Feedback and Responses
Below, you will find answers to all of the questions and comments that have been sent to us. If you have additional questions or feedback, you can fill out our Community Input Form. We respond to submissions on a weekly basis.
- B-1: Why is the ECC leasing the property to any entity, especially when it is still exploring the possibility of reintroducing educational programs on its campus?
- B-2: Is the ECC Charter available for public review?
- B-3: Does the ECC charter require that use of the property be child-based and that no commercial enterprise be allowed use of the buildings and grounds?
- B-4: What other alternatives (other than the Maret proposal) have been proposed?
- B-5: Would the development of the fields be compatible with the historic designation of the ECC campus?
- B-6: Confirm what remains negotiable with neighbors regarding Maret’s proposed plan.
- B-7: Why isn't the current lease with Jelleff (expires 2029?) not being renewed?
- B-8: ECC land records - parcel and lot consolidation and subdivision with associated dates.
- B-9: Why is Maret applying for the special exception and not ECC?
- B-10: But where are the responses?
- B-11: Examples of Maret’s contracts with other users of their current facilities.
- B-12: We understand Maret’s and ECC’s reluctance to disclose their lease agreement, but we believe that some of the terms may be relevant to our consideration.
- B-13: Provide the estimated impact on our home market value if the project is approved.
B-1: Why is the ECC leasing the property to any entity, especially when it is still exploring the possibility of reintroducing educational programs on its campus?
B-2: Is the ECC Charter available for public review?
B-3: Does the ECC charter require that use of the property be child-based and that no commercial enterprise be allowed use of the buildings and grounds?
B-4: What other alternatives (other than the Maret proposal) have been proposed?
B-5: Would the development of the fields be compatible with the historic designation of the ECC campus?
B-6: Confirm what remains negotiable with neighbors regarding Maret’s proposed plan.
B-7: Why isn't the current lease with Jelleff (expires 2029?) not being renewed?
B-8: ECC land records - parcel and lot consolidation and subdivision with associated dates.
B-9: Why is Maret applying for the special exception and not ECC?
B-10: But where are the responses?
B-11: Examples of Maret’s contracts with other users of their current facilities.
B-12: We understand Maret’s and ECC’s reluctance to disclose their lease agreement, but we believe that some of the terms may be relevant to our consideration.
Question B-12 cont'd: We do not need financial or other proprietary or confidential information, but it would be helpful if you could provide a redacted copy of the lease that excludes any sensitive information.
B-13: Provide the estimated impact on our home market value if the project is approved.
- P-1: The proposed development would require significant re-zoning and exceptions. The proposed rental of playing fields would introduce non-conforming commercial revenue generating activity at odds with residential zoning.
- P-2: What role will the ANC and District assume in oversight?
- P-3: What assurances will there be against intensified future use and development?
- P-4: Who will assure that Maret will be a good neighbor?
- P-5: What is the timeline of the project review process and when can affected neighbors and other citizens participate in the evaluation process?
- P-6: Will a comprehensive impact assessment of the sports facilities on the neighborhood be provided? Will that assessment include case studies of comparable facilities across the city?
- P-7: A 3-D study model and 3-D presentation materials are needed to understand the magnitude of the proposed project.
- P-8: How will the ANC lead, monitor, and record the meetings with Maret and various neighborhood groups to ensure that the process is public, understood, and fair?
- P-9: Availability for discussion with Paul Tummonds (on Maret’s dime).
- P-10: What special exceptions for R-1-B are being requested in the BZA application?
- P-11: Confirm that addresses 5860 Nebraska Avenue and 5864 Nebraska Avenue will be added to the section “III, Description of Property and Surrounding Area” in “Applicant’s Statement” of the BZA Application.
P-1: The proposed development would require significant re-zoning and exceptions. The proposed rental of playing fields would introduce non-conforming commercial revenue generating activity at odds with residential zoning.
P-2: What role will the ANC and District assume in oversight?
P-3: What assurances will there be against intensified future use and development?
P-4: Who will assure that Maret will be a good neighbor?
P-5: What is the timeline of the project review process and when can affected neighbors and other citizens participate in the evaluation process?
P-6: Will a comprehensive impact assessment of the sports facilities on the neighborhood be provided? Will that assessment include case studies of comparable facilities across the city?
P-7: A 3-D study model and 3-D presentation materials are needed to understand the magnitude of the proposed project.
P-8: How will the ANC lead, monitor, and record the meetings with Maret and various neighborhood groups to ensure that the process is public, understood, and fair?
P-9: Availability for discussion with Paul Tummonds (on Maret’s dime).
P-10: What special exceptions for R-1-B are being requested in the BZA application?
P-11: Confirm that addresses 5860 Nebraska Avenue and 5864 Nebraska Avenue will be added to the section “III, Description of Property and Surrounding Area” in “Applicant’s Statement” of the BZA Application.
- U-1: What will be the frequency of use of the facilities?
- U-2: What controls would be used to select and limit the number of additional user groups beyond Maret?
- U-3: Will there be a cap on the frequency and duration of use of the facilities?
