) are located along the north and west property lines and they will be retained. In
addition, more than half, approximately 4.7 acres, of woodlands will be retained on
the Site.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Part B - Comments and Responses Section IV
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Alternatives

___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-1

Section IV. Alternatives

Comment IV. 1 - (Document 30.2, Grace Siciliano, NoCostco.com):

I cant believe that the Town could not find another venue to put on this site like:

A Hotel/Conference Center An intergenerational senior and youth center. Our
seniors have been crying out for years for a center our youth needs a place to
gather where there is wholesome entertainment and a place to learn and enjoy a
multitude of programs to help them deal with growing up etc.
A Garden Center
A Movie Theatre (the movie theater in the J V Mall keeps closing and reopening all
the time)
If you really want to develop this site with stores, then you should do it so it fits
into the environment try something different like a European type outside mall
with walkways, fountains, chairs/tables with umbrellas, where there are individual
shops, stores, cafes that cater to different ethnic foods, books, entertainment.
Something that everyone will enjoy to enrich their lives. Shopping may give you a
first time high, but it will not last once the excitement of the purchase has
diminished. We use shopping as entertainment.
A Bowling Alley
A Nursing Home
Assisted Living Complex one sure bet is we are all growing old and will need
somewhere to live. Field Home will not be able to accommodate the large
population of seniors needing nursing home assistance so we will need more
facilities.
The Mt. Kisco Medical Group wants to build a medical complex in Yorktown,
How about this site?

I have just listed 9 possible venues for this site.

Response IV. 1:

The Yorktown Planning Board is required to review all site plan applications that are
submitted to the town for zones in which the Planning Board is the approval
authority. Alternatives to the Proposed Action were studied in Section IV of the
DEIS. These alternatives are consistent with zoning and the Comprehensive Plan and
were developed in accordance with the DEIS Final Scope. The proposed Scope was
advertised for public comment; a public hearing was held after which the Final Scope
was adopted by the Planning Board on December 13, 2010. The proposed

___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-2

alternatives as required by the Lead Agency and illustrated in the DEIS were included
by the Lead Agency and made available to the public for comment. Section IV of the
DEIS (Alternatives) is in conformance with the Approved Final DEIS Scope.

Not every alternative to a Proposed Action is required to be considered under
SEQRA. See Aldrich v. Patinson, 107 A.D.2d 258, 266 (2d Dept 1985)
(Not every conceivable environmental impact, mitigating measure or
alternative must be identified and addressed before a FEIS will satisfy the substantive
requirements of SEQRA.) Instead, the scope of analysis in the DEIS is dictated by
the Proposed Actions scoping document, considering the objectives and capabilities
of the Project Sponsor. 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(v) (The draft EIS should identify
and discuss [a] range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible,
considering the objectives and capabilities of the Project Sponsor). Therefore, ([a]
description and evaluation in the DEIS of alternatives which manifestly would not
achieve the objectives of the proposed project are not required by [SEQRA].
Shellabarger v. Onondaga County Water Authority, 105 A.D.2d 1134, 1135, 482
N.Y.S.2d 610, 610 (4th Dept. 1984) (emphasis in original).

The Project Sponsors objectives, as set forth in the DEIS, are the development of a
Costco Wholesale store, tire center and fueling facility. See DEIS at II.8. The Final
Scope required the DEIS to include as alternatives a commercial center and a hotel or
motel development. These evaluations in the DEIS address two of the alternatives
suggested in this Comment. The other alternatives suggested in this Comment were
not included in the Final Scope. Furthermore, such alternatives do not meet the
above-stated objectives of the Project Sponsor. See also FEIS IV.7a explaining the
Applicants assertion that Project impacts without the fueling station would be similar
to the Proposed Action.

Comment IV. 2 - (Document 76.3, Jane Schneider):

Consider a stunning hotel on the site. We have none in the area.

Response IV. 2:
Refer to Section IV of the DEIS, which describes the five alternatives that were
studied. Alternative E provides a mixed use development in which a Hotel or Motel
is the central component, however the Applicant asserted that there is currently not a
large enough market for a hotel use in this location. See also FEIS Response IV.1.


___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-3

Comment IV. 3 - (Document 99.2, Krista Yacovone), (PH2, Krista Yacovone, Riverkeeper):


In the Alternatives section of the DEIS, Alternative C describes a layout that avoids
direct impacts to wetland buffers. This alternative would require reducing the
footprint of the parking lot to avoid encroachment on the buffers and instead
constructing a parking deck to accommodate spillover cars when at full capacity.
However, Costco rejected this alternative with the weak and unsupported claim that a
parking deck would be unattractive for shoppers. This dubious claim assumes that
here in Yorktown another behemoth discount warehouse without a parking deck
would be aesthetically pleasing to anyone. The degradation of water quality in a
drinking water supply watershed is of significantly greater consequence than the
aesthetics of a parking deck. We respectfully request that the Planning Board require
Costco to modify their project design to avoid any disturbance of the on-site surface
water resources and their buffers, consistent with the layout described in Alternative
C of the DEIS.

Response IV. 3:

A smaller building alternative, which would avoid any disturbance of the wetlands or
buffer areas, was assessed in the DEIS (Section IV.C). The DEIS explains why such
an alternative is not reasonable or feasible. As explained below, the Applicant asserts
that the parking deck alternative suggested in this Comment would place the Project
at a competitive disadvantage and also would not provide meaningful environmental
benefits.

In the view of the Applicant, parking decks or underground parking would not be
consistent with a suburban setting and marketing strategies, particularly where
competitors have the advantage of more desirable surface parking. Therefore, the
Applicant asserts that a parking deck would affect the viability and perception of the
store. Consistent with suburban planning and development in general, Costco
management indicates that as a rule parking structures are limited to urban settings
where at-grade parking is not feasible (refer to FEIS Response IV. 8b). Structure
parking is generally incompatible with Costco operations, as well as the operations of
other major retailers, and perceived as unattractive and unappealing to shoppers, in
part, for the following reasons:

a second parking deck level would not have direct access to the single-level
building, thereby requiring elevators, which in turn would require customers
to either maneuver large carts in elevators or, alternatively, require customers
to drive to a pickup location, which would increase on-site traffic and cause

___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-4

traffic concerns;
customer mobility would be limited with the use of elevators and access to
and egress from the store would therefore be delayed;
customers using the parking structure would be required to maneuver large
flat carts within confined spaces, which could cause safety concerns;
the parking structure would require continuous illumination, resulting in
increased energy consumption and light pollution;
suburban customers, for real or perceived reasons, are generally not
comfortable using structured parking and would prefer well lit, at-grade
parking;

Therefore, the suggested alternative parking structures would be appropriate for
downtown urban settings where vertical development is common.

In addition, the Applicant asserts that the costs associated with a parking deck and
attendant retaining walls would be approximately $5.5 million, as compared to the
cost of surface parking of $750,000. The construction of basement parking would
result in significantly more rock excavation and blasting. Assuming, consistent with
accepted practice, that the parking structure required a depth of around 12 feet, the
additional required excavation would be in the neighborhood of 67,000 cubic yards of
material (building area x depth). Approximately half of that material is estimated to
be rock which would require hammering, blasting and removal from the Property,
thereby leading to increased cost, noise, traffic and other environmental impacts. The
Applicant asserts that economic and environmental costs of decked parking outweigh
its limited benefits, considering the hydrological isolation of Wetland B and the
relatively small proposed disturbance to its buffer. Refer to FEIS Site Plan Response
2a, FEIS Response III.G 36a and DEIS III.F for discussions regarding Wetland B.
The Applicant therefore asserts that a parking deck alternative is not reasonable and
would not meet the objectives of the Project Sponsor.

The Applicant concurs with the goal expressed in this Comment to protect water
quality and reduce impact to the onsite wetland buffer as well as to offsite water
bodies within the NYCDEP watershed. In response, The Applicant modified the
DEIS Site Plan to reduce impact to the Wetland A buffer. The FEIS Site Plan
eliminates impervious surfaces within the Wetland A buffer and reduces soil
disturbance mainly by constructing a retaining wall roughly parallel to the westerly
curb. Refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response and Response 2a, and FEIS
III.G Introductory Response.


___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-5

Comment IV. 4 - (Document 108.51, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

From a water quality perspective, Alterative C would be the preferred option as it
minimizes impervious surfaces appears and many of the identified impacts to land
and water resources and fosters maintenance or improvement of riparian buffers.
Although the project sponsor has indicated that it may not be feasible given the
project sponsors objectives to utilize a parking deck or underground parking, the
veracity of the project sponsors arguments against these options is questionable.
Elevators can be utilized to convey shoppers to the store shortening their walk
through the parking area.

Response IV. 4:

Refer to FEIS Response IV. 3, above, for discussion regarding how impacts to water
resources are addressed without structured parking. See also FEIS Site Plan and FEIS
III.G. Introductory Response.

Comment IV. 5 - (Document 108.52, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

It also appears that variations of the mixed use development alternatives could be
developed that would be in keeping with the Towns comprehensive plan and
minimize impacts to stormwater runoff and wetland buffers.

Response IV. 5:

The mixed use development alternatives provided in the DEIS (Exhibits IV-3 and IV-
4) compare developments of comparable size to the Proposed Action so there would
be an apples to apples comparison. The infringements to wetland buffers were
similar to that of the Proposed Action. Modifications to the mixed use alternative
could be made to reduce the impacts from stormwater runoff and to wetland buffers
by reducing the size of the development but then this would not be an apples to
apples comparison.

The FEIS Site Plan reduces impact to Wetland A buffer and provides improved
stormwater quality treatment. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response and FEIS
Site Plan.

The Applicant asserts that the development of the Proposed Action is consistent with
the Towns comprehensive plan, which provides for a retail use with a regional

___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-6

draw on the site. Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and generally to FEIS
III.A Responses.

Comment IV. 6 - (Document 117.7, Megan S. and John M. Flynn):



ALTERNATIVE SITE LAYOUTS

We were especially disappointed by the DEIS treatment of alternative site layouts in
Section IV, in that it provides little information useful to the Planning Board in
advocating better design of this site. For example, Alternative B and C focus on
reducing the projects visual impacts on the Taconic State Parkway and
environmental impacts on an existing wetland buffer, respectively. While these are
worthy goals, no alternatives are offered to reduce traffic congestion this project will
cause, which is easily its most significant impact. Since an independent planner
estimated the fuel station will, by itself, generate nearly 700 peak hour trips and 450
Saturday trips, it appears to us that Section IV needs to include data on alternative site
layouts that reduce traffic impacts namely construction of Costcos standard-size
building without a fueling facility. In addition to reducing traffic impacts, removing
the fuel station from the site plan is likely to provide for more efficient on-site traffic
circulation and reduce the projects impacts on the wetland buffer and air quality
while retaining most of its benefits to the developer and Yorktown.


___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-7

Please revise Section IV of the DEIS to assess construction of the proposed
action without a fueling station.

Response IV. 6:

Section IV of the DEIS (Alternatives) was prepared in compliance with the Final
Scope, which did not require the analysis of a no fueling station alternative.
Moreover, the Applicants proposal has always been for the development of both a
Costco Wholesale Store and a fueling station. (refer to FEIS Responses IV.7a and
IV.7b). An alternative without either of those components does not meet the
objectives of the Project sponsor, and is thus not required under SEQRA. 6 NYCRR
617.9(b)(5)(v). See also FEIS Response IV.1. Finally, the Applicant asserts that a no
fueling station alternative would not materially reduce traffic impacts, or would not
enable safe or beneficial changes to the proposed site plan.

The traffic analysis in the DEIS does not support the peak hour trip estimates
referenced in this Comment, which were taken from a Tim Miller Associates
(TMA) comment that estimated hypothetical trip generation based on fuel
deliveries. Based on the information obtained from the Applicant and from surveys
of other Costco facilities, including the existing Nanuet, NY and Brookfield, CT
locations which both include fueling facilities, the trip rates in the DEIS represent
typical operating conditions. As described in FEIS Response III.K.6.c Item No. 2, the
Applicant asserts that many trips to the fueling station would be dual-purpose trips,
and thus would be made even in the absence of a fueling facility. Applicant also
asserts that other trips to the proposed fueling station would otherwise be made to
other gas stations in the area, and therefore, do not reflect increased use of the
roadway system or traffic volumes. As a result, Applicant asserts that TMAs peak
hour trip estimates are overstated.

Based on the Applicants data collected at other existing Costco stores, which include
fueling facilities, as well as the trip generation estimates shown in Table No. 1 of the
Revised Traffic Impact Study (FEIS Appendix G), approximately 90 or fewer new
trips to the fueling station are anticipated during each of the peak periods (i.e. AM
76 new trips, PM 82 new trips, Saturday 90 new trips). The sensitivity analysis
included in the Revised Traffic Impact Study (contained in FEIS Appendix G),
accounts for the potentially higher trip generation estimates. The sensitivity analysis
used the higher trip generation for the fueling facility, as suggested in Table B-3 of
FEIS Comment III.K.6.d, and demonstrates that even with the assumed generation of
these additional trips, traffic from the Proposed Action would be adequately
accommodated on the roadway system after completion of the NYSDOT
improvements and the separately proposed Project-sponsored improvements, without
significantly changing the expected operating conditions in the traffic study area.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-8

Refer to FEIS Response III.K.6.d Item No. 2 for additional information on the
estimated trip generation of the Proposed Action. Section III.J of the Revised Traffic
Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G also provides a discussion of the results
of the sensitivity analysis.

If the fueling facility were eliminated, as suggested in this Comment, it is not likely
that sufficient area would be freed up to significantly modify the onsite traffic
circulation and reduce impacts to wetland buffers. The main site driveway is ideally
located opposite Mohansic Avenue, thereby creating a four-way intersection. The
geometry of the driveway was established in coordination with the NYSDOT (item
14 of NYSDOT February 16, 2012 letter included in DEIS Appendix L) to maximum
pedestrian safety and allow for efficient truck turning at Route 202/35. Due to the
roadway geometry required for truck traffic, curving or shifting the driveway further
east (the fueling station area), which would increase the main parking area, would not
be feasible and would create unsafe conditions. In addition, the Applicant does not
consider the area east of the driveway to be desirable for parking, due to its distance
from the building entrance. The Applicant prefers the main parking area west of the
driveway due to its proximity to the building entrance. Therefore, the Applicant
asserts that eliminating the fueling facility to provide area east of the driveway for
parking or driveway relocation would create unsafe conditions and thus be
unreasonable.

