Hits: 0
WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL CHRONICLE-EXAMINER. By John F. Bailey. December 20, 2003 UPDATED 1 P.M. E.S.T. with New Designs of Cappelli Proposal: The Common Council met Friday morning to begin the process of accepting the Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement on The Cappelli Hotel project at 221 Main Street in City Hall.
HIGHLIGHTS of the meeting found Councilperson Rita Malmud demanding a comparison chart for expected effluent loads before 221 is built and after, and towards the close of the morning, demanding that Commissioner of Public Works Joseph Nicoletti appear before the Council at the resumption of the DFEIS review in January to answer specific questions about the condition and capacity of the city Main Street sewer line. Pictured, left to right: Commissioner of Planning Susan Habel, Jeffrey Zupan, Transportation Consultant, Dr. Eugenie Birch, Urban Planning Consultant. Benjamin Boykin, Common Council President, honchoing the meeting in the Mayor’s absence, Michael Gerard, Environmental Lawyer, and Rod Johnson, Deputy Commissioner of Planning. Photo by WPCNR News.
Ms. Malmud also demanded from Commissioner of Planning Susan Habel a specific cost for the cleanup of the fuel leakage left over on the 221 city-owned parcel from when the police headquarters was located on that site. Ms. Malmud politely described the sewage data and statements on the city sewer ability to handle the complex as “very vague.”
Consultants Weigh In.
The council heard the city’s development consultants, Jeffrey Zupan and Eugenie Birch, testify that the Alternative F design of Louis Cappelli’s hotel project was more preferable for pedestrian movement, streetscape ambience, and hotel design. Alternative F assumes razing of the Bar Building to expand the hotel complex from Grace Church to the Court Street extension.
Bar Building E-Bomb
A bombshell was dropped by Councilman Tom Roach who revealed that a letter from the State Historical Preservation Society had been delivered Thursday evening, as part of the DFEIS package, addressed to the owner of the Bar Building, Anthony Longhitano, which said that the Society thought the Bar Building,eyed for acquisition by Cappelli Enterprises, could be “eligible” to be considered for for historical landmark status in New York State, and that he could apply for that designation for his 199 Main Street property.
This “eligibility” was known to the owner prior to the December 1 Common Council meeting, when Mayor Delfino asked Mr. Longhitano if he was willing to apply for landmark status to preserve his building and Mr. Longhitano said he was willing to do so. The owner apparently chose not to reveal that he had been told he was eligible to apply in mid-October, the date of the Historical Preservation agency letter to Mr. Longhitano, according to Michael Seymour, President of the White Plains Historical Society.
Opening Statements.
The meeting got underway at 9:20 A.M. at City Hall with Council President Benjamin Boykin gaveling the proceedings and sitting in the Mayor’s chair, with Councilman William King and the Mayor not in attendance. The Mayor was sick with a throat ailment, which made it very difficult for him to talk, according to Louis Cappelli.
THE PREAMBLE: Commissioner of Planning Susan Habel opened the proceedings explaining the seven sections of the DFEIS, among them The Bar Building, Traffic, Transit, Parking, Uses & Designs, Subsurface Issues. She said it was the job of the Council to review the DFEIS and determine if it contained all the information they needed to base a decision on, which they are required to “base” on information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Photo by WPCNR News.
Rita Malmud expressed an opening statement saying there were some “very broad basic issues” the council was concerned about in the way the DFEIS was written, and that she had not had time to review all the documents.
Benjamin Boykin followed up on that, saying he had some “really broad thoughts” about the documents (in the DFEIS), and said the Council should have one more meeting in January. “This is an extremely important project and we need to take the appropriate time,” he said. “I would like to see some additional detail on other alternatives, similar to what we did on New York Presbyterian Hospital.”
Malmud also said, she wanted more pros and cons discussion in the DFEIS, and in her opening statements, she said she was worried about the capacity of the Main Street sewer. “There is very, very, very little discussion about that, (in the DFEIS).” She said she wanted more discussion of eminent domain and council exercise of it, and Mr. Cappelli’s rights as an owner since he does not own 100% of the Center Garage rights.
Next Glen Hockley spoke strongly in favor of Alternative F (which takes the Bar Building), describing it as “well-balanced.” He supported the DFEIS sewage position, saying they “were assured quite logically…” and later in the same statement, “I don’t think it’s that big a concern.”
IT’S RAINING DFEIS
Mr. Boykin asked Mr. Roach if he wanted to make a statement.
The DFEIS, the audience learned, was not complete when delivered last Monday evening. Parts of it, Tom Roach said, were delivered daily up through Thursday evening, with some sections being completely replaced with new versions. Roach pointed out that one of those deliveries on Thursday night contained a New York Historical Preservation agency letter to Mr. Anthony Longhitano, declaring that the Bar Building was “eligible” for consideration as an historical landmark, but he said Dr. Birch and Mr. Zupan were there and he felt “we should hear from them while they were here. Let’s get to work.”