- U-4: Who would control the requirements for entry and use and how would they be enforced?
- U-5: What limits or controls on noise are proposed?
- U-6: Will there be a PA system?
- U-7: Will music be allowed?
- U-8: What is the expected maximum number of spectators allowed?
- U-9: How many bleacher seats are proposed?
- U-10: How would the capacity of the fields be controlled?
- U-11: How would crowd size and behavior be controlled?
- U-12: Would food trucks be allowed?
- U-13: How would clean-up after activities and events be managed, including spillover activity on surrounding public streets?
- U-14: How often would the trash receptacles be serviced and what access route would be used?
- U-15: When and under what conditions can neighbors use the facility?
- U-16: How would Maret and ECC monitor and enforce limitations, restrictions, and guidelines for use at all times? What is the process or mechanism for enforcement and for mediating grievances? What is the proposed method of dispute resolution?
- U-17: What assurances are codified in the lease that disallow Maret and/or ECC unilaterally changing any of the safeguards, limits, and agreements without consent of the neighbors directly impacted?
- U-18: How will the density or intensity of use of the fields be enforced?
- U-20: How will noise be regulated?
- U-21: Confirm no sound equipment allowed (built-in or portable).
- U-22: Contract(s) between ECC and Maret.
- U-23: Why not designate the multi-purpose Maret field primarily to baseball/softball? At ECC build one field for soccer/lacrosse/football, not baseball.
- U-24: Is there any consideration to eliminating football which would reduce the field footprint at ECC?
- U-25: Can you ban whistles and boom boxes as annoying noisemakers?
- U-26: How many people (players, coaches, spectators, opponents) do you expect per day throughout the school year?
- U-27: Schedule of games that Maret and non-Maret users will have on the fields per BZA Application, i.e., calendar of use for one calendar year (including expected size of teams and spectators, and whether buses will be parked or not).
- U-28: Play a football game on the site and monitor the sound.
- U-29: How many Maret students will use the ECC fields per quarter or per semester?
- U-30: How many days or hours would the sports complex be open to use by neighbors? Define days and hours.
- U-31: Confirm no activity after 6:00pm, 7:00pm in summer.
- U-32: Confirm restrictions on Sunday use.
- U-33: Demonstrate how sound levels would be controlled to remain within the 60dB limit, describing methods and measurements.
- U-34: Explain the calendar of usage by all parties, including times, expected sizes of teams and number of spectators, expected modes of transportation, and how usage will be controlled and monitored.
- U-35: You have indicated that Maret has discussed possible subleases with some youth groups. Recognizing that you do not have an exhaustive list at this point, could you provide a list of the potential sublessors that you have considered.
- U-36: Could you provide a multiple-use lease agreement with a youth sports group for Maret’s Cleveland Park fields?
U-1: What will be the frequency of use of the facilities?
U-2: What controls would be used to select and limit the number of additional user groups beyond Maret?
U-3: Will there be a cap on the frequency and duration of use of the facilities?
U-4: Who would control the requirements for entry and use and how would they be enforced?
U-5: What limits or controls on noise are proposed?
U-6: Will there be a PA system?
U-7: Will music be allowed?
U-8: What is the expected maximum number of spectators allowed?
U-9: How many bleacher seats are proposed?
U-10: How would the capacity of the fields be controlled?
U-11: How would crowd size and behavior be controlled?
U-12: Would food trucks be allowed?
U-13: How would clean-up after activities and events be managed, including spillover activity on surrounding public streets?
U-14: How often would the trash receptacles be serviced and what access route would be used?
U-15: When and under what conditions can neighbors use the facility?
U-16: How would Maret and ECC monitor and enforce limitations, restrictions, and guidelines for use at all times? What is the process or mechanism for enforcement and for mediating grievances? What is the proposed method of dispute resolution?
U-17: What assurances are codified in the lease that disallow Maret and/or ECC unilaterally changing any of the safeguards, limits, and agreements without consent of the neighbors directly impacted?
U-18: How will the density or intensity of use of the fields be enforced?
U-20: How will noise be regulated?
U-21: Confirm no sound equipment allowed (built-in or portable).
U-22: Contract(s) between ECC and Maret.
U-23: Why not designate the multi-purpose Maret field primarily to baseball/softball? At ECC build one field for soccer/lacrosse/football, not baseball.
Question U-23 cont'd: Maret already has a multi-purpose field that accommodates several sports (soccer, softball etc). Eliminating baseball/softball from ECC would also remove the proposed batting/pitching cages and create a smaller footprint.
U-24: Is there any consideration to eliminating football which would reduce the field footprint at ECC?
Question U-24 cont'd: Maret is a small school with a small football roster, however, Maret is proposing to build a football field that is similar to a school twice its size (St. Johns).
U-25: Can you ban whistles and boom boxes as annoying noisemakers?
U-26: How many people (players, coaches, spectators, opponents) do you expect per day throughout the school year?
U-27: Schedule of games that Maret and non-Maret users will have on the fields per BZA Application, i.e., calendar of use for one calendar year (including expected size of teams and spectators, and whether buses will be parked or not).