Moreover, if the fueling facility were eliminated and the area east of the driveway
was utilized for parking, the Costco building and loading area could not be shifted far
enough south (in order to maintain a safe slope on the entry road) to significantly
reduce the impact to the Wetland B buffer. Since Wetland B is of relatively poor
quality and the westerly buffer drains away from the wetland providing little to no
filtration, the resultant benefit could be considered marginal (refer to DEIS III.F.1a,
1b, 2a).

Comment IV. 7a - (Document 119.9a, Olivia Bell Buehl), (PH2, Olivia Buehl), (178.11k,
Henry Steeneck):


Alternatives
They [sic] developer says there are no viable alternatives.
The real facts are that the applicant is required by law to discuss alternatives for this
location and weigh whether they would be better for the town. The DEIS neglects to
show us that these alternatives would result in less traffic, fewer environmental
problems, a reduced negative impact on the existing businesses, more and better
paying jobs, and so on. In fact, the alternative analysis is practically nonexistent. In a

___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-9

2,200-page document, the discussion on alternatives is limited to four pages. The
developer needs to go back to the drawing board and provide a deeper and more
detailed account of the alternatives.

The SEQR process dictates that the Town (and the citizens) decide whether the gain
is greater that [sic] the problems after looking at the alternatives. And there are plenty
of alternatives, which, had they been analyzed, would result in a greater tax increase.
The developer says that no one has proposed anything else for this parcel. I say that
they havent tried, especially under this new Town Board. We also need the
developer to show the alternative impact of Costco without the filling station, which
is the main reason for a substantial component of the traffic increase, as well as the
impervious pavement adding to stormwater problems, etc.

Response IV. 7a:

The reasonable alternatives studied in the DEIS were selected according to the Final
DEIS Scope that was developed, reviewed and approved by the Lead Agency
including input solicited from and provided by the public. An alternative without a
fueling station was not included in the Final DEIS Scope. Refer to FEIS Responses
IV.1 and IV.6, which address requests for additional alternatives to be studied.

The Applicant asserts that Project impacts without the fueling station would be
similar to the Proposed Action, as described below.

The exclusion of the fueling station would result in a small decrease (5%) in the
impervious area and land disturbance (approximately acre) when compared to
Treatment of the stormwater runoff from the Project would be managed
similarly with or without the fueling facility in accordance with applicable
regulations including NYSDEC and NYCDEP as well as the Stormwater
Management Prevention Plan (refer to FEIS Appendix E).
There would be no decrease in water use and sewage disposal.
Regarding traffic impacts, the projected peak traffic volumes compared to the
Proposed Action are summarized below. Also refer to FEIS III.K.


___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-10

Table IV.7a
Traffic Generation
With and Without the Fueling Station

Alternative

Traffic (1)
AM PM SAT
ENTRY EXIT ENTRY EXIT ENTRY EXIT
Proposed
Action
45 41 240 240 388 388
No Fueling
Station
8 4 199 199 343 343
NOTES:
(1) Trip generation numbers for alternatives represent new trips to the transportation
system.
(2) Trip generation estimates for the Proposed Action and No Fueling Station alternatives
are based on the trip generation estimates contained in Table No. 1 of the Revised
Traffic Impact Study contained in FEIS Appendix G.

Change in Air Quality impacts would be minimal since CO (carbon monoxide)
emissions would be below the Air Quality Standards and GHG (greenhouse gas)
and Criteria Pollutants would be below the Major Source Thresholds. Refer to
DEIS and FEIS Sections III.M.
There would be a reduction of annual property tax generation.

Comment IV. 7b - (Document 119.9b, Olivia Bell Buehl), (PH2, Olivia Buehl):

Alternatives. A section of the DEIS should detail the changes in impact in all
areas of the DEIS.

What is the impact on traffic, taxes, blight, the environment, etc., of the
project without the filling station?

Response IV. 7b:

Refer to FEIS Responses IV.6, IV.7a and IV.10. for discussion of the anticipated
traffic and environmental impacts of a project without the fueling station. Also refer
to FEIS Responses III.Q. 8 and III.Q.15 for a discussion of community character (or
blighting) impacts associated with the proposed fueling station. As explained in
greater detail in the above-referenced FEIS Responses, the Applicant asserts that
elimination of the fueling station would not mitigate significant environmental
impacts, would not meet the objectives of the Applicant, and would likely reduce tax
revenues from the Proposed Action.


___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-11

Not every alternative to a Proposed Action is required to be considered under
SEQRA. Instead, the scope of analysis in the DEIS is dictated by the Proposed
Actions scoping document, considering the objectives and capabilities of the Project
Sponsor. The Projects Final Scope did not require consideration of the Proposed
Action without a fueling station, nor did any comments on the draft Scope request
consideration of such an alternative. Therefore, SEQRA does not require the detailed
analysis of the Proposed Action without a fueling facility in the DEIS. Refer to FEIS
Response IV.1.

Comment IV. 8 (Document 123.1, Paul A. Moskowitz):

Please accept the attached drawings by the architect Paul Willem with regard to
proposed parking at the Costco development. The drawings indicate that the
development will occupy a smaller footprint if parking spaces are provided beneath
the building.

Specific questions;
Has the developer considered placing parking spaces beneath the building?
Would not placing parking spaces beneath the building reduce the overall area of
impervious surfaces and the impact of those impervious surfaces on water quality?

[Attachment to Document 123 by Paul Willem, FAIA Architect:]

A back-up plan in case all fails. To diminish the total Costco footprint and increase
the green acreage, the following two steps are proposed.

1. As per many Costco stores, part of the parking will be placed underneath the
building in a half basement yielding 250 spaces (assuming space for mech
equipment, storage, elevators).

2. Thus 250 spaces will be removed from proposed on-grade parking, creating
space for a large green area and effective buffer between 202 and the huge
Costco building.

This green park-like area could be part of Costcos effort to diminish its
impact and to contribute to the Yorktown environment.

See the attached drawings showing (1) the existing Costco proposal and (2) the
proposed alternative.


___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-12

Figure Attachment to Letter 123


___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-13

Figure Attachment to Letter 123


___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-14

Response IV. 8:

In the view of the Applicant, parking decks or underground parking would not be
consistent with a suburban setting and marketing strategies, particularly where
competitors have the advantage of more desirable surface parking. The Applicant
asserts that a parking deck would negatively affect the viability and perception of the
store. Consistent with suburban planning and development in general, Costco
management indicates that as a rule parking structures are limited to urban settings
where at-grade parking is not feasible (refer to FEIS Response IV. 8). Structure
parking is generally incompatible with Costco operations, as well as the operations of
other major retailers. It is typically perceived as unattractive and unappealing to
shoppers; it would not be as desirable to customers in a competitive marketplace and,
therefore, would not meet the Applicants objective, thereby rendering it
unreasonable and infeasible. (Also refer to FEIS Response IV.3.)

Basement parking is essentially not utilized in the U.S., with very few exceptions
(e.g. Waltham MA). The Waltham site uniquely contains both a warehouse and the
eastern regional office. Adequate land area was not available to meet the Towns
parking requirement for both the store and the office so underground parking was
constructed. According to the Applicant, Costco Management indicates that the
basement parking is generally underutilized as customers prefer the surface parking.

Development of the suggested basement parking plan would result in significant
environmental impacts. These impacts would include significantly more rock
excavation, which would require hammering, blasting and removal from the Site,
noise, traffic, increased building materials, increased energy usage thereby leading to
an overall increased environmental impacts and construction costs.

Although the Proposed Action would have more impervious pavement than the
basement parking plan, any runoff from such pavement would be managed consistent
with applicable regulations and guidance in accordance with the Stormwater
Management Plan (refer to FEIS III.G and Appendix E). Refer also to DEIS Section
IV Alternative C, which discusses a structured parking alternative.

For the foregoing reasons, the alternative suggested by this Comment is not
considered to be within the range of reasonable alternatives required by SEQRA.

Comment IV. 9 - (Document 128.4, Ms. Anne Fleurat):


___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-15


the proper mitigation for parking [could be to] eliminate the filling station, thereby
freeing up more land for parking. It is worth noting that the relocation of the filling
station from its initial placement has consumed some of the prime parking spaces
close to the entrance.

Therefore, I formally request that the applicant prepare a supplemental DEIS
exploring the impact of no filling station.

Response IV. 9:

This Comment suggests that elimination of the fueling station would free up
additional land to be used as mitigation by allowing expansion of the parking area.
Based on the Parking Demand Study described in the Introductory Response in
section III.L of this FEIS, the Proposed Action will have adequate supply to meet the
parking demand even in the peak shopping season. Eliminating the fueling facility to
provide additional parking would not provide useful parking as the spaces would be
across the main driveway and a significant distance from the store entrance.

Regarding this Comments request for an alternative without the fueling station, refer
to FEIS Responses IV. 1, 6, 7a, and 10. Regarding the request for a Supplemental
EIS, refer to General 1.9.

Comment IV. 10 - (Document 115.1, William Stoiber):

for a Costco warehouse store on Rte. 202/35. It occurs to me an analysis has not been
made in the DEIS of the alternative of a Costco without the gas filling station option.
While the economics to the parent corporation of operating this particular store at the
proposed location are not expected to be part of the DEIS, it does not seem
inappropriate to bring up this issue, in that many Costco stores in the NY-NJ -Conn
area are also free of filling stations.

With this in mind, and noting that the Planning Board has vowed to explore all
variations of the proposal, it becomes apparent that the alternative of looking at the
proposed project without the filling station needs to be addressed and analyzed, to the
extent that a supplemental DEIS should be requested by the Planning Board. The
supplemental DEIS should take into consideration the following positives regarding
the no filling station alternative:

___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-16

>Mitigation of traffic volume in general, and mitigation of air pollution from queued
vehicles
>Significant decrease in truck deliveries to the store
>Lessened visual site lighting impact and possible change to lighting variance
request
>Area available for parking would increase, possibly ameliorating encroachment on
wetlands
>Sign variance request would be modified; less visual sign impact
> Possible elimination of potential closings of local existing gas stations, and
subsequent visual blight

In light of the above discussion, and the potential to reverse many adverse impacts, it
is kindly requested that a supplemental DEIS be issued with an in-depth analysis of a
proposal for a Costco store with the option for removal of the gas filling station.

Response IV. 10:

Refer to FEIS Responses IV. 1, 6 and 7a for an explanation of why an alternative
without a fueling station, which was not required by the Final Scope and which the
Applicant asserts would not meet its objectives for the Proposed Action, is not
required under SEQRA. Refer to FEIS Response General 1.9 for an explanation of
why a Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
While the Applicant asserts that an alternative without the fueling station was not
required under SEQRA, the Comments requests for specific information relating to
such an alternative are addressed below:

Traffic See FEIS Response IV.6. The minor reduction in trips and queuing at
the fueling facility would proportionately reduce air pollutants.
Truck deliveries The DEIS indicates that 1 to 5 fueling facility deliveries per
day are anticipated.
Lighting If the fueling station were eliminated a minor reduction of light poles
would result. However, this Comment suggests that the area could be used to
expand the parking, which would result in adding light poles to this new expanded
parking area. Applicant asserts that elimination of the fueling station would not
impact its request for a variance or legislative change to the lighting ordinance.
There is no encroachment on wetlands. The FEIS Site Plan proposes an alternate
means of reducing impact to the buffer of Wetland A (other than by eliminating
the fueling station). The FEIS Site Plan shows a reduction of grading in the buffer
by constructing retaining walls. Refer to FEIS III.G and FEIS Site Plan

___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-17

A letter from NYSDOT dated 10/23/2012 letter states: to the extent that
proposed signage is not visible from the TSP, NYSDOT is willing to permit the
installation of the signs on the west building elevation and the west face of
the fueling station. See FEIS Appendix C. Also refer to FEIS Responses II.13
and III.B 15.

The strictly economic impacts of a new fueling station on existing gas stations are
not environmental impacts subject to review under SEQRA. Further, the
Applicant asserts that the Project would not cause blighting as a result of its
competitive effects on other gas stations, which are not designated as anchors or
partial anchors in the DEIS Community Character assessment. Also, many gas
stations provide different services besides gasoline. Generally their profit is from
these other types of services such as oil changes or automobile repairs, as well as
convenience stores. No oil changes or automobile repairs are performed at the
Costco Tire Service Center. For a more detailed discussion regarding potential
impacts, refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 8, III.Q 15d, III.Q 17b, III.Q 17c and III.Q
17d.

Scope, which did not require the analysis of a no fueling station alternative.
The Applicant asserts that SEQRA does not require the consideration of an
alternative, which (a) would not meet the objectives of the Project Sponsor, (b)
would not materially reduce traffic impacts.. Regarding the request for a
Supplemental EIS, refer to General 1.9.

Comment IV. 11 (Document 139.9, Jonathon Nettelfield):

Page l-43: Summary of Alternatives. While looking at alternative development
options for the site, the DEIS specifically refers to the type of development proposed
in the Comp Plan: D. Commercial Center Employing a Group of Buildings Per
Zoning, Including a Village-Like Development. Alternative D provides a village-like
development consisting of several buildings arranged throughout the site. The
development is a mixed use, which includes a bank, restaurant and retail. The
conclusion that dismisses this option simply states, The Applicant, therefore, has
indicated that this alternative does not meet the Applicants objectives to develop a
Big Box at this site We cannot understand why this alternative was seriously
considered in the DEIS, a requirement in the SEQRA process, if the only objective
was to build a big box store. The applicant states elsewhere (Page IV-14) that the
reason for dismissing Alternative D is less efficient use (building area per acre) of
the land. Where in the Comp Plan or other development literature/law does it state
that the decision criteria for approving development should be the most efficient use

___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-18

of land? We understand why a developer might consider this a mandate, but not a
community.

