HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210755 269 Broadway Site Plan Public Comment (26) March 17, 2022
To: Saratoga Springs Planning Board
Yesterday afternoon, the CHA consultant's fourth review letter dated March 8,
2022 was finally uploaded to the Planning Board archives. I learned with relief
from Susan Barden that the letter's author Anthony P. Stellato, Jr. P.E. is planning
to attend the workshop today. Hopefully all Planning Board members will have
time to review this detailed 16-page letter in advance of the workshop.
The CHA letter misses a few pertinent points, such as the fact that office
employees in Saratoga Springs typically do not arrive at 7:00 am when there is
some unlimited parking on a few area streets. The typical start time is 8:30 am —
9:00 am when available all-day street parking is very rare. But the CHA letter
does address many critical points lacking from the applicant's geotechnical, traffic
and parking studies. And it requests an updated geotechnical/structural
engineering study to evaluate the feasibility of the project before any Planning
Board action. These issues must be resolved before the Planning Board rushes to
a site plan vote.
I spoke at Tuesday night's City Council meeting during the Public Comment
portion. It's unlikely my comments had anything to do with the CHA letter finally
being posted to the archives and the CHA consultant's plans to be at the
workshop, but it is still encouraging to think that the public has been heard about
the importance of making known to the Planning Board the concerns of the
Engineering, Traffic and other city divisions and their consultants prior to any
further action. Here is the general gist of my verbal comments:
I am one of many citizens that are concerned about the 269 Broadway project
and have watched the planning process with alarm. The public has repeatedly
offered credible evidence on very real issues that have been ignored, or
inadequately or inaccurately addressed, by the applicant and not fully
recognized by the Planning Board and planning staff. This includes but is not
limited to:
1) a traffic study that ignores Broadway, which is the address of the
project,
2) a parking study that undercounts the need and fails to recognize the no
parking and limited parking on most nearby streets, and
3) construction of two building levels below the water table.
The archives have been difficult to navigate and are not updated promptly. It
is not clear that critical issues have been resolved with city staff and their
consultants, or that Planning Board members are even aware of pertinent
details. In fact, at Planning Board meetings in February where 269 Broadway
was discussed, neither the Planning Board Chairman nor the City Planner knew
that SEQR was approved based on a GeoTech report that did not envision
underwater construction, nor did they acknowledge that serious concerns of
Clough Harbor consultants and the city engineer remained unresolved.
The City Council must make sure that planning staff hears the concerns of
relevant city employees and consultants. And that the planning staff
effectively communicates those concerns to the land use boards. Instead, we
seem to have planning staff and land use boards that are working to "yes"for
developers, instead of looking out for the best interests of the citizens and the
future viability of our city.
We don't want to see another project approved with unresolved issues that
might only be sufficiently resolved with a scaled back project or a "no" vote.
I would like to say further here that the Planning Board should reopen the SEQR
review and obtain the written opinion of the city engineer, and the experts
advising her, that this project will not create undue harm to Saratoga Springs
before you consider approving this project. These are not issues to be worked
out after approval. The city has never had a project like this built below the water
table. If there is damage to the neighboring buildings and city streets and utilities,
we may not have adequate recourse to this applicant and the city could be
burdened with added expenses. Saratoga Springs needs to get the reviews right
and avoid another Article 78 action.
Kathleen Sonnabend
Saratoga Springs