Opinion: FASNY: Bad Advice to WP Common Council?

Dear Mayor and Common Council,

How come after 4+ years of Common Council reviews there are still so many open resident concerns on this FASNY project that require Common Council attention and solutions? We’re not just referring to a couple of more notable concerns such as FASNY’s massive Traffic, 10-year Construction and the attempts to Circumvent WP Laws as written. . .there are dozens more as our list of 30 resident-driven concerns below details. Some of our concerns weren’t even brought up by FASNY and discussed in the SEQR process and in Site Plan meetings. . . others were discussed yet contained misleading information and recommendations. And with so many of our list of FASNY concerns still in need of Common Council real solutions. . .we are wondering if the Council may have received bad advice on the requirements of the SEQR process and the Site Plan reviews?

Here’s our list of resident-developed FASNY negatives and concerns that still have not been addressed with realistic solutions:

1. Current neighborhood Traffic and Living Conditions, starting early in the SEQR process, were never described correctly. . .especially where information on local Commuter Traffic flow and Accident Experience was lacking.

2. In the SEQR there was no mention of the 10 existing schools on the perimeter of our neighborhood where start times are essentially the same as FASNY’s proposed schedule. . .and the resulting Traffic risk to WP school children walking, biking and in cars or buses will be substantial.

3. FASNY’s significant Traffic increases of more than 2,000 Vehicle Trips traveling each day into residential neighborhoods was never mentioned at all.

4. FASNY never acknowledged our country-style streets without sidewalks where any type of permanent Traffic increase is a concern.

5. FASNY’s flawed North Street Entrance will negatively impact WP school children, seniors and other residents. . .our WP Board of Education pointed this out. . .yet FASNY never came up with any solutions.

6. FASNY trying to close Hathaway Lane, a Public Street, will increase Emergency Response times to neighborhood homes.

7. The North Street Entrance and Hathaway Lane Closure decisions both make FASNY’s Traffic worse.

8. New Environmental Impact Studies (EIS’s) should have been prepared for the North Street Entrance, the Closure of Hathaway Lane and for the Conservancy.

9. FASNY did not disclose that the Closure of Hathaway Lane helps the value of their property by combining 2 land parcels while also helping them to getting around the “Accessory” restrictions.

10. FASNY’s 10-year Construction program in an area surrounded by private homes is just not right. . . and neither is there claim of 75 ft setbacks from resident homes when FASNY’s own maps show only 25 ft. setbacks from adjacent homes.

11. Also 10 years of significant Noise and Pollution in a current quiet residential neighborhood is a significant Safety and Health hazard to residents.

12. FASNY’s SEQR didn’t acknowledge that large Construction projects in residential areas need stricter requirements than development projects in downtown areas (as we learned with the German School).

13. FASNY doesn’t understand that their plan to destroy 300 of our 100-year old trees and replacing them with new saplings. . .is not a 1 to 1 swap.

14. FASNY building on 53-acres of current grassland is a significant loss of Open Space for our City.

15. FASNY’s planned 3,000 foot-long roadway near NYS designated sensitive land is a threat to our environment.

16. FASNY’s plan to dump carcinogenic herbicides next to resident homes with their planned Conservancy is disgraceful and will harm the Health and Safety of citizens near their property.

17. Additional Water in basements will flow from FASNY building over underground streams and on top of 53 acres of current grasslands.

18. FASNY has been misstating and trying to get around our existing Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and other WP laws as written.

19. A few on the City Staff, with predetermined support for FASNY’s project instead of being objective, were helping FASNY behind-the scenes during the SEQR process. . .while also delaying resident FOIL requests. . .utilizing Friday night document dumps to slow the dissemination of information to the Public. . .and withholding information from elected Council members who might have different views.

20. Some Common Council member comments that “you have to give a Special Permit to a school” were not true in the R1-30 Zoning District where a “private secondary or a private elementary school may be eligible for a Special Permit but not both together and certainly not a private regional school campus .

21. FASNY has ignored discussing the old golf course’s 1925 Restrictive Covenant that would prevent FASNY’s regional school campus.

22. FASNY’s project has already caused resident Property Values to decline before the Construction work even starts.

23. FASNY’s SEQR never considered the alternative of additional residential housing which would be allowed under the existing R1-30 zoning of the old golf course. . .and would provide needed property tax revenue.

24. FASNY’s 53-acre regional school campus is not in Character with our neighborhood and WP laws.

25. With other non-profits experiencing financing difficulties with their expansion plans. . .no mention was made in SEQR of FASNY’s lack of Money on-hand to complete their project in a reasonable time period. . .and what the options for the City and residents would be if FASNY can’t raise enough money.

26. FASNY with help from a few on the City Staff have colluded on misrepresenting and withholding key information from the SEQR process.

27. The Common Council throughout the 4+ years of reviews have asked few questions of FASNY and provided even fewer answers to their constituents’ questions.