Response IV. 11:

Refer to FEIS Response IV.1 for an explanation of why the reasonableness of
alternatives under SEQRA is determined in light of the Project Sponsors objectives.
As stated in the DEIS, the Applicants objective is to build a Costco Wholesale Store
with a fueling facility. A Mixed Use Village-Like Development would not attain
that objective. Alternative D was evaluated pursuant to the requirements of the Final
Scope, and a reasoned elaboration for selecting the Proposed Action over alternative
D was provided in the DEIS. See DEIS IV.14-IV.16. Moreover, the DEIS analyzes,
but does not select among, reasonable alternatives. The ultimate decision concerning
the use of the Site will made by the Planning Board.

Contrary to the assertion in the Comment, Alternative D was not rejected because it
provides a less efficient use of the land, although the Applicant asserts that this is a
valid consideration for local land use decisions. Instead, after evaluating the impacts
from Alternative D, the DEIS concluded that the alternative would have similar
environmental and physical impacts to the Proposed Action, but would yield less tax
revenue due to the reduction in building area, and would not attain the objectives of
the Project Sponsor. The Proposed Action is consistent with the Towns
Comprehensive Plan, which provides for a retail use with a regional draw, like
Costco, on the Project Site. Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and
Responses III.A 3 and III.A 5.

Comment IV. 12 (Document 175.3, Henry Steeneck):

Additionally, this shows again that no thought was given to providing in the DEIS the
alternative of no fueling station.

Furthermore, we feel that this is a decision that the planning board should be making,
not the applicant.

REQUEST-we ask that the DEIS be declared deficient; in the alternative we request
that the review and comment period be kept open until these questions are answered.

Response IV. 12
Scope, which did not require the analysis of a no fueling station alternative. The
Applicant asserts that SEQRA does not require the consideration of an alternative,
which (a) would not meet the objectives of the Project Sponsor and (b) would not

___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-19

materially reduce traffic impacts.. Regarding an alternative without a fueling facility,
refer to FEIS Responses IV. 1, 6 IV.7a and 10.

All substantive comments received by the close of the comment period (December
19, 2012) were included and responses provided in this FEIS. The FEIS will not be
complete until it has been reviewed and accepted by the Lead Agency.

Comment IV. 13 (Document 176.10, Henry Steeneck):

Therefore we formally request that the applicant prepare a supplemental DEIS
exploring the impact of not having the filling station.

Response IV. 13:

Scope, which did not require the analysis of a no fueling station alternative. The
Applicant asserts that SEQRA does not require the consideration of an alternative,
which (a) would not meet the objectives of the Project Sponsor and (b) would not
materially reduce traffic impacts.. Regarding an alternative without a fueling facility,
refer to FEIS Responses IV. 1, 6, 7a and 10. Regarding the request for a
Supplemental EIS, refer to FEIS General 1.9.

Comment IV. 14 (Document 179.3, William Wegner, Riverkeeper):

The preferred alternative should avoid direct impacts to wetland buffers

In the Alternatives section of the DEIS, Alternative C describes a layout that avoids
direct impacts to wetland buffers. This alternative would require reducing the
footprint of the parking lot to avoid encroachment on the buffers and instead
constructing a parking deck to accommodate spillover cars when at full capacity.
Also considered under this alternative is a smaller Costco building footprint to avoid
the necessity for a parking deck.

The DEIS claims that Costco has indicated that a parking deck is not suited to its
suburban model because the 2nd parking deck level would not have direct access to
the single-level building making it unattractive for shoppers. In addition, Costco
has reported that they no longer construct the smaller building footprints previously
used at older existing Costco sites. It is for these reasons that the proposed building
for this alternative would not be supported by Costco, the plan does not meet the
Applicants objective and would not be considered feasible.


___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-20

The applicants foregoing claims are without merit. The degradation of water quality
in an unfiltered drinking water supply watershed is of significantly greater
consequence than a minor inconvenience to Costco shoppers. For the applicant to
summarily dismiss the lower-build alternative by reporting that it no longer
construct[s] the smaller building footprints is arbitrary at best and not supported by
any rational discussion in the DEIS. Riverkeeper therefore respectfully requests that
the Planning Board require Costco to modify its project design to avoid disturbance
of the on-site wetland buffers, consistent with the layout described in Alternative C of
the DEIS.

Response IV. 14:

Refer to FEIS Response IV.3 for discussion regarding Alternative C and the FEIS
Site Plan. The FEIS Site Plan eliminates impervious surfaces within the Wetland A
buffer and provides enhanced stormwater quality treatment. Refer to FEIS III.G and
Site Plan Introductory Responses regarding stormwater quality and modifications to
the Site Plan to reduce impacts to wetland buffer.

Comment IV. 15 (PH2, James Garofalo, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):
Now, there is no reason why they cannot have a plan that combines both the zoning
required parking and not intruding on the wetlands and the wetland areas.

They've shown alternatives, which show only restrictions on impact on the wetlands
with the reduced parking. Let them show a plan, showing that there is ways in which
you can combine the required parking in the zoning and the facility without intrusion
into the wetland and the wetlands buffers. [PH2, page 47, lines 7-18]

Response IV. 15:

This Comment requests that the Applicant provide an alternative site plan showing no
impact to wetland buffers while providing the required parking in the zoning.
Alternative C in Section IV.C of the DEIS illustrates a site plan without direct impact
to the wetland buffers. This alternative would require a parking deck in order to
provide the proposed 610 parking spaces. However, the Applicant asserts that this
alternative would offer little environmental benefit (refer to DEIS III.F for a
description of the limited ecological value of Wetland B) while imposing
considerable environmental and economic costs. (Refer to FEIS Response IV.3 for a
description of the additional costs associated with a parking deck or below ground
parking). The Applicant asserts that this alternative is unreasonable because its
substantial environmental and economic costs outweigh any limited environmental
benefit to the Wetland B buffer area.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-21

With regard to protection of wetlands and wetland buffers, the Applicant modified the
DEIS Site Plan to reduce impact to the Wetland A buffer. The FEIS Site Plan
eliminates impervious surfaces within the Wetland A buffer and reduces soil
disturbance mainly by constructing a retaining wall roughly parallel to the westerly
curb. Refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response and Response 2a, and FEIS
III.G Introductory Response.

Comment IV. 16 (PH2, Olivia Buehl):

On the alternative -- alternative uses for the site, please provide detail of estimate
assessment for proposed tax use. [PH2, page 107, lines 4-12]

My understanding is that many of the other alternatives could provide just as much
tax revenue as Costco has said it would provide.

Response IV. 16:

Annual property tax generation for each of the alternatives illustrated in Section IV of
the DEIS was provided in Table IV.5 of the DEIS. The Applicant asserts that the
overall annual property tax estimate generated for each alternative is sufficient to
make a meaningful comparison of the value of each alternative when compared to

Comment IV. 17 - (Document 60.3a, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.4a,

No alternative plan representing some kind of consistency with the aforementioned
plans and town codes has been presented.

Response IV. 17:

This Comment refers to items 1 to 7 in Comment Letter #60 (FEIS Appendix B).
FEIS Responses III.A 52, III.A 53 and III.K 39 address the referenced
aforementioned items regarding land use and traffic. In summary, the referenced
FEIS Responses discuss the Proposed Actions consistency with such plans as the
Comprehensive Plan and the Sustainable Development Study. In addition, the FEIS
Site Plan has been modified, in part, to enhance onsite traffic circulation (refer to Site
Plan Introductory Response). Therefore, the Applicant asserts that no further
modifications are warranted.

Comment IV. 18 (PH2, Babette Ballinger):

___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-22

The other thing I wanted to say is that as I listened to everything, as I looked at the
Blue prints and I see all these ten, fifteen acres for parking lots, I wonder whether
there is another way of doing this.

Why can't Costco do something that is original, that it's innovative, that could
possibly be a little bit greener. Why can't they put in underground parking? Why
can't they do something that is really special and that shows the kind of company that
they say that they are?

I think this could be a terrific opportunity for all of us to be involved in a win/win,
instead of having to go ahead and say fine. You know, the lovely man who was the
landscaper, who spoke, I don't know how you can do landscaping on fifteen acres of
parking lot. I think that maybe if we can get them to do something that would
mitigate all these issue it might be really interesting and it might be a real win/win for
all of us. Thank you. [PH2, page 126, lines 8-25], [PH2, page 127, lines 1-6]

Response IV. 18:

In the view of the Applicant, underground parking would not be consistent with a
suburban setting and marketing strategies, particularly where competitors have the
advantage of more desirable surface parking. In addition, the construction of
basement parking would result in significantly more rock excavation and blasting.
For a more detailed discussion of underground parking, refer to FEIS Response IV. 3.

Regarding site landscaping, the parking lot with roads is approximately 7.5 acres, not
15 acres. The Planning Board will review the site landscaping as part of the site plan
review process. Such considerations may include the addition of diamond-shaped
landscape cut-outs within the parking area in order to add additional trees to the site
without displacing parking spaces.

Comment IV. 19 - (Document 94.3, Alan Weger):

I would encourage Costco to examine other sites such as the intersection of Route
9 and Interstate 84, which would be much better suited to a store of this size.

I hope that the planning board realizes that it is fully empowered to reject this
project, in order to maintain the quality of life for Yorktown residents, and permit
the graceful but inevitable natural population growth in the area.

Response IV. 19:


___________________________________________________________________________________________
IV-23

There is no obligation under SEQRA for an applicant to consider alternative sites
that it does not own or have an option to purchase. 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(v)(g).
VI. OTHER SEQRA REQUIRED CHAPTERS
Part B - Comments and Responses Section VI
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Other SEQR Required Chapters

___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-1

Section VI. Other SEQR Required Chapters

Comment VI. 1 - (Document 108.2, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

The project includes a new sewer and gas line along Old Crompond Road. This will
enable development of approximately 40 acres of currently vacant or under developed
land to be fully developed in a designated main street area. These 40 acres are
presently comprised of less than 10 single family residences, one or two multifamily
residences and 16 acres of underdeveloped commercial property. The current zoning
includes half acre and 1-acre single family residential, commercial limited and
commercial hamlet center. The potential impacts of secondary growth on these
parcels needs to be evaluated.

The DEIS indicates that new sewer and gas lines are proposed that will bring service
along Old Crompond Road. The impacts of new sewer and gas lines on potential
build out of the surrounding area may be significant. The DEIS needs to discuss what
development might realistically ensue along Old Crompond Road based on the
availability of the new sewer and gas service. This should include a reasonable
discussion on potential zoning changes. Specifics regarding future build out in
accordance with current zoning as well as potential zoning changes should be
provided in order to determine associated impacts and, a map showing the
underdeveloped parcels with the current and possible future zoning should be added.

Response VI. 1:

Potential growth along Old Crompond Road may occur, in part as a result of the
extension of the proposed sanitary sewer and natural gas services along Old
Crompond Road as well as the roadway improvements to Route 202/35. In the
context of this Comment, the Applicant updated the DEIS Growth Inducement
analysis (DEIS pages VI.1 to VI-7), which also included lot 36.06-2-72 since this lot
will also be provided sewer service as part of the Proposed Action and was included
in the DEIS. As discussed below, land use applications for parcels 26.18-1-23 (which
has subsequently been subdivided into lots 26.18-1-23, 25 and 26) and 36.06-2-72)
referenced in this Comment were submitted or approved prior to the submission of
the application of the Proposed Action; the projects known as Supermarket and
Temple Israel. Therefore, this growth could not have been induced by the proposed
Project. Further, some of the areas identified in this Comment as potentially
susceptible to induced growth are not zoned for further development. The Applicant
asserts that there is no reasonably foreseeable growth associated with the Proposed
Action. Nonetheless, Section IV of the DEIS considers the potential for future

___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-2

growth along the properties adjacent to the Project, which would directly benefit from
the proposed extension of sewer and gas service and/or road improvements even
though some development (multi-family residential) would necessitate rezoning and
compliance with SEQRA.. The referenced properties are listed in Table VI.1a and
shown on FEIS Exhibit V1-1a.

Table VI.1a
List of Existing Properties Adjacent to Project Improvements (1)
Lots Zone Zoning Description
Lot Area
(acres) (2)
Developed /
Use
26.18-1-9 to 16 R1-20
acre
One-Family Residential
24
Yes /
Residential
26.18-1-20 C-3 Commercial Limited 3
No /
Vacant
26.18-1-21 C-2 Commercial Hamlet Center 0.3
Yes /
Residential
26.18-1-22 C-2 Commercial Hamlet Center 0.5
Yes /
Residential
26.18-1-23, 25,
26
C-2/C-3
Commercial Hamlet Center
/Commercial Limited
11
No /
Vacant
36.06-2-72 IN Planned Interchange 12
No /
Vacant
Total - - 50.8 -
Notes:
(1) Properties along the route of the sanitary sewer, natural gas and/or roadway improvements.
(2) Lot areas are approximate as measured from Town of Yorktown GIS mapping.


___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-4

Existing Development
As indicated in Table VI.1a, three of the existing properties are currently developed,
while the remaining three properties remain undeveloped. The developed properties,
located on the north side of Old Crompond Road, consist of 8 lots (26.18-1-9 to 16),
each of which is presently developed with residential dwellings. The two small lots
(16.18-1-21 and 22), located on the south side of Old Crompond Road are also
developed, each having a residential dwelling. The 3-acre (26.18-1-20) and 11-acre
commercial properties (26.18-1-23, 25, 26), located on the south side of Old
Crompond Road are presently undeveloped; and the 12-acre property (36.06-2-72),
located south of Route 202/35 is also undeveloped.

It is noted that the 8-acre lot (26.18-1-7), located west of the 24-acre one family
residential property, known as Crompond Crossings, is currently under construction.
Sewer and gas lines are being extended as part of that development to the Crompond
Crossing site. Lot 26.18-1-24, (1.4 acres), known as the Adrian Body Shop site is
currently developed. Development existing prior to the application for the Proposed
Action, or within a sewer district, cannot be considered to be induced by the
extension of sewer service associated with the Proposed Action.