They got to work at 9:45 A.M.
THE CONSULTANTS STEP UP TO THE PLATE: Jeffrey Zupan, left, and Dr. Eugenie Birch, prior to testimony Friday. Photo by WPCNR News.
Jeffrey Zupan, the transportation consultant, summarized his findings. He said he had three observations:
1. He did not like the 4-story above ground parking garage that was necessitated by keeping the Bar Building as part of the project. 2. The curb cuts required by retaining the Bar Building were “inadequate” for pedestrians because of vehicles turning in off Court Street to enter the above-ground garage. He also did not like curb cut drop offs in front of the hotel on Main Street, (required to drop guests at hotel, prior to parking) if you kept the Bar Building; 3. The building seemed wedged in between the Bar Building and Grace Church.
The New Cappelli Hotel Design with the Bar Building: Louis Cappelli showcased his newest designs of the hotel to the media before the meeting began. This is the new Fred Bland enhanced glass hotel and condominiums, viewed from the South. Main Street is in the foreground. Grace Church is at lower right. Bar Building (in brown, in reality it is white, lower left). The Court Street extension (3 lanes is at left foreground.) Design, courtesy, Cappelli Enterprises. Photo by WPCNR News.
Zupan said Alternative F, which supposes the razing of the Bar Building, improved the flow of traffic on Court Street by eliminating the need for cuts on Main, and making it safer for pedestrians. Zupan dryly observed that he felt that building above-ground parking garages as proposed, was akin to creating “Vehicular Mausoleums.” He urged particular attention to traffic road markings to make it safer and more inviting for pedestrians to stroll along Court Street.
ALTERNATIVE F: The Bar Building has vanished. More open space is created, according to Zupan and Birch. The Buildings become more graceful, in Birch’s opinion. Design, courtesy, Cappelli Enterprises. Photo by WPCNR News.
Birch Calls it “Shoehorning.”
Dr. Eugenie Birch, the urban planning consultant, summarized her views included in the DFEIS, by bluntly saying the design preserving the Bar Building, by building the hotel between the Bar Building and Grace Church, “appears to be shoehorned into a setting extremely crowded. The shoehorn solution is not the best solution for this site or the large atrium.”
She said Alternative F allows “a more graceful set of buildings, and should not be ignored here because of situations that could be mitigated (preservation of the Bar Building).” Alternative F, she said, “is so much more effective in terms of what a vision for the downtown should be. It makes much more valuable space. “
THE NEW CAPPELLI HOTEL (right), and proposed Office Complex, viewed from the new Court Street, with the Bar Building preserved, its rear extension, we believe, removed. Design courtesy of Cappelli Enterprises. Photo by WPCNR News.
Birch said Alternative F (eliminating the Bar Building) would open park space near Grace Church, make for more welcoming sidewalks, landscaping, and general charming ambience.
In her opinion, the Bar Building “does not fit in the same way the other historical buildings have in White Plains,” (referring to the Greenpoint Bank space, next to City Center).”
She did say she did not like the retail arcade concept, Cappelli has proposed for the hotel block, saying it privatized the public space (the sidewalk). She encouraged open to the street retail, saying an arcade would be “a big mistake.”
ALTERNATIVE F: VIEWED FROM COURT STREET WITH BAR BUILDING REMOVED. Design, courtesy, Cappelli Enterprises. Photo by WPCNR News.
Glen Hockley, said he felt some preservation of the façade of the Bar Building could be made. Birch raised the possibility of creating signage as the city of Providence has to indict and recognize famous buildings, and former locations.
Zupan agreed with Dr. Birch that an arcade was not as effective for creating a pedestrian-friendly center as open-to-the-street establishments.
At this point, Commissioner of Planning Habel, said, “From B to Z, we’re trying to address how to create the best urban environment at Mamaroneck and Main, and create linkage to Hamilton Avenue, the White Plains Mall.”
Does Not Recommend Eminent Domain.
Habel switched gears in the meeting at this point, stating strongly that, in the DFEIS, “There is no recommendation made expressly with the regard to condemnation (of the Bar Building), it mentions it as an action the council can take.”
She also said it does not recommend Alternative F, including it only as a means of remediation. “It (the DFEIS) doesn’t say it is the only option.”
The Underground Considerations.
After a brief discussion of how to proceed through the sections, the group decided to open it up for the councilpersons to raise their main questions.
Rita Malmud complained about “a lack of information on sewage capacity,” and referred to a letter from Department of Public Works Commissioner Joseph Nicoletti, saying, in effect, the developer (Mr. Cappelli) would make technical improvements to the sewer system, including “lining” of the pipe, if it became necessary.