28. The Common Council has allowed FASNY to get away with not having all their up-to-date plan details in one place.

29. Throughout the 4+ years of the SEQR process FASNY has not shown a lot of respect or concern for the Health, Welfare and Safety of neighborhood residents.

30. The Common Council as Lead Agency during the SEQR process didn’t address and eliminate all of the FASNY negatives and adverse impacts.

If we look at the important topic of FASNY’s massive Traffic increases in our residential neighborhoods in a little more detail. . .

Does anyone believe FASNY’s adverse Traffic impacts have been eliminated or significantly mitigated during the City’s 4+ year review process? Let’s review some of the history. . .during the SEQR process in their FEIS submission FASNY did reduce their planned school population from 1,200 to 950. However, at the 950 student level FASNY’s total Vehicle Trips coming into our residential neighborhoods each day will still be over 2,000 cars and buses. . .yet this 2,000 Vehicle Trip number was mysteriously absent from the FEIS and SEQR Findings. Somehow the erroneous 530 Vehicle Cap number was introduced yet no one knows where this number came from or how it is calculated. . .even the expert Traffic professionals from TRC and Mary Manning couldn’t explain the 530 number. In addition FASNY’s Phase I Cap of 750 students, as pointed out by the Mayor, was too ridiculously easy based on FASNY’s own projected student population of only 478 for their Upper School during Phase I. Also FASNY’s selection of the North Street Entrance and the Closure of Hathaway actually made Traffic conditions worse. . .and the impact of the backed-up Hutchison River Parkway forcing FASNY Vehicles onto Ridgeway and other local WP streets was never discussed in the SEQR process. Taken together all of these Traffic errors and omissions appear to be an attempt by FASNY and a few on the City Staff to mislead the Common Council and residents with “smoke and mirrors”. So here we are today with FASNY’s massive Traffic still problematic and a significant threat to the residents of the Southend of the City. . .with no solutions in sight.

We’re been wondering why some of these FASNY negatives and concerns have either been misrepresented or not even mentioned in FASNY’s SEQR review process and Site Plan meetings. . .because they have to be addressed before a final Common Council vote is taken. Our thought was that the Common Council may have been given poor advice on SEQR regulations and Site Plan reviews.

So let’s review what we learned about the SEQR requirements. Our research has shown us that the SEQR Regulations were put in place by NYS in an attempt to encourage local elected officials and outside developers to work together in search of the truth for the benefit of citizens.

Under SEQR regulations the Common Council as Lead Agency had the responsibility for identifying and then discussing all the potential impacts from the FASNY project. . .that had the potential to harm the Health, Welfare and Safety of the community. . .and in the SEQR Findings Report the Common Council also had the responsibility to introduce “solutions” that eliminated or significantly minimized all the identified adverse impacts. If you Google “SEQR 101” you will find a good overview of the SEQR process with slides 7, 23, 31, 35, 39, 47 and 51 of particular interest with regard to the FASNY review.

So why does the SEQR Findings Report of December 19, 2013 appear to be out of sync with the SEQR requirements. . .where in the Findings Report an objective look at the facts and evidence was never done. . .where our list of resident-developed FASNY negatives and concerns were never considered. . .and where the Common Council didn’t have a chance to offer hard solutions as required by SEQR regulations? If you go back and listen to remarks of the Mayor and each Common Council member at the SEQR Findings Meeting of December 19, 2013. . .it appears that the Common Council was more intent on pushing the FASNY project forward so that any hard solutions on the FASNY negatives would be delayed until the Site Review. In reviewing the Common Council member comments from the SEQR Findings Meeting. . .Council members admitted that the Findings Report didn’t include a detailed review and evaluation of the Stormwater Management Plan, the Demaping of Hathaway Lane, FASNY’s Traffic Management Plan, FASNY’s Mandatory Busing Policy as well as the Conservancy. . .and also that North Street Entrance wasn’t approved by the Board Of Education. As you know we found out months later about the Board of Education’s rejection of the North Street Entrance. . .that FASNY’s 530 Traffic number was erroneous. . .and that protecting Ridgeway as a Collector Street would not be possible due to FASNY cars and buses seeking shortcuts thru WP local streets from the backed up Hutchinson River Parkway. As a result the Council in their Finding Report didn’t take any “hard looks” at the FASNY negatives nor offer any solutions as required by SEQR. As background here’s the video of each of our Common Council members’ comments from back at the SEQR Findings Meeting: http://whiteplainsny.swagit.com/play/12192013-629

Is it possible that because of “time restraints” that some Common Council members were forced to vote at the SEQR Findings Meeting of December 19, 2013 without reading beforehand all of the 129-page Findings Report? We wonder whether “time constraints” forced members of the Common Council into a. . .”Nancy Polosi-type moment where you have to pass something before you can understand what’s really in it”. We ask this because the SEQR Findings Report didn’t address all of the FASNY negatives and also did not contain a lot of Common Council solutions and conclusions. It’s a shame because the SEQR Findings Report was the one document in the whole SEQR process where the Common Council could have added its own imprint and stamp with objective thoughts, comments and analysis. . .without the involvement of the FASNY Representatives twisting the truth. Instead the same few on the City Staff who were involved helping FASNY with all the prior SEQR submissions authored the SEQR Findings Report. . .so the Common Council never had a chance to introduce its own independent commentary and opinions on the FASNY project.