Development Constraints
Potential development depends on zoning requirements as well as land constraints
such as existing land cover, steep slopes and wetlands. Physical land constraints were
calculated based on available municipal mapping, which provides adequate detail for
planning purposes. Remaining unconstrained land represents the land theoretically
available for development. The series of exhibits included in this response illustrate
the existing conditions and environmental constraints associated with the referenced
properties. Exhibit VI-1a illustrates the lots with existing buildings. Exhibit VI1b
illustrates existing topography and steep slopes. Exhibit VI-1c illustrates existing
wetlands and buffers.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-7

Steep slopes, as shown in Exhibit VI-1b were calculated based on Town of
Yorktown/Westchester County GIS topographic maps. Wetlands and buffers as
illustrated in Exhibit VI-1c were also taken from the Town/County GIS and Town of
Yorktown Freshwater Wetlands, Chapter 178, Regulated Area map (wetland
inventory map). As shown, much of the referenced land is significantly limited by
the presence of wetlands and wetland buffers, especially on the commercial lands.
When estimating the potential area available for development, these physical
constraints were considered. Since the Town of Yorktown does not prohibit
development on steep slopes, even though as a practical matter such conditions do in
reality constrain development, the land outside the wetlands, including steep slopes,
were considered developable for purposes of this assessment. Since development
within wetland buffers could occur under Town permit, to be conservative,
approximately 20 percent of the buffers were considered developable. This
assumption is consistent with the wetland disturbance of the Proposed Action. Table
VI.1b provides a summary of land constraints associated with the future development
parcels and the remaining land which could be used for development.
According to Town mapping, the commercial lands of lots 26.18-1-20 and 26.18-1-
23, 25, 26 are so encumbered by wetlands that they may not be developable. Prior to
development, a site-specific wetland assessment would need to be performed which
may reveal some upland areas. In an effort to be conservative, this analysis assumes
some developable area within these referenced properties.


___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-8

Table VI.1b
Land Constraints Summary
Lot Zone
Total
Area
(Acres)
(1)
Steep
Slopes
(Acres) (2)
Wetland
(Acres)(3)
Wetland
Buffer
(Acres)(3)
Estimated
Roadway/SWM
Infrastructure
(Acres)
Remaining
Area for
Development
(Acres)(4)
26.18-1-9
to
26.18-1-16
R-3
(8)
24 5.3 1.9 5.7 3.5 14(5)
26.18-1-20 C-3 3 0.4 2.4 0.4 n/a 1(6)
26.18-1-23,
25, 26
C-2/
C-3
11 1.0 6.6 1.4 n/a 5(7)
36.06-2-72 IN 12 1.3 2.9 3.7 n/a 6(5)
Total - 50 8 13.8 11.2 - 26
Notes:
(1) Area taken from Exhibit VI.1a
(2) Area taken from Exhibit VI.1b (There is no Town ordinance prohibiting development on steep slopes.)
(3) Area taken from Exhibit VI.1c
(4) Assumes development on 20% of wetland buffer could be permitted
(5) (Total Area) (Wetland) (80% Wetland Buffer) (Road/SWM) =(Developable Land)
(6) Exhibit VI.1c (Town wetland inventory maps) shows entire site within wetland. However, since actual
development will require more accurate mapping of wetlands, 1.0 acre of development was assumed for
purposes of this study.
(7) Exhibit VI.1c (Town wetland inventory maps) shows entire site within wetland. However, developable
area is assumed to be 5acres based on a previous proposal to the Town for a supermarket; however, the
application preceded the Proposed Action and therefore, is not considered induced.
(8) Assumes rezoned from R1-20 to R-3.

Potential Development

Residential Properties (lots 26.18-1-9 to 16)
Town Planning staff indicated that the properties north of Old Crompond Road could
support greater development and inquiries have been made to Planning Department
staff and the Town Board regarding potential rezoning to R-3, Multifamily
Residential. The Applicant asserts that rezoning is not reasonably foreseeable in light
of the Towns recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, which contemplated a major
retail use on the Project Site but did not propose rezoning the current residential lots
for multifamily use. Nevertheless, this FEIS considers potential rezoning of the
current residential zone (R1-20, acre One Family Residential), since it would yield
higher density development with greater physical environmental impacts than
development under current zoning.

Future development for the residential property was assumed to be rezoned to R-3
Multifamily Residential having an average density of 10 units per developable acre
(per Zoning Code). A mix of 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units was assumed based on
Avalon of Ossining, Westchester County, a multi-family development in near

___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-9

proximity to the Proposed Action. (See Table VI.1c.) With consideration of land
constraints, as indicated in Table VI.1b, 10 units were applied to each of the
remaining 14 developable acres yielding 140 units. To be conservative, no credit was
taken for elimination of the existing 8 residences.

3-Acre Commercial Lot (16.18-1-20)
As described, the referenced lot is highly encumbered by wetlands and wetland
buffer. However, to be conservative, a 10,000 square foot commercial development is
assumed for this study.

This lot fronts on Old Crompond Road and therefore would have access to the sewer
and gas services constructed as part of the Proposed Action. Although the land owner
did not respond to the Applicants invitation to be included in the Peekskill Sanitary
Sewer District (refer to DEIS page III.H-11), the owner could apply in the future and
if permitted, they could connect to the sewer.

Two Small Commercial Lots (16.18-1-21 and 22)
These two referenced lots are presently developed with residential dwellings. Future
development could potentially involve consolidation of these lots with larger adjacent
lots, however, it would not materially increase impacts; therefore, for the purposes of
this study, no change in development is assumed.

11-Acre Commercial Lots (16.18-1-23, 25, 26)
As illustrated in Exhibit VI-1c, the referenced lot is encumbered by wetlands and
wetland buffer.

An application for development of a supermarket on this parcel was previously
submitted to the Town Planning Board in 1999 and proceeded through the EIS review
process until the application was later withdrawn. This parcel is within the existing
sanitary sewer district (refer to DEIS Exhibit III.H-6) and has access to the existing
sanitary sewer service, as well as gas service, presently located adjacent to the lot at
Stony Street. Because the proposal preceded the Proposed Action, it could not have
been induced by it. Moreover, as the lot fronts the NYSDOT sponsored highway
improvements, and connection to sanitary sewer and gas services could be made
without the Proposed Action, any future development of the parcel would not be
induced by the sewer, gas and roadway improvements associated with Proposed
Action. Therefore, the development impacts are not included in FEIS Table III.VI.1c.
Traffic generated by the 45,000 square foot supermarket was, however, accounted for
in the Traffic Impact Study (FEIS Appendix G) for the Proposed Action as an
anticipated development project. This non-induced traffic attributed to the
supermarket is shown for reference in FEIS Table III.VI 1d and is less than the traffic

___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-10

that would be generated by the assumed residential and commercial growth not
included in the Traffic Impact Study.

12-Acre Commercial Lot (36.06-2-72)
Site plan approval was previously granted by the Yorktown Town Board for
development of a temple on this land parcel. Development, however, has not
proceeded, in part (according to Planning Department staff), due to the economic
investment required to extend public sewer. With the extension of the public sewer
as part of the Proposed Action, there is the potential that the project could once again
move forward. The future development of this parcel as a temple would not
necessarily be induced by the sewer, gas and roadway improvements associated with
Proposed Action since the site plan for the temple was previously approved by the
Town Board. Traffic generated by the temple was accounted for in the Traffic Impact
Study (FEIS Appendix G) for the Proposed Action as anticipated growth.

Potential Impacts
Projected impacts regarding water demand, sewage flow and tax generation were
calculated for the potential growth and are summarized on Table VI.1c. Traffic
generation for the potential development is summarized in Table VI.1d.

Actual developable area and resultant development size would be determined based
upon site specific topographic survey and wetland delineation, which would be
required for any future application to develop these properties. In addition, any
rezoning must be taken before the Yorktown Town Board for consideration and
approval, which would include an individual assessment of environmental impacts
under SEQRA.

Tax generation was calculated for the potential developments based on the parameters
as discussed above. According to the Applicant, the potential development would
generate $1,117,765 in property tax.

The potential development analyzed herein indicates a disturbance of approximately
21 of the 39 acres. This analysis assumes no direct disturbance to wetlands and
disturbance of approximately 20 percent of the wetland buffer. Disturbance of the
buffer would require a wetland permit from the Yorktown Planning Board. Lots
26.18-1-20 and 26.18-1-23, 25, 26 could be developed provided they are not located
within wetlands or were granted a permit to develop within the wetland. All
development would be required to meet the requirements of the Towns site plan
requirements as well as the stormwater management requirements of the local MS4
entity (Town of Yorktown), NYSDEC and NYCDEP regulations. Accordingly, any
adverse impacts associated with wetlands buffer disturbances would be expected to

___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-11

be mitigated during the individual applicants respective municipal and SEQRA
review processes.

Potential development would result in approximately 40,200 gallons per day of water
demand. When added to the Project flow of 5,500 gallons per day the total flow
would be 45,700 gallons per day. Water supply would be provided from an existing
8 water main located in Old Crompond Road, which is owned and maintained by the
Yorktown Consolidated Water District. The water district provided a letter to the
Applicant (FEIS Appendix C) indicating that the referenced water main has sufficient
flow and pressure to serve the potential referenced development and therefore, there
would be no additional adverse impacts. Refer to DEIS III.H.1 for discussion of
existing water service.

Potential development would generate approximately 36,500 gallons per day of
sewage flow (Table VI.1c). When added to the Project flow of 5,000 gallons per day,
the total flow would be 41,500 gallons per day. The anticipated peak hourly flow
(factor of 4) would be 166,000 gallons per day (0.166 million gallons per day (mgd).
Sewage would be discharged to the proposed 8 sewer main in Old Crompond Road
that would be constructed as part of the Proposed Action. As described in DEIS page
III.H-22, the proposed sewer would have a design flow capacity of 0.65 mgd. Since
the capacity of the proposed sewer main would exceed the flow from the potential
and other growth indicated in Table VI.1c, the proposed sewer would have sufficient
capacity to accommodate the referenced developments and, therefore, there would be
no additional adverse impacts.

As described in page III.H-15 of the DEIS, the Peekskill Wastewater Treatment Plant
has an excess treatment capacity of 3.4 million gallons per day. Since the surplus
capacity exceeds the sewage flow projected for the potential growth (41,500) gallons
per day, there would be ample excess capacity to accommodate the referenced
sewage flow.

The traffic analysis conducted as part of the DEIS and revised for this FEIS (see
Revised Traffic Impact Study (TIS) contained in FEIS Appendix G) accounted for a
then-proposed 45,000 s.f. supermarket to be constructed on property located between
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and Old Crompond Road (lots 16.18-1-23, 25, 26) on
the east side of Stony Street.
1
The supermarket application was withdrawn, and even

1
As set forth Section III.K of the DEIS, and described in greater detail above, the supermarket application was
submitted prior to the application for the Proposed Action, was accounted for in the No-Build traffic conditions
assumed for the Proposed Action, and is not within the extended sewer district associated with the Proposed Action.
It is therefore not potentially induced growth, but is instead a separate, preexisting application, independent from the
Proposed Action. The proposed supermarket was inadvertently characterized as Potential Induced Growth in
Section VI of the DEIS; that has been corrected in this FEIS.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-12

if resubmitted would not be constructed prior to the Proposed Actions build year. It
is also within a separate sewer district, and would not be induced by the Proposed
Action in the event that the supermarket proposal or other development on site was to
be proposed in the future.

As indicated in Table VI.1d above, the total traffic generation of the potential projects
for which traffic was not included in the Traffic Impact Study (DEIS Appendix E)
would be less than that considered for the potential supermarket use for the critical
PM and Saturday Peak Hours. Therefore the traffic impacts of the assumed
developments have been already been accounted for in the DEIS Traffic Study (i.e.
140 multifamily homes and 10,000 s.f. commercial/pharmacy) and the Revised
Traffic Impact Study (FEIS Appendix G), and would not lead to impacts beyond
those studied in the Proposed Actions DEIS and FEIS. The supermarket site that
was included as a No-Build project in the traffic study was proposed on the site at Old
Crompond Road, Stony Street/Route 202 and as such, the primary intersections that
its traffic would be affecting, i.e. Route 202 between Mohansic Avenue, Old
Crompond Road and Stoney Street, is situated in the same primary influence area as
the projects listed in Table VI.1d. Thus, the assumed traffic volumes would also
affect the same primary locations which were already accounted for in the analyses of
these locations contained in the traffic study.

Traffic generated by the potential development would be partially mitigated by the
proposed Applicant-sponsored improvements at the Taconic State Parkway
Interchange area with NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 as described in the Introductory
Response to FEIS Section III.K and at the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 and Bear
Mountain Parkway Extension and Stony Street intersections as a result of the
NYSDOT improvements, which are currently under construction. It is also expected
that as part of any site plan approval for a specific development plan of these parcels,
any access related improvements such as turning lanes, signalization or other off-site
improvements would be required by NYSDOT to be completed by the applicant for
that specific project as part of the Highway Work Permit process. Therefore, with
these potential mitigation measures, the traffic associated with these potential
developments would not result in significant impacts to the area intersections.

The Applicant therefore asserts that even under the conservative assumptions that
residential parcels in the vicinity of the Proposed Action would be rezoned as a result
of the proposed extension of sewer service, that steep slopes do not present a
development constraint, and that development would be permitted on 20% of lands
currently mapped as Town Wetlands buffer areas no significant, adverse


___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-13

environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of such potential development. (The
following Comment/Response includes discussion regarding potential fiscal and
school impacts.)