Habel directed Ms. Malmud to a second reference to the capacity, being a 2-page memo from Divney, Tung Schwalbe, (Mr. Cappelli’s consultant) that notes gallonage per minute before and after the 221 Project is built, as follows:
“The 16-inch main line has a capacity of 5,200 gallons per minute…in June 2003, the results (of a flow meter test) reveal a recorded maximum flow rate of approximately 1,800 gallons per minute. In most other times the flow was recorded less than the amount with peak flows ranging from 600 to 1800 gallons per minute…Using accepted values published by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the estimated maxium peak flow rate to be added to the 16-inch swer main is approximately 1,300 gallons per minute (from both the City Center at completion and the hotel project at completion-WPCNR note). This also does not take into consideration the many different uses that have varied peaking times that would lessen the peak estimated in the table. By adding the maximum-recorded flow rate of 1,800 gpm with the projected peak flow rates the estimated flow in the 16-inch main will be approximately 3,100 gallons per minute. Since the capacity of the 16-inch main is approximately 5, 200 gallons per minute, there should (be) adequate capacity within the main to accommodate the proposed project.”
Malmud said that does not answer my question. Ms. Hable referred her to Section 2A-34, from the Commissioner of Public Works, dated September 19, 2003, which reads in part:
“we are continuing discussions with them to resolve these technical issues:….Estimated water and wastewater demands: Further discussions as to capacity of the City’s infrastructure. Excess per capita costs to the City of White Plains as a result of hotel and non-residential portion of project…and the liability for damage to private property in the event of unforeseen failure of the City’s water or sewer mains.”
Referring to Mr. Nicoletti’s letter, Ms. Malmud, said “That (Mr. Nicoletti’s letter) is an inadequate answer to my question.”
Councilman Hockley asked Ms. Malmud, “I don’t understand your question.”
Malmud said, “I’d like a chart, showing what the capacity is now, what the capacity will be (after 221). A little chart.”
Referring to the Nicoletti letter, Malmud said, “That’s very vague.”
“I want it very clear, who’s paying for what,” Malmud said.
Ms. Habel said based on a document, also signed by Mr. Nicoletti in section H-9, that the developer would clean and line the sewer pipe, and make technical improvements to the sewer pipe, if needed. It should be noted that Mr. Cappelli feels any costs of physical improvements to the sewer pipe should be shared with other users of the pipe on Main Street.
Hockley said he couldn’t see this concern on Malmud’s part. By the nature of his comments, he felt Ms. Malmud should take the documents as written as adequate assurance the city is handling the sewage issue correctly.
Ms. Malmud would not let go, saying again the sewage section was “inadequate. Have that chart, and next time I request the Commissioner of Public Works be present to discuss it.”
Cost of Cleanup
Ms. Malmud raised the issue of the cost of cleanup of the gasoline spillage from the former police headquarters approximately 15 years ago. (That site is to be deeded over to Cappelli in a swap, not involving cash, according to Ms. Habel.) Malmud asked Ms. Habel, how much it would cost the city to clean up the spillage. Ms. Habel did not offer a figure. Then Ms. Malmud asked if the cost of the cleanup would be recouped in the sale of the land to Mr. Cappelli, if the cleanup cost was a million dollars. Ms. Habel said it would not cost a million dollars. Malmud said she wanted further information on the cost of that cleanup to the city.
Height Issue
In other matters, it became clear that the cost of extending and possibly widening of Court Street would be paid for by Mr. Cappelli.
It was also stated by Ms. Habel, that if the 221 and City Center projects were considered as two sites, Mr. Cappelli could not build a 34-story tower as of right, that the Council would have to consider it as one site in order to accomplish that.
Rotunda Spin
The council adjourned at 11:30 A.M., and Mr. Boykin said he would push for an early evening meeting in January to resume the DFEIS discussion.
In a chat with Michael Seymour, President of the White Plains Historical Society, WPCNR learned that Mr. Longhitano, the owner of the Bar Building had been advised by the State Historical Preservation agency that his building could be “eligible” for landmark designation as of late October, Seymour said. Seymour said he thought Mr. Longhitano had mentioned this at the December 1 Common Council meeting.
Benjamin Boykin was asked in Mr. Seymour’s presence if he (Boykin) recalled that, and Mr. Boykin said “No, the Mayor asked Mr. Longhitano if he’d be willing to apply for landmark status, and he said he would.”
WPCNR, asked Mr. Boykin why he maintained that Mr. Cappelli should only build the hotel to a height of 28 stories. Boykin said, he felt “I think it just should be tapered down. I do not think it should be as tall as the City Center.” Boykin asked that a study done for the City Center in which it justified height as saying a city should have “a head on its shoulders,” should be included in the DFEIS.
Bruce Berg, Vice President of Cappelli Enterprises, encountered by WPCNR in the rotunda, was asked what effect he thought the newly revealed landmark “eligibility” had on the Bar Building as a piece of real estate. Berg said it makes the property harder to develop, if you are designated an historical landmark, because you are subject to state approval for any changes you want to make in the property. Jim Benerofe, real estate magnate in the city, commented to WPCNR that an actual landmark designation would lower the value of Mr. Longhitano’s property considerably, because the designation makes the property less attractive to a prospective buyer.
In an action before the meeting began, the Council appointed Eric Press as partime City Court Judge.