Wasn’t it the responsibility of the Common Council as Lead Agency under SEQR to evaluate all the Environmental factors, including Traffic, Construction, Noise, Pollution, Water, Community Character among others? And while the Lead Agency can rely on staff and consultants for expert advice and administration of the SEQR process. . .the Lead Agency may not delegate decisions to staff or consultants. However in the flawed SEQR Findings Report of December 19, 2013 it appears the commentary was prepared by and signed off by “City Staff Consultants”. . .rather than the Mayor or President of the Common Council from the Lead Agency as required by SEQR regulations.

Why didn’t the Common Council require FASNY to comment on the amount of Money on-hand FASNY had to complete their project? We know from FASNY’s plans that they are stretching out their Construction to help themselves acquire additional funds to complete their project. And while no one expects a non-profit organization to have significant cash on-hand. . .when FASNY is asking for approval to build a 53-acre regional school in the middle of a residential neighborhood. . .isn’t it the responsibility of our elected leaders to undertake some due diligence to certify that FASNY has the Money on-hand or guarantees to get the required funding? While our overall US economy is still challenging. . .locally there’s rumors that some other non-profits in our area with expansion plans are also experiencing funding challenges, including the German School, Church of Christ and the Hindu Temple. In our own research on the SEQR regulations we didn’t find any restrictions preventing the Lead Agency from asking questions about a non-profit’s financial capability. . .and given our current economy it would seem the right thing for the Common Council to do particularly with the size of FASNY’s project in a residential part of the City.

Why has the Common Council been reluctant to ask questions of FASNY? This lack of Common Council questions extended the review process and most likely led to FASNY’ getting away with incomplete due diligence, inaccurate information and a lack of realistic solutions for their own project’s negatives. It’s unfortunate that some say that during these FASNY reviews certain Council members have appeared disinterested, almost like store mannequins, by staying silent, not asking good questions and not being informed on the law as written. Why would you want to serve. . .if you don’t want to participate?

Who advised our Common Council not to ask questions during the SEQR review meetings? We ask this because the SEQR regulations allow questions and in SEQR Reviews in other municipalities that we know about. . .elected officials have taken an active role in asking questions of applicants while trying to search for the truth.

Final Thoughts:

We all know there isn’t a lot of transparency in our City government. . .so we don’t know who advised our Common Council not to follow SEQR requirements and not respond to resident questions and concerns over the 4+ years since this FASNY process started. Personally we do know that we have asked many questions of this Common Council. . .including bringing to your attention on numerous occasions many of our 30 FASNY negatives and concerns mentioned earlier. . .yet received no answers back from you.

Now the City is at the point where the Common Council must address the issues and resident concerns by identifying real solutions to all of the FASNY negatives. If after 4+ years there are still “more questions than answers” with this FASNY project. . .as Common Council members you have a fiduciary responsibility to not only search for the truth. . .but also to insure the truth is told by the outside developer. . .which has not always happened during this FASNY review process. We respect the rights of Council members to look at the same set of facts and come up with different conclusions. . .yet find it strange that some Council members are OK with FASNY and their supporters misrepresenting and hiding facts from you.

We recall a Common Council member mentioning that SEQR process helps to “build the record”. Right now we say that the critical requirement is to “correct the record” as this FASNY Review moves into the final stages. If the Common Council is “bound by the Law” as the Mayor says. . .the first step is correcting the SEQR Findings Report. . .by initiating Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s) for the North Street Entrance, the Closure of Hathaway Lane and the Conservancy. . .and also by addressing all the FASNY negatives and concerns we’ve identified. And most important developing “solutions” that eliminate or significantly mitigate all the FASNY negatives. SEQR regulations require this. And as this final FASNY review moves to the Site Plan vote stage. . .addressing all the FASNY negatives with solutions. . .is still the most important missing piece of the FASNY Review process.

We believe now’s the time for the Common Council to take back control of the FASNY Review from your advisors. . .by working together as a team to uncover the truth and by demonstrating some transparency. We are asking Council members not to shortchange the citizens you were elected to serve. . . because it would be unfortunate if any continued indifference and inaction during this FASNY review process came back to haunt some of you as personal reputation-killers going forward.

We’re sure that if better advice was given earlier to Common Council members this FASNY review process could have been more accurate and efficient to all the parties involved. Unfortunately this didn’t happen. So now the Common Council is left to “correct the record” by searching for the truth and implementing solutions for each of the FASNY negatives. . .before you vote.

Thanks for your attention and support,

Your Truth Police, Team Rhodes

Marie and Ron Rhodes