Table VI.1c
Summary of Impacts from Potential Growth (1)(15)
Lots Zone
Development
Type
Lot
Area
(acres)
(2) (3)
Developable
Area (acres)
Units or
Building
Area (s.f.)
Water
Demand
(gpd)(9)
Sewage
Flow (gpd)
(10)
Property Tax
Generation

26.18-1-9 to
26.18-1-16
R-3 (4)
Multifamily
Residential
24 14
60 1-bedroom
65 2-bedroom
15 3-bedroom
140 total units
(5)(11)
38,000 34,500
$1,084,515
(12)
26.18-1-20 C-2 Commercial 3 1 10,000 (6) 1,100 1,000
$33,250
(13)
36.06-2-72 IN Temple (8) 12 6 330 seats 1,100
1,000
(8)
$0
Total - - 39 21 - 40,200 36,500 $1,117,765
Notes:
(1) For Traffic Summary See Table VI.1d
(2) Areas measured from Town of Yorktown GIS mapping.
(3) Developable area is limited by existing wetlands and wetlands buffer, steep slopes per Town of Yorktown
Freshwater Wetlands, Chapter 178, Regulated Area (wetland inventory map) and GIS maps.
(4) Assumes area rezoned from R1-20 to R-3.
(5) Potential development estimated to be 14 usable acres at 10 units per acre =140 units. Mix of 1, 2 and 3-
bedroom units based on Avalon of Ossining in Westchester County.
(6) Potential development assumed to be 1 usable acre at 10,000 sf per acre.
(7) Not Used
(8) Assumes development of previously proposed Temple. Proposed sewage flow provided by Cronin
Engineering. (330 seats x 3 gpd/seat =990 gpd) (round to 1,000 gpd)
(9) Water use =Sewage Flow +10%
(10) Sewage Flow calculated based on Table 3 of the NYS DEC Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment
Works.
(11) Average unit area from Avalon of Ossining in Westchester County: 1-bedroom =871 sf; 2-bedroom =1,390
sf; 3-bedroom =1,365 sf. ( http://www.avaloncommunities.com/new-york/ossining-apartments/avalon-
ossining/)
(12) Assumptions: $250 per square foot for residential use, including land and construction costs; tax multiplier of
0.0266 provided by Assessors Office.
(13) Assumptions: $125 per square foot for commercial use, including land and construction costs; tax multiplier of
0.0266 provided by Assessors Office.
(14) Calculations provided in FEIS Appendix F.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-14

Table VI.1d
Traffic Summary of Impacts from Potential Growth
Lots Zone
Developme
nt Type
Units or
Building
Area (s.f.)
Total Peak Hour Volumes (2)
AM PM SAT
Traffic from Assumed Growth not Included in the Traffic Impact Study
26.18-1-9 to 16 R-3 (1)
Multifamily
Residential
140
(3)
68 79 83
26.18-1-20 C-2 Commercial 10,000 (4) 35 74 62
Total - - - 103 153 145
Traffic from Assumed Growth Accounted for in the Traffic Impact Study)(7)
36.06-2-72 IN Temple 300 seats (6) 6 76 180
Other Growth
Traffic Accounted for in the Traffic Impact Study (7)
26.18-1-23, 25,
26
C-2/C-3 Supermarket 45 97 318 292

Notes:
(1) Assumes area to be rezoned from R1-20 to R-3
(2) Trip Generation Estimates are based on data published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers in their publication Trip Generation, 9
th
Edition dated 2012.
(3) Potential development estimated to be 14 usable acres at 10 units per acre minus 8 existing units.
Trip Generation based on ITE Land Use 230: Condominium/Townhouse
(4) Potential development assumed to be 1 usable acre at 10,000 sf per acre. Trip Generation based
on ITE Land Use 881: Pharmacy/Drugstore without Drive-Through Window which is typical for
this size development. Trip generation includes a 25% pass-by credit for PM and SAT Peak
Hours. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9
th
Edition dated 2012.
(5) Potential development assumed to be 45,000 sf supermarket. Trip Generation based on ITE Land
Use 820: Shopping Center and considering a 40% pass-by credit Trip generation for a 45k
Supermarket at this site was accounted for in the TIS (refer to FEIS Appendix G). ITE Trip
Generation Manual, 9
th
Edition dated 2012.
(6) Trip Generation based on ITE Land Use 560: Church and 561: Synagogue. PM Peak
Hour generation includes potential religious studies activities. Saturday Peak Hour
generation would likely occur during the morning hours before the roadway peak hour.
(7) Trip generation accounted for in FEIS Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (FEIS Appendix G)
and provided in table to illustrate that traffic accounted for exceeds traffic generated by
assumed growth not included in TIS.

Comment VI. 2 (PH2, Paul Moskowitz):
I wish to ask about the effect of this development on induced growth and in turn the
effect of that in our school taxes, and I will explain what I mean by that.

At the last hearing I heard a representative for the development say that Costco would
not add one child to the school district. I also heard that Costco will net the school
district, meaning the Yorktown school district over six hundred thousand dollars in

___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-15

school taxes.

I wish to ask whether this is indeed true or maybe there are mitigating factors that
must be considered. I am thinking of induced growth and by this I mean that
whenever you have a new development and you have infrastructure improvements
that go with that new development, this can in itself spur additional occurrences. The
building of a new road.

You build a new road, people want to travel on that road, they'll want to live along
that road, you have induced residential growth and also commercial growth. Or in a
similar manner, if you create a new sewer system and provide sewer system for
people, this too would increase the temptation naturally for those who own land to
come up with new proposals for development on those sites which would not have
been possible without that sewer system.

In the case of this development, there are two sewage districts which must be
included, which are now not included in the Peekskill sewage -- sewer district in
order for Costco to operate at all. The first of this is one that was created by the
Town Board, Hunterbrook [sic] 17, which is part of the Costco site and it also
includes across Route 202, directly opposite Costco site of the proposed temple.

Second, also is part of the Costco site Hunterbrook [sic] 20, which would include
residential lots adjacent to the site for Costco. At the last hearing one of the speakers
compared the revenue from Costco, which we have according to the developer over
$600,000.00 comparing that to what would happen if you build sixty-eight
townhouses adjacent to Costco.

His estimate was that there would be a 3.4 million dollar deficit, that is if you built
townhouses and people have children you have to provide that education, and that's
over $25,000.00 each. That speaker said 3.4 million.

Even if that's an over estimate by a factor of two, let's say is half that, 1.7 million
dollars, that still is three times the amount of revenue that you would receive from
Costco. So, if you use the 1.7 million figure, you still are 1.7 million dollars in the
hole and who makes up that deficit? Well, I, a resident of the Yorktown school
district will have to make that up to my school taxes, and this is not insignificant.

The issue though is not either building Costco or building the townhouses, it's
building Costco and building the townhouses, because Costco brings with it the
creation of a new sewer system and the necessity for including two sewer systems,
sewer districts, Hunterbrook [sic] 17 and 20 in the Peekskill sewer district.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-16

This is not a theoretical question. The sixty-eight townhouses did not come out of
thin air. At the October 9th meeting of the Town Board, this was a work session, a
former town engineer and this gives him certain credibility, had a question with the
Town Board about a proposal for the sixty-eight townhouses on -- over nine acres
adjacent to the Costco site. This would bring about a deficit in the school budget.

If you believe the last hearing speaker 3.4 million dollars, you think even have that as
1.7 million dollars is -- totally overwhelms the revenue for Costco. Also of course we
have across the street, across from Route 202, twelve acres which was designated for
the building of a temple. This was quite a few years ago, the temple has never been
built, it may still be in the plans.

However, these twelve acres look very attractive say for building more townhouse,
which would further add to the school deficit. None of these project may come about,
but once you increase the infrastructure, you invest in your infrastructure, you are
going to have proposals for additional development.

I believe that what I am asking for is that the DEIS should include -- or I should ask
then, why does the -- the DEIS does not include a study on the effect of the
infrastructure improvements on induced growth? [PH2, page 107, lines 24-25], [PH2,
page 108, lines 1-25], [PH2, page 109, lines 1-25], [PH2, page 110, lines 1-25], [PH2,

Additionally, what would be the effect of the induced growth on our school budget
and the taxes that would be derived in the total, not just from one development, but
from the total of all the developments that would be brought about by the two new
sewer districts included in the Peekskill sewer district. And finally the question is,
there has been a proposal, informal perhaps, but a proposal to the Town Board which
was received very well by most of the Town Board Members.

What would be the effect in my school taxes of the building sixty-eight townhouses
on a site adjacent to Costco within the Yorktown school district? Thank you. , [PH2,

Response VI. 2:

FEIS Response VI.1 considered the potential rezoning of undeveloped residential
lots in the vicinity of the Proposed Action from one-family to multifamily residential.
Such development would be more dense than that described in this Comment, and
the resulting analysis of potential impacts to the school district is thus more

___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-17

conservative.

If the potential rezoning were to be petitioned to and granted by the Yorktown Town
Board, resulting in multifamily residential development, a potential impact to the
school district could occur. However, this potential development would be a direct
result of action taken by the Town Board and not a direct result of the Proposed
Action. Approval of the potential rezoning would also be subject to SEQRA. Should
members of the Town express concerns about overburdening the school district, the
Town Board would have the discretion and authority to require mitigation or to deny
the rezoning proposal.

The analysis of potential growth described in FEIS Response VI.1 estimates the
property taxes generated by the potential future development would be $1,117,765
(FEIS Table VI. 1c). The annual taxes generated to the school district would be
$1,030,848 (refer to FEIS Table VI. 2.

Based on the analysis of potential growth and with regard to potential impact to the
school district, the analysis indicates that there could be 140 residential units
constructed on the 24 acres (14 unconstrained acres) if it were rezoned to R-3
Multifamily Residential zone. (Note that the number of units is conservative
considering the analysis in the Comment assumed 68 units.) Using a factor ranging
from 0.09 to 0.49 for public school-aged children per unit, there could be as many as
22 children added to the school district (based on Rutgers University, Center for
Urban Policy Research, Residential Demographic Multipliers, FEIS Appendix F). As
indicated, the taxes paid to the school district from the assumed growth would be
$1,030,848. When the school tax generated by Costco is added (because this growth
in assumed to be induced by the Proposed Action) the total taxes generated to the
school district would be $1,644,138 (FEIS Table VI.2)

According to the NYS School Report Card Fiscal Accountability Supplement for
Yorktown Central School District, the annual cost to educate a student in the
Yorktown Central School District is $25,000. Table VI.2 summarizes the school taxes
generated by the Proposed Action and the potential development as well as the
projected cost to the district to educate the 22 public school students that could result
from the potential rezoning. The summary indicates that the total taxes paid to the
school district including those generated by the Proposed Action ($1,644,138) would
exceed the projected costs to the school district ($555,000).


___________________________________________________________________________________________
VI-18

Table VI.2
Summary of Potential Impact to School District
Lots
Developme
nt Type
Lot
Area
(acres)
(1)
Developable
Area
(1)
Units or
Building Area
(s.f.)
(1)
School Tax
Generation
(1)(6)
Assumed #
of School
Age
Children
Cost to School
District
26.18-1-9
to
26.18-1-16
Multifamily
Residential
24 14
60 1-bedroom
65 2-bedroom
15 3-bedroom
140 total units
(2)
$1,000,183

9 students
6 students
7 students
22 total
(3)
$555,000
(4)
26.18-1-20 Commercial 3 1 10,000 $30,664 0 0

36.06-2-72 Temple 12 5 300 seats $0 0 0
Subtotal 39 21 - $1,030,848 22 $555,000
Costco Costco 18.75 - 151,092 $613,290 (5) 0 0
Total 69 - - $1,644,138 22 $555,000

Notes:
(1) Refer to table VI.1c
(2) 140 units;
(3) Public school student multiplier per residential unit: 0.15 per 1-bedroom; 0.09 per 2-bedroom; 0.49 per 3-bedroom
units (Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research; FEIS Appendix F)
(4) Use cost =$25,000 / student. (NYS School Report Card Fiscal Accountability Supplement for Yorktown Central
School District FEIS Appendix F.)
(5) From DEIS page III.Q-7
(6) (Total tax generation)*(Tax school rate $922.24)/1,000

As described previously, the responsibility to rezone the referenced property, thereby
permitting additional residential development, rests with the Yorktown Town Board.
Any proposal of multifamily residential development must also be proposed to and
approved by the Planning Board. Both Board approvals must be provided before
such development could occur.

Based on the potential growth description in FEIS Response VI.1 and the
assumptions regarding cost per child and number of children, the taxes paid to the
school system would still exceed the Yorktown School Districts cost. However,
such residential growth is contingent upon the Town Board taking action to approve
the rezoning.
GENERAL MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL COMMENTS REGARDING
SEGMENTATION, CUMULATIVE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT, PROCEDURE, OR NEED FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL EIS
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility General

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 1

General Miscellaneous Legal Comments Regarding Segmentation,
Cumulative Impact Assessment, Procedure, or Need for
Supplemental EIS

Comment General 1.1 - (Document 57.1, Paul Moskowitz), (Document 124.3, Paul A.
Moskowitz), (PH1, Paul Moskowitz):

This note is to address the question of segmentation with respect to the Costco DEIS.

The New York State DEC defines segmentation on its web site:
http :I/www. dec. ny. Gov/permits/45577. Html
In Part 617.2(ag), segmentation is defined as the division of the environmental
review of an action so that various activities or stages are addressed as though they
were independent, unrelated activities needing individual determinations of
significance.

The Costco activity is a part of the Route 202 Corridor Development, which includes
other activities not considered in the Costco DEIS, notably that of the State Land
Corporation. Consideration of the impacts of Costco without taking into account the
whole project represents segmentation.

The relevance of the Route 202 Corridor Development to the DEC factors for
segmentation are supported by presentations made by Yorktown town officials at the
February 23, 2012 Town of Yorktown Economic Development Summit Route 202
Corridor. A recording of this meeting may be viewed on the Town of Yorktown
Web Site in the Town Board Meetings section at
http://www.yorktownny.org/generalpage/town-board-meeting-videos

The meeting was held in the Yorktown Town Board Room. Participants included
Town Supervisor, Michael Grace, and the Town Councilmen: Bianco, Murphy,
Murphy, and Paganelli, as well as various New York State officials. Principle
speakers included Supervisor Grace, Yorktown Planning Director J ohn Tegeder, and
Yorktown Environmental Consultant Bruce Barber

According to the DEC, When trying to determine if segmentation is occurring
agencies should consider the following factors. If the answer to one or more of these
questions is yes, an agency should be concerned that segmentation is taking place.
DEC factors:


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 2

DEC Purpose: Is there a common purpose or goal for each segment?
Both the Costco and State Land are components of Route 202 Corridor Economic
Development. At the February 23 meeting, Supervisor Grace spoke of his purpose to
push redevelopment of Route 202 forwards and the need for anchor stores. He
referred to regional drainage problems and traffic as key factors. J ohn Tegeder
explained that the Discussion is about economic development along the Route 202
Corridor. He referred to both the proposed Costco and the proposed State Land
Corp in his presentation. A slide was presented, which states that The
concurrence of these projects presents an opportunity to plan holistically for
development and for solutions to the prime infrastructure needs in the corridor

There is a page on the Town of Yorktown Web Site dedicated to Route 202 Corridor
Economic Development. This web site page includes a map, prominently showing
the Costco and State Land locations.
http://www.yorktownny.org/generalpage/route-202-corridor-economic-development

DEC Time: Is there a common reason for each segment being completed at or
about the same time?
Among the active applications are those of Costco, Crompond Crossing, State Land
Corporation, the Field Home Attached is the cover page from the State Land Corp.
Expanded Environmental Assessment Form dated March 2012. The Costco and
State Land activities are currently being considered by two separate Town of
Yorktown agencies: The Planning Board for Costco; and The Town Board for State
Land.

A slide was presented which states the concurrence of these projects presents an
opportunity to plan realistically for development and for solutions to the prime
infrastructure needed for the corridor. There is a map posted on the web page of the
Town of Yorktown, on the website of the Town of Yorktown, which shows various
activities within the Route 202 corridor.

So, we have activities which are occurring as was stated at the February 23rd
meeting, concurrently.

DEC Location: Is there a common geographic location involved?
The common location is the Route 202 Corridor. Both Costco and State Land are
located in the Route 202 Corridor. They are located on the north side of Route 202
less than one mile apart. Both of these are shown on the Town of Yorktown web site
map.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 3

Couple of locations -- well, they are all in close proximity, Costco and State Land are
located within one mile of each other on the same side of Route 202, and both of
these are shown on the Town of Yorktown map on the Route 202 corridor
development page.

DEC Impacts: Do any of the activities being considered for segmentation share a
common impact that may, if the activities are reviewed as one project, result in a
potentially significant adverse impact, even if the impacts of single activities are
not necessarily significant by themselves?

All of the activities of the Route 202 Corridor Development share impacts. The
impacts emphasized at the February 23 meeting were Traffic and Water Quality.

Water quality was the subject of one slide of the presentation Opportunity is
presented for a regional or area wide approach. In Section G of the DEIS, Storm
Water Management, only impacts for the Costco site are presented.

Traffic, Section K of the DEIS, does not take into account traffic to be generated by
the 200,000 square foot retail center planned for the State Land site. This is especially
surprising since both the Costco and the State Land applications include a traffic
analysis by the same company, J ohn Collins Engineers.

Other sections of the Costco DEIS where there are common impacts include, but are
not limited to: H. Utilities, J . Solid Waste, M. Air Quality, N. Noise, and Q. Fiscal
and Socioeconomic Impacts.

Now, we get to the crux of the matter, which is -- which are impacts. The DEC
asked, do any of the activities being considered to segmentation share a common
impact. And the obvious question is first well, water quality, this was talked about at
the February 23rd meeting.

DEC Ownership: Are the different segments under the same or common
ownership or control?

Common ownership is not apparent. However, both Costco and State Land are
represented by the same Attorney, Mr. Albert A. Capellini, and have employed the
same company for traffic analysis, J ohn Collins Engineers. Thus the Costco applicant
should be well aware of the State Land activity.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 4

DEC Common Plan: Is a given segment a component of an identifiable overall
plan? Will the initial phase direct the development of subsequent phases or will
it preclude or limit the consideration of alternatives in subsequent phases?

A slide presented on February 12 lists Route 202 Corridor Development and
Redevelopment activities. The development activities include Costco, State Land
Corp, Crompond Crossing, all of which are being developed concurrently and are part
of the Route 202 Corridor Development.

At the February 23 meeting, Yorktown Environmental Consultant Bruce Barber
advocated developing a generic environmental impact statement for the whole
corridor.

All of the activities taking place now in this corridor are part of a greater project, have
an interdependence and common impacts. According to the DEC, Except in special
circumstances, considering only a part, or segment, of an overall action is contrary to
the intent of SEQR. All of these activities must be considered together in order to
satisfy New York State. Is the Costco DEIS then an example of segmentation?

Attachments:

Slides selected from February 23, 2012 Economic Development Summit
Town Of Yorktown, Route 202 Corridor Economic Development web page
Map from web page with large State Land and Costco labels added for clarity
State Land EAF title page NYS DEC Segmentation web page.

[For Attachments to letter 124 refer to the Appendix]

Response General 1.1:

The Proposed Action has not been unlawfully segmented from any other proposal in
contravention of SEQRA. The Project is not a component of a larger proposal and is
independent of and has no relationship with other development proposals along Route
202.

Segmentation is defined in the SEQRA regulations as the division of the
environmental review of an action such that various activities or stages are considered
under the Part [617] as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 5

individual determinations of significance. 6 NYCRR 617.2(ag) (emphasis added).
1

An action, in turn, requires project or activity that is undertaken by an agency,
involves funding by an agency, or entails approvals by one or more agencies. 6
NYCRR 617.2(b).

The SEQRA Handbook, issued by the NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation, explains that segmentation is generally used to avoid a thorough review
of the entirety of a single proposal:

There are two types of situations where segmentation typically
occurs. One is where a project sponsor attempts to avoid a
thorough environmental review (often an EIS) of a whole action by
splitting a project into two or more smaller projects. The second is
where activities that may be occurring at different times or places are
excluded from the scope of the environmental review. By excluding
subsequent phases or associated project components from the
environmental review, the project may appear more acceptable to
the reviewing agencies and the public.

SEQRA Handbook, Section D.1 (emphasis added). Court decisions recognize that
unlawful segmentation is the artificial division of a single action into components to
avoid a thorough environmental review through an EIS. Teich v. Buchheit, 221
A.D.2d 452, 453, 633 N.Y.S.2d 805, 807 (2d Dept. 1995); Schultz v. Jorling, 164
A.D.2d 252, 255, 563 N.Y.S.2d 876, 879 (3d Dept. 1990).

Thus, the SEQRA regulations, the SEQRA Handbook and court decisions recognize
that the touchstone of segmentation is the artificial division of a single proposal in
order to avoid a thorough environmental review Furthermore, court decisions
recognize that where different proposals that happen to be in the same geographic
area are unrelated to each other, and have independent utility, there is no
segmentation. Forman v. Trustees of State Univ. of New York, 303 A.D.2d 1019,
1020, 757 N.Y.S.2d 180, 182 (4th Dept. 2003) ("Whereprojects are independent of
each other and are not part of an integrated or cumulative development plan, the
projects may be reviewed separately and are not subject to a claim of improper
segmentation ").

The February 23, 2012 Town of Yorktown Economic Development Summit does

1
Segmentation is not necessarily unlawful; in some circumstances, it is
permissible. 6 NYCRR 617.3(g)(1).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 6

not reflect the existence of an integrated Route 202 development plan. Instead,
speakers attending the Summit referenced the opportunity to plan holistically and
their generalized goal of creating a collaborative effort both on a local government
level, state government level, [and] federal government level to make 202
somewhat we are proud of. If and when such a plan is developed that triggers
scrutiny under SEQRA, it will be an action subject to its own environmental analysis.
The mere discussion of the possibility of an integrated planning effort, however, is
not a proposed action for the purposes of SEQRA.

The absence of segmentation is confirmed by the SEQRA Handbook, which explains
how an agency determines if a proposal it is reviewing is part of a larger plan that
warrants a single review:

Sometimes the project sponsor has a definite plan for future
development, and other times the future projects are merely wishful
thinking or speculative. It is up to the lead agency to determine if the
project is the "whole action" or merely a part or segment of a larger
action that should be reviewed in its entirety. If there is evidence of a
plan, then there is a strong presumption that the larger project is the
"whole action" and should therefore be the subject of the environmental
review. Some examples where the larger project is the "whole action"
are: a proposed industrial park of which the instant project is just the
initial tenant, a commercial strip mall development that allows for future
expansion, a residential subdivision that provides for internal road
connections to additional lands under the control of the project sponsor,
or a mining project that will prepare the Site for a subsequent
development proposal. (See SEQRA Handbook, Section D.9.)

Here, as noted above, the Route 202 Corridor Development does not constitute a
plan encompassing the Proposed Action as one of its components.

The factors identified in the SEQRA Handbook to assist a lead agency in determining
segmentation are irrelevant, due to the absence of a single proposal by any agency.
Nonetheless, these factors, reviewed below, confirm the absence of segmentation.

Purpose: Is there a common purpose or goal for each segment? There is no
common purpose to the extant proposals. None of the four proposed development
proposals along the Route 202 corridor in Yorktown identified in this Comment is
related to each other. They have different developers; two are different types of
commercial developments and the other two are residential. The fact that two

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 7

projects have the same lawyer or traffic engineer is irrelevant to whether they are
related and part of the same overall proposal.
Time: Is there a common reason for each segment being completed at or about the
same time? The timing is disparate and depends on the approvals of different
proposals by different agencies.
Location: Is there a common geographic location involved? The projects are in
different locations along the same road, but neither adjacent nor proximate to each
other.
Impacts: Do any of the activities being considered for segmentation share a
common impact that may, if the activities are reviewed as one project, result in a
potentially significant adverse impact, even if the impacts of single activities are
not necessarily significant by themselves. There are overlapping impacts from
some of the proposals, but that does not mean they are part of a single action.
Rather, it means that actions that are expected to be completed by the build year of
the Costco proposal should have been, and were, consistent with the Final Scope
for the DEIS, included as a cumulative impact in this EIS. See NYSDEC, SEQRA
Full Environmental Assessment Form Workbook: Part 2 (Cumulative impacts are
those reasonably foreseeable impacts that result from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other action. Reasonably
foreseeable is when something is sufficiently likely to occur within the projected
build year(s).) http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91690.html; See DEIS at III.K.20-
21 (considering other projects with earlier build years in Projects traffic analysis).
Ownership: Are the different segments under the same or common ownership or
control? There is no common ownership
Common Plan: Is a given segment a component of an identifiable overall plan?
Will the initial phase direct the development of subsequent phases or will it
preclude or limit the consideration of alternatives in subsequent phases? There is
no common plan.
Utility: Can any of the interrelated phases of various projects be considered
functionally dependent on each other? The proposals are not interrelated or
dependent on each other, but have independent utility.
Inducement: Does the approval of one phase or segment commit the agency to
approve other phases? Approval of any one of the extant proposals does not
commit any agency to approve the other.

The Comment also asserts that the Applicant should have considered the cumulative

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 8

impacts of all of the activities on the Route 202 Corridor in the DEIS for the
Proposed Project. Pursuant to SEQRA regulations, an EIS need only analyze
significant reasonably related short-term and long-term impacts, cumulative impacts
and other associated environmental impacts. 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(iii)(a)
(emphasis added). The Court of Appeals has explained that related means
connected through a larger plan for development [and] not the proposed
projects' common geographical base or the existence of a generally stated
governmental policy Long Island Pine Barrens Soc., Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town
of Brookhaven, 80 N.Y.2d 500, 514, 591 N.Y.S.2d 982 (1992).

While other proposed projects along Route 202 are not related to the Project, the
Applicant did consider cumulative traffic impacts to the extent that such projects were
expected to generate traffic prior to the build year of the Project, pursuant to the Final
Scope for the DEIS. See also NYSDEC, SEQRA Full Environmental Assessment
Form Workbook: Part 2 (defining cumulative impacts as those that are sufficiently
likely to occur within the projected build year(s).); NYSDEC SEQR Handbook at 81
([A]ssessment of cumulative impacts should be limited to consideration of
reasonably foreseeable impacts, not speculative ones.); See Healy and Karmel, 9
N.Y.Prac., Environmental Law and Regulation in New York 4:23 Draft and Final
EIS: Assessing Impacts (Philip Weinberg ed. 2012) (Existing conditions within [a]
geographic area should be established and a projection made as to conditions that
would exist without the proposed action in the build year the year the action
under review is scheduled to take place. The [EIS] should then predict how the action
will affect those build year conditions.)

In the No Build Traffic Conditions, the DEIS analyzed traffic from other proposals
that are expected to be complete before the Project is constructed, including the three
other proposals identified in this Comment: Crompond Corners, the expansion of
Field Home and the Pulte Home project (which was, at the time of the traffic study
for the DEIS, evaluated based on the residential proposal on the State Land Property).

The traffic analysis in the DEIS also considered the recently completed Chase Bank,
the proposed Adrian property development, the Temple Israel project and Adrian
Auto body addition. (See DEIS at III.K-20 to 21.) The DEIS does not include traffic
from the new commercial project for the State Land Property as any such project, if
approved, would be operational after the Project is anticipated to be completed. While
the construction of the Project is now anticipated to occur between J une 2014 and
J uly 2015, the State Land project has also not proceeded in its originally anticipated
time frame. It is likely that construction on State Land (assuming it obtains the
numerous requisite approvals) would not take place until late 2015 or 2016 at the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 9

earliest, as it still has to complete, Site Plan Approvals and planning board review and
NYSDOT permitting including preparation of construction plans. Therefore, it is still
expected that the Project will be completed before State Land commences
construction, and certainly before State Land commences operation.

Because the State Land Project has a later build year, its SEQRA analysis is required
to include traffic from the Proposed Action project as part of its No Build traffic
conditions.

Comment General 1.2 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment General 1.3 - NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment General 1.4- (Document 124.2, Paul A. Moskowitz):

The purpose of this note is to add specific questions to my presentation of October 15,
2012 with respect to segmentation and the Costco DEIS.

What are the effects of traffic to be generated by the 200,000 sq. ft, retail center
proposed by the State Land Corporation combined with the Costco traffic on the total
traffic for the Route 202 corridor, Route 202 intersections and the roads in the region
around it? When the State Land Traffic is included, what are waiting times at the
intersections on Route 202 from Route 132 to Lexington Avenue?

What are the combined effects of the State Land retail center and other developments
in progress or planned for the Route 202 Corridor on the following: DEIS Section G.
Storm Water Management, H. Utilities, J . Solid Waste, M. Air Quality, N. Noise, and
Q. Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts.

Is the DEIS deficient in not taking into proper account the combined effects of all the
projects planned for the Route 202 development corridor?

Did the presentations made by Yorktown town officials at the February 23, 2012
Town of Yorktown Economic Development Summit Route 202 Corridor make it
clear that the Costco development was part of a larger project for which a complete
EIS covering the entire project should be done?

Does considering the Costco project without taking into proper account the combined
effects of all the projects planned for the Route 202 development corridor represent
segmentation as defined by the NY State DEC?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 10

Does simultaneous separate consideration of the Costco application by the Yorktown
Planning Board and the State Land application by the Yorktown Town Board
represent segmentation as defined by the NY State DEC? Must these activities be
considered together in order to satisfy New York State SEQR?


Refer to FEIS Response General 1.1.

Comment General 1.5 - (Document 85.1, Richard E. Stanton, Law Office of Richard E.
Stanton):

Re: Protection of Public Participation in Environmental Review Process

My client group is concerned about the conduct at the first public hearing that was
held to review the potential environmental impacts brought by the proposed Costco
Superstore and Gas Retail facility being considered for construction at Route 202/35
along the Taconic State Parkway. The main areas of concern are:

1. allowing professionals sufficient time to present the identified deficiencies and
errors in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, to the public, in the public
hearing; and
2. the protection of the interested publics expression of their opinion.

1. Allowing Sufficient Time for Professional Presentations

In order to provide meaningful and rational public comment in the environmental
review process, numerous interested residents and businessmen retained professional
consultants to assist themselves, yourselves, and the public, in reviewing the Project.
The first consultant who attempted to publicly raise concerns about the applicants
conclusion was Tim Miller, of Tim Miller and Associates, Inc. Tim Miller and
Associates, Inc. is a professional consulting corporation with expertise in traffic
engineering.

Mr. Miller followed the 90 minute presentation of the Project Applicant. Although he
was attempting to publicly present his firms critique on traffic impacts on behalf of
numerous stakeholders, he was limited to 5 1/2 minutes by the Chair, which he told
the Planning Board was insufficient. He was attempting to identify for public review,
the errors in the Project Applicants assumptions, and ultimate conclusions about

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 11

traffic impacts. In addition to the unreasonable truncation of his presentation, which
did not allow him sufficient time to present the basis for the local stakeholder
concerns, witnesses further indicate he and other local stakeholders were interrupted
several times in their presentation. Although he was prepared with Presentation
Boards to illustrate the potential impacts of the Project, the time allotted did not allow
him reasonably sufficient time to present the local stakeholders concerns to the
public, and the Planning Board. We further submit that the reception of written
comments into the record does not cure the defect in the process followed at the first
evening of the hearing.

On behalf of the local stakeholders who retained me, I am requesting reasonably
sufficient time be allotted for the professional consultants to present concerns with the
conclusions presented by the Project Applicant. We do submit that having the first
professional presentation of the local stakeholders unreasonably truncated interfered
with the fundamental intent of the public hearing in the SEQRA process, which is to
allow a forum for the public to review potential adverse impacts of a Project, with the
governmental agencies, before a decision is made to commit the publics resources to
supporting any significant change to the communitys environment.

2. The Protection of the interested Publics Expression of their Opinion at the
Public Hearing

The second concern with the conduct of the first evening of the hearing was
interruption of speakers during the presentations. The perception of local
stakeholders, who both spoke and observed, was that jeering and interference with the
right to protected public speech was not controlled, in addition, some had concerns
that the Chair position was also interrupting speakers prematurely, which was
fostering the hostility in the crowd expressed by proposed projects
supporters.

Finally, based upon the overall atmosphere of the crowd, some who did not yet speak
indicate that they do not want their home addresses read out loud to the crowd. They
are prepared to identify their interest in the Yorktown community (resident, business
person, or one who enjoys the communitys natural resources), but do not wish to
have their home residence publicly disclosed to those who are openly hostile to their
viewpoint. We believe the unintentional consequences of reading the speakers
address into the crowd, before they speak, is the stifling of public participation in the
public process.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 12

I am asking that you consider these concerns as being raised in an attempt to improve
the public review of the potential adverse impacts, and alleged economic benefits of
the proposed Project. We are asking the Chair, and the Planning Board to do what is
within its power to protect the rights of all local stakeholders to publicly express their
concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed project.


The purpose of the Applicants presentation at the October 15, 2012 public hearing
was to inform the public about the Proposed Action that was the subject of the
hearing. If the Applicant did not speak, or provided only a superficial description of
the Proposed Action, then members of the public who had not previously reviewed
the DEIS would not have a basis for comment. Similar procedures are followed at all
public hearings on applications before the Planning Board. A similar process is used
for virtually all agencies public hearing on a DEIS.

The length of public presentations at the October 15, 2012 public hearing was limited
in order to provide all interested commenters an opportunity to be heard. To the
extent that any individuals felt limited by that constraint, they were invited to submit
written comments on the Proposed Action. For example, Tim Miller, of Tim Miller
and Associates, Inc. availed himself of this opportunity, and his oral and written
comments have been addressed in greater detail in the FEIS. Indeed, Mr. Miller
submitted his written comments to the Board at the beginning of this testimony
(Document #60). The chair also exercised his discretion to limit the amount of
repetition in public comments, in order to ensure the full range of views and
comments on the Project were heard. Furthermore, at the second public hearing, held
on November 19, 2013, once all the speakers who had signed up were given a chance
to comment, attendees were offered the opportunity to speak again.

While some level of disruption is may be unavoidable at public hearings involving
contested issues, the Planning Board Chair strove to control audience reactions and to
minimize the presentation of duplicative or redundant comments, thereby ensuring
that the full range of perspectives present would be heard. The Board notes that
overall the proceedings were quite civil, and the level of disruption from any points of
view was minimal a tribute to the residents of Yorktown.

The identification of a speakers address is a common practice at public hearings,
which serves multiple purposes. First, the Planning Board may need to follow up
with a commenter in order to ensure that his or her remarks are properly recorded and
understood. Written sign-in lists are often incomplete or not legible. Second, a

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 13

commenters residence within an affected community is germane to his or her
background knowledge of local conditions. The standard recitation of home
addresses was not intended to intimidate or stifle participation, and any commenters
who chose not to speak at the public hearings were invited to present their
perspectives on the proposed Project via written comments. This Comment has been
noted, however, and will be considered in future discussions of public hearing
procedures.

Comment General 1.6 - (Document 147.1, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP):

I have two procedural questions of substantive concern regarding the Planning
Boards public hearing on Monday, October 15, 2012.

At the public hearing you announced each speakers full address prior to their
statements. Is this a necessity for the public record, or is the speaker sign-in sheet
sufficient to show residence in the town of Yorktown and for the public record?

I ask this because the tenor of the public hearing could be classified, at times, as
rowdy and hostile. In addition to heckling, I observed several individuals making rude
gestures toward the speakers or egging on the crowd. As a young woman, it struck me
that announcing an individuals home address could create an unsafe situation. If a
speakers full address was announced before their statement, everyone in the room
would know where they live supplying personal information to individuals that
may get caught up in the heat of the moment and follow a speaker home to harass
them outside of the hearing. I sincerely hope that nothing of the sort would actually
happen in Yorktown but I was also shocked at the demeanor of some of Mondays
attendees. I know that the sign-in sheet is part of the public record, but providing time
between the hearing and the availability of information may allow cooler heads to
prevail.

Additionally, at least one media outlet printed the entire street address of a speaker in
their publication last week.

I also understand that sometimes the penmanship on the speaker sign-in sheet was
lacking and that you may need additional information to call speakers to the podium.
Perhaps you could announce their street only, or preferably just their town.

If the speaker sign-in sheet alone is insufficient for the public record, maybe before a
speaker makes their statement they could register with the stenographer away from
the microphone.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 14

Finally, I was surprised that there were no technical presentations opposing the
proposed Costco.

Representatives for the developer were afforded approximately 60 minutes to give an
uninterrupted multi-media presentation. Is the Planning Board extending the same
courtesy is to the professionals that represent other organizations and viewpoints? I
understand the Planning Board makes decisions that impact our entire community,
and I would like to hear the technical reports from both sides.

Thank you for your service to our community, and for your time and attention to
these matters.


In response to comments surrounding the identification of commenters names and
addresses, see FEIS Response General 1.5.

The Planning Board afforded all participants at the public hearing an opportunity to
present their perspectives along with any supporting information, without regard to
their position on the underlying application. Project opponents were allowed to make
technical presentations and to submit technical reports at the hearing and throughout
the public comment period.

Comment General 1.7 - (Document 168.1, Paul Moskowitz):

Please place the following statement and questions in the file of Costco DEIS
comments.

Last night, Tuesday December 18, the Yorktown Town Board held a public hearing
on a law that would change the parking requirements for commercial properties. The
immediate effect would be to reduce the parking requirement for the proposed Costco
development. The attorney championing the change in law, Mr. Al Cappellini, is the
attorney for the Costco developer.

Since the SEQRA process for the Costco proposal is still in progress before the lead
agency, the Yorktown Planning Board, doesnt the separate consideration of parking
requirements constitute illegal segmentation under New York State SEQRA law?

Should the Town Board consideration of parking that directly effects Costco be

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 15

postponed until after the Planning Board completes the SEQRA review?

Should the Planning Board inform the Town Board that they should wait to take up
this matter, parking, until after the SEQRA review is complete, as they did for the
creation of a new sewer district?


The Project and amended parking requirements for commercial properties are not a
single action for the purposes of SEQRA. The former is a Site Plan application to the
Planning Board involving an individual project; the latter, an amendment to local law
by the Town Board that has town-wide impacts. Moreover, in response to concerns
voiced by the Commenter to the Town Board, the Project was excluded from the
change in parking requirements. Thus, the Town Boards decision does not have any
impact on the Proposed Action.

Comment General 1.8 - NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment General 1.9 (Document 172.38, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford
Audubon Society):

Bedford Audubon strongly encourages the Planning Board to reject the DEIS as
presented for public review and comment due to the shortfalls outlined in this
document and others. Without the additional information required, it is unclear if the
process toward a Final Environmental Impact Statement can continue forward
without a substantial revision and public review of the DEIS or a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement


This Comment does not identify any project changes, newly discovered information,
or changed circumstances that would give rise to significant adverse impacts that
were not previously addressed in the DEIS the criteria for the lead agency to
consider in determining, in its discretion, the asserted need for a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). (See 6 NYCRR 617.9(a)(7).)
Accordingly, an SEIS is not required.

Comment General 1.10 (Document 138.1, Wayne Jeffers, Barrier Motor Fuels, Inc.):


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 16

My company, Barrier Motor Fuels, Inc. (Barrier) is a consultant to many gasoline
station operators throughout Westchester. Barrier was one of the largest motor fuel
distributors in the area. I help retail gas stations with their investment strategies with
regards to gasoline and diesel volume, as well as anticipated convenience store sales.
In this regard, I review traffic volume and anticipate volume over the term. I consider
competitors that exist and which may potentially enter or exit the market place. In
general, the gas business is somewhat static in that overall consumption does not vary
much and new competitors are generally restricted from the market place due to
zoning restrictions. Usually changes in volume at existing units are due to new
investments. In the case of Yorktown that is now considering abandoning the earlier
approved long-term development strategy, the Comprehensive Plan, specifically on
Rt. 202, by allowing COSTCO retail/wholesale store to include a gasoline facility in
this location, COSTCO expects to sell high volumes of gasoline which are anticipated
to reach nine hundred thousand gallons per month which is almost twice the existing
volume of gas sold at all of the stations on Rt. 202 in Yorktown. This new volume at
the intersection of Rt. 202 and the Taconic State Parkway will come first from the gas
stations and then from the new volume of traffic the COSTCO fueling helped bring in
the local Yorktown area putting more pressure on the existing heavy traffic.
Previously successful stations will experience reductions of motor fuel volume of
over fifty percent and an associated reduction in convenience store sales.

COSTCO project may entail litigation against the Town of Yorktown, which it may
not be currently anticipating. One such litigation is the Certiorari, which will
significantly lower the assessed value of gas stations and, accordingly, taxes that may
be generated. Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in the
U.S., which means an order by a higher court directing a lower court, tribunal, or
public authority to send the record in a given case for review. In this case, where
businesses have significant loss in volume and income, changes the value of the real
estate upon which the business is located.

Additionally, gas station owners may instigate class action litigation in that the Town
has a substantial history of limiting gas station growth and to make an exception
where the Sustainable Development Study and Yorktown Comprehensive Plan does
not even contemplate more gas stations, may make the Town liable for lost income.


There is no evidence that the Project would lower the assessed value of other gas
station properties in the Town, nor is there any evidence that the owners of such
properties are contemplating litigation or would prevail in a certiorari proceeding if

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 17

they were to pursue one. As such, the potential for litigation surrounding the impact
of the Proposed Action on the assessed value of other gasoline stations is speculative
and beyond the scope of analysis under SEQRA. The potential for class action
litigation against the Town is also speculative and beyond the scope of analysis under
SEQRA. See also FEIS Response III.A.2, 3, 5 and 8 re the consistency of the
Proposed Action with the plans and policies cited in this Comment.

Comment General 1.11 (PH2, Henry Steeneck):

Well, I've got several issues and a lot of them have been covered, but there is one
thing I got off the Patch today, it's from the Chief of Police, from the Town of
Yorktown. And he said, the Yorktown Police Chief, Costco will have an unfavorable
impact. It says it is going to have at least a hundred and six calls of service annually,
which would increase the need for manpower and overtime.

Well, that's not a surprise. Not only that, the more traffic you are going to have there,
the more accidents you are going to have there, that is just a given. Now, I mean, this
is kind of farfetched, but Costco it says here, Eric Scott's family files a lawsuit against
Costco in shooting death.

It seems that a man went to Costco in Las Vegas and he said that -- I guess he got a
little upset and so on and so forth, they claim he had a gun, he didn't have a gun, went
he got outside they went and shot him and killed him.

But, what happened is -- the bottom line is there a lawsuit here, and now they are
suing Costco and they are suing the town. So, I just -- I don't know, I guess it may be
farfetched, but I just think that we are putting ourselves in jeopardy where we
shouldn't be putting ourselves in jeopardy.

I think that this location is suited for a lot more things than a Costco, and as far as it
was equated a few minutes ago as good as Nordstroms, well, I don't know about that.
I've got paperwork here which I am going to submit to you, but I am not going to
submit it tonight, I am going to put it in order, of all the legal lawsuits that Costco has
against it.

As a fact, they've got a lawsuit against them, a Class Action suit of selling inferior
gasoline. They've got a Class Action suit against them for charging people with their
credit cards, with their own credit card when they don't renew it on time, if they
renew it three months later, well, they charge them for a full year. So, they've got a
lawsuit against them there, which they settled.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 18

They settled for a lawsuit here for pollution and they paid 3.6 million dollars, and I've
got more. It goes on, and on, and on, but I don't want to waste your time and I will
submit to you in paperwork, okay. [PH2, page 78, lines 9-25], [PH2, page 79, lines 1-
25], [PH2, page 80, lines 1-16]


The impacts of the Project on police services and other public resources is analyzed in
DEIS Sections III.Q and III.P. See generally also FEIS Responses III. P and Q. The
remainder of this Comment raises issues beyond the scope of SEQRA.

Comment General 1.12 (Document 133.01, Patricia Peckham):
I request that the DEIS address the cumulative impact of all the proposed
developments along the Rte. 3 5/202 corridor between the Taconic Parkway and
the Bear Mountain Parkway. Supervisor Grace began discussing the Rte. 202
corridor last spring, indicating that the Town of Yorktown does not see the Costco
project merely as an individual store but rather as the gateway to more strip
development along Rte. 202/35.

As of October, in addition to the possible State Land Development and the already
approved Crompond Crossing, a housing development design was submitted to the
Town Board. The impact of the Costco development should include the cumulative
impact of these other projects. This is especially true of the newest proposed
development of 60 plus townhomes, which would be adjacent to the proposed Costco
site and is a direct result of it because the sewers and gas lines would be in place. Mr.
Ciarcia, who presented the newest design, is quoted in The Patch, as saying, There
are things happening in the neighborhood that would warrant taking a fresh look at
it, referring to a proposal that would bring Costco into the area. He added, Its not
just what we represent, its just the point and time to look at that area.

I request that a study(s) be done on the impact of the Costco development that
acknowledges the impact of Crompond Crossing as a pre-development condition.
This data must be included as this project is under construction and the impact of its
air and water pollution will soon be a reality.

In conclusion, what are the cumulative impacts in terms of phosphorus loading into
the watershed, all other pollutant run-off, and carbon emissions, as well as
biodiversity and wildlife habitat, for the following proposed and approved
developments that comprise the Rte. 202 corridor, specifically,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 19

Costco?
State Land Corp. development?
Crompond Crossing development?
Townhouse (Ciarcia) development?
The site of the proposed synagogue?


See FEIS Response General 1.1. The DEIS includes an analysis of three of the four
other proposed developments listed in this Comment; the exception, as explained
earlier in FEIS Response General 1.1, is that the build year for the proposed State
Land Corp. development is subsequent to that of the Project, so the combined impacts
will be analyzed through the State Land SEQRA process.

Comment General 1.13 (Document 144.8, Jonathon Nettelfield, Yorktown Smart
Growth), (Document 177.8, Henry Steeneck):

REQUEST--in an effort to help insure that the Town does not put itself in a
precarious legal position, we ask that the current application be denied.


Comment noted.

Comment General 1.14 (Document 174.40, Stephen L. Steeneck), (Document 3.4,
Stephen L. Steeneck):

THEREFORE: Should The Planning Board feel that a delay is not appropriate, please
allow this letter to FORMALLY REQUEST a FULL
ADJ ORNMENTADJ OURNMENT [sic] or DELAY in time for the proper review of
such said 2200 page DEIS Document. Additionally, a period of time of 90 days to
180 days would not be considered UNREASONABLE. It would not be fair for the
Planning Board to assume that 90 days to 180 days would be excessive for a normal
LIFELONG Town of Yorktown Resident with no engineering background to review
this document. In fact, a short 180 days would be considered short in my humble
opinion.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 20


The SEQRA regulations provide for a minimum 30-day comment period on a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. In this case, the Planning Board provided 82 days,
or nearly three times the required minimum time frame for public comments on the
DEIS. The Planning Board also held two public hearing sessions within this time
period, on October 15, 2012 and November 19, 2012, and the written public
comment period was extended through December 19, 2012. The Planning Board
asserts such time was more than adequate for the public to comment on the DEIS;
that conclusion is reinforced by the volume of comments received at both the public
hearing session and in writing during this period.

Comment General 1.15 (PH2, Stephen Steeneck):

Go ask the normal people, business owners, which I did. I talked to at least twenty,
twenty-five of them, they don't know anything about the Costco. Nobody came to
them and said to them, hey, do you know there is going to be a Costco here. If you
think I am wrong, go to Genesis J ewelers right over here, his name is Steve,
wonderful man. [PH2, page 83, lines 2-10]


The Planning Board complied with all notice requirements under SEQRA and the
Town Law with respect to the proposal. There has also been extensive media
coverage of the proposed development.

Comment General 1.16 (PH2, Pete, Pergola):

Alright, how long have they been in this process to this approval? And if they are
disapproved, how long is it going to take to get someone else to do the development.
[PH2, page 100, lines 20-25]


The comment expresses support for the Proposed Action suggesting that with the
lengthy review and approval process, the Site would remain vacant for a long time
should the Project be denied.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 21

Comment General 1.17 (Document 172.1, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford
Audubon Society):

Public Comment Period of Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Bedford Audubon Society sincerely thanks the Yorktown Planning Board for their
30-day written comment period on the proposed Costcos Draft Environmental
Impact Statement after the closure of the public hearing. However, considering the
recent impacts of Superstorm Sandy on the region, Thanksgiving, and Hanukkah and
most importantly, the vast length of the DEIS, the written comment period should
have been extended to 90 days for adequate public review. Considering the brevity of
the public review period, these comments serve as discrete examples of how the DEIS
falls short of providing a comprehensive disclosure of environmental impacts on our
community resources, rather than a comprehensive critique of each claim posited in
the document.


See FEIS Response General 1.14.
The SEQRA regulations provide for a minimum 30-day comment period on a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. In this case, the Planning Board provided 82 days
for public comments on the DEIS, or nearly three times the required minimum time
frame. The Planning Board also held two public hearing sessions within this time
period. The Planning Board asserts such time was more than adequate for the public
to comment on the DEIS; that conclusion is reinforced by the volume of comments
received at both the public hearing session and in writing during this period.

Comment General 1.18 - (Document 1.1, Janelle Hope Robbins, BAS):

Bedford Audubon Society, an organization with standing in the town of Yorktown
respectfully requests 90 days to review and comment on the Draft Environment
Impact Statement (DEIS) for Costco prior to a public hearing. The DEIS is expected
to exceed 2,000 pages, and the proposed development poses significant and potential
impacts on the community, warranting careful and critical review.




_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 22

Comment General 1.19 - (Document 2.1, Henry Steeneck):

consider my request for a sixty day extension regarding the matter of SBL: 8-19
Costco Wholesale Club and the completeness of DEIS. As you are aware that the
DEIS is approximate 2,000 pages in length and the substance is extremely involved.
Not having access or the opportunity to review the information and analyzing the
impact this project will have on increased traffic and my concerns about public safety.



Comment General 1.20 - (Document 3.1, Stephen L. Steeneck):

Please allow this letter to serve as a Formal Request for an EXTENSION of time of
the Costco Wholesale Club DEIS for the reasons as provided below.
1. As of today September 10, 2012, the DEIS is still not available to the
Public for a Public review period.
2. As reported by Costcos respective Attorney's and Representatives, this
document is over 2200 pages and as per number 1, this document is NOT
available for any public review.
3. It is my understanding that the Town of Yorktown Planning Department
has had a preliminary document (preliminary DEIS) in which they had
over 10 months to review and as such, does this Planning Board expect a
normal non-engineer to be able to review this document in such short of
time.
4. Under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) such requests must be
adhered to, as a matter of law. This would make the current DEIS of
Costco Wholesale Club available to Public Review and be a matter of
record. AS SUCH, please accept this letter as a FORMAL REQUEST for
a FULL and COMPLETE COPY of this 2200 plus page document for
further review. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).
Please note that I live within 1/2 a mile from the proposed facility and I would
be directly affected by this proposed action.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 23



Comment General 1.21 - (Document 8.1, Jonathan Nettlefield, Yorktown Smart Growth):
On behalf of Yorktown Smart Growth, a volunteer organization committed to
ensuring Yorktowns long-term prosperity, I request a suitable period of time to
examine the Costco DEIS. Because of the length and complexity of this document
and the likely magnitude of impact the project will have I ask for a minimum of 90
days from the date the DEIS was made available. An extended period for public
examination and comment will afford a better public hearing process.

We would appreciate the Planning Board making this commitment to a minimum 90-
day public review period at the outset of this process. This will afford those who want
to read and understand the DEIS greater certainty that they have time to do so. The
more usual, open-ended public hearing with the possibility of extensions along the
way does not provide this certainty as it can be closed at the discretion of the board.


Comment General 1.22 - (Document 67.5, Richard E. Stanton):

I have been asked by numerous interested residents and businessmen to assist in
reviewing the proposed Costco with filling stations The local group is hereinafter
referred to as Community Stakeholders of the Town of Yorktown.

please accept this letter as a formal request on behalf of the Local Stakeholders to
extend the comment period on Draft Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to 6
NYCRR 617.9 to allow the Local Stakeholders, and their retained consultants, to
complete their review of the published DEIS and attachments. Many of the members
of the Community Stakeholder groups making this request have invested virtually
everything they have in the community they share with you. In order to allow
meaningful public review of the document by the people who will be affected by
whatever decisions the Town and its Boards make, we are asking that you extend the
public comment period for 60 day&


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 24



Comment General 1.23 - (PH1, Larry Centone):
I am respectfully submitting a request for the extension [PH1, page 171, lines 24-25]


Comment General 1.24 - (Document 99.3, Krista Yacovone), (PH2, Krista Yacovone,
Riverkeeper):


Finally, we request that the Board establish a finite comment period that provides a
minimum of 30 days following the close of this public hearing, to ensure that the
public has an adequate opportunity to review and submit comments on the DEIS.



Comment General 1.25 - (Document 119.16, Olivia Bell Buehl), (PH2, Olivia Buehl):


Extension of Time
Finally, I request an extension of 60 days be added to this comment period because of
the size of the DEIS, the inability to view the pDEIS (which was not made available
to the public until after the DEIS was posted), and to further evaluate the answers to
the many questions to be researched by Yorktown Smart Growths experts.




_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 25


Please allow this letter to serve as a Formal Request for the following Clarification as
outlined within and in addition for a request for an EXTENTION of time of the
Costco Wholesale Club DEIS for such reasons.




1. On September 25, 2012, I received a letter from Robyn A. Steinberg (Town
Planner) in regards to the Costco DEIS and my FOIL Request. This letter is marked
EXHIBIT 1 and shall prove the fact that this represents some less than 20 days time
to review such an extensive over 2200 page document. As such, it would be
inappropriate for one to assume that a normal non-engineer would be able to review
such an enormous document in such a short amount of time. Therefore, I do hereby
request an extension of time which would be fair and not less than 90 days time.

2. Additionally, I do hereby request such latitude due to the fact that I have only been
able to review a small amount of this enormous document.




6. Enclosed is EXHIBIT 3, which is a copy of my previous letter (of September 10,
2012) requesting an EXTENTION and additionally a FOIL request. This letter is
enclosed and is self-explanatory.



Comment General 1.29 (PH2, James Bacon, Yorktown Smart Growth):

And again, we will be submitting our comments in writing and we would respectfully

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 26

request that the Board leave the public comment open for thirty days. Thank you
very much. [PH2, page 123, lines 1-5]




Please provide a full and complete 2200 page Document, as per the FOIL Request
(Freedom of Information Law), as being requested with this letter, to the address
provided below.


Paper copies of the DEIS were made available at J ohn C. Hart Memorial Library, the
Town Clerks Office in Town Hall, and the Planning Department in the Yorktown
Community & Cultural Center. Digital copies of the DEIS were made available on
the Town of Yorktown Website and on CD, which could be obtained from the
Planning Department.

Comment General 1.31 - (Document 4.1, Paul Moskowitz):

I request a written copy of the DEIS for the EAC, so that at our next meeting on
September 20, we can go over and reply to the carbon footprint considerations in the
DEIS.


Refer to FEIS Response General1.30.


3. Enclosed is EXHIBIT 2, which is a copy of an Internal Town of Yorktown
Planning Department Memorandum, address to the Planning Board where is requests
further documents from Costcos respective Attorneys and Representatives
additional clarification Prior to a public hearing. My question is, are all of these
issues and items been properly addressed, both answered properly and delivered to
the Planning Department. Also, as such, why are number 5 and 6, not listed within
the current DEIS as delivered on September 25, 2012?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
General - 27

4. Additionally, has these documents been delivered to the Planning Department and
are available for Public Review to date? Including item/number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6?

5. As such, please make these available to the Public and this meeting should be
adjourned until a further time as to the Memorandums own requests. Meaning under
the proper language Prior to a public hearing. If these items have NOT been
completed, then a Public Hearing should not be scheduled until such a time where
these documents are available to the Public for a proper Public Review Process.


The referenced August 10, 2012 memo (Exhibit 2), from the Town of Yorktown
Planning Department, included six comments to the DEIS prior to its acceptance by
the Planning Board as complete. All of the comments were addressed by the
Applicant and were incorporated into the DEIS. The DEIS was resubmitted to the
Planning Board and accepted as complete on September 10, 2012.

Also refer to FEIS Response General 1.30.

Comment General 1.33 - (Document 52.1, Patricia Dineen), (PH1, Patricia Dineen):


I am speaking on behalf of the First Presbyterian Church of Yorktown.

It has come to our attention that an unknown individual or group has included a
prominent photograph of our church on a flyer that has been handed out throughout
the town regarding the Costco issue.

The use of this photograph gives a false impression that the church, its congregation
and leadership have consented to its use,

we must insist that there be no further use of such a photograph or image of our
church by any individual or group, for any such purpose, without prior written
permission from the church leadership.


Comment noted. The referenced photograph was not published or distributed by the
Planning Board, Town Staff, or the Applicant.

Volume 1 Composite

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 1 Composite

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility

Part A - Introduction to FEIS

Part B - Comments and Responses Section II

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.C

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D

Comments and Responses Section III.E

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.J

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.K

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.L

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.M

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.Q

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.R

You might also like