U-28: Play a football game on the site and monitor the sound.
U-29: How many Maret students will use the ECC fields per quarter or per semester?
U-30: How many days or hours would the sports complex be open to use by neighbors? Define days and hours.
U-31: Confirm no activity after 6:00pm, 7:00pm in summer.
U-32: Confirm restrictions on Sunday use.
U-33: Demonstrate how sound levels would be controlled to remain within the 60dB limit, describing methods and measurements.
U-34: Explain the calendar of usage by all parties, including times, expected sizes of teams and number of spectators, expected modes of transportation, and how usage will be controlled and monitored.
U-35: You have indicated that Maret has discussed possible subleases with some youth groups. Recognizing that you do not have an exhaustive list at this point, could you provide a list of the potential sublessors that you have considered.
U-36: Could you provide a multiple-use lease agreement with a youth sports group for Maret’s Cleveland Park fields?
Complete U-36 Question: We appreciate that you have provided a sample redacted agreement for a youth group for its one-time use of Maret’s gym. We are looking for a lease agreement, however, that would be more analogous to the ones you might have for the ECC field. Could you provide a multiple-use lease agreement with a youth sports group for Maret’s Cleveland Park fields? In particular, please include any provisions relating to Maret’s control or monitoring of usage to ensure compliance with sublease requirements. If there are no such provisions in those agreements, please explain how Maret will control or monitor usage at the ECC fields to ensure compliance.
- T-1: What kind of traffic study will Maret and ECC perform? How will the study address the major construction on Oregon Avenue that has not yet been completed?
- T-2: What parking controls will be proposed?
- T-3: Would there be requirements for users and spectators of the proposed fields to park on-site?
- T-4: Given that ECC anticipates restarting programs in their buildings, and that their staff frequently park along Nebraska Avenue, how will the overall number of cars be controlled or restricted?
- T-5: What is the maximum number of buses allowed?
- T-6: How would a no-idling rule be enforced?
- T-7: What access route would delivery vehicles use?
- T-8: How will Maret limit the use of single occupancy vehicles to and from games and practices?
- T-9: The intersection of Utah Ave and Nebraska Ave doesn’t feel safe.
- T-10: Based on problems created by recent traffic jams (from St. John’s), what is Maret’s Plan B for parking?
- T-11: Confirm no pick-up by parents after afternoon Maret practices (students ride the bus back to Maret unless they can walk home).
- T-13: Explain the calendar of usage by all parties, including times, expected sizes of teams and number of spectators, expected modes of transportation, and how usage will be controlled and monitored.
- T-12: Adequately demonstrate to all stakeholders through traffic plans and studies that their safety is paramount and that they will be able to access their homes and adequate parking should the proposed sports complex go forward.
- T-14: Do you have a planned route for busses to get to the North side of Nebraska in front of the site?
- T-15: Does Maret’s proposal meet sight distance requirements along Nebraska Avenue?
- T-16: The Comprehensive Transportation Review (CTR) analysis is based on trip vehicle occupancy of 2.1. Where does that standard come from?
T-1: What kind of traffic study will Maret and ECC perform? How will the study address the major construction on Oregon Avenue that has not yet been completed?
T-2: What parking controls will be proposed?
T-3: Would there be requirements for users and spectators of the proposed fields to park on-site?
T-4: Given that ECC anticipates restarting programs in their buildings, and that their staff frequently park along Nebraska Avenue, how will the overall number of cars be controlled or restricted?
T-5: What is the maximum number of buses allowed?
T-6: How would a no-idling rule be enforced?
T-7: What access route would delivery vehicles use?
T-8: How will Maret limit the use of single occupancy vehicles to and from games and practices?
Question T-8 cont'd: Will Maret require students to return to the main campus on a bus after games and practice? How will Maret encourage walking, biking and transit use to and from games and practices?
T-9: The intersection of Utah Ave and Nebraska Ave doesn’t feel safe.
Question T-9 cont'd: The angle of the intersection and the poor site lines leave pedestrians feeling exposed. I would love to see pedestrian improvements at this intersection, including curb bump outs. I think this would be a great addition to your project with real benefits for the neighborhood. Is this something you’re willing to explore in partnership with DDOT?
T-10: Based on problems created by recent traffic jams (from St. John’s), what is Maret’s Plan B for parking?
T-11: Confirm no pick-up by parents after afternoon Maret practices (students ride the bus back to Maret unless they can walk home).
T-13: Explain the calendar of usage by all parties, including times, expected sizes of teams and number of spectators, expected modes of transportation, and how usage will be controlled and monitored.
T-12: Adequately demonstrate to all stakeholders through traffic plans and studies that their safety is paramount and that they will be able to access their homes and adequate parking should the proposed sports complex go forward.
Question T-12 cont'd: Plans should assume a complete, functioning local road network including a re-opened Oregon Avenue, Beach Drive, and Bingham Drive. (The prospect of a permanently closed Beach Drive should also be studied.)
T-14: Do you have a planned route for busses to get to the North side of Nebraska in front of the site?
Complete T-14 question: I applaud all of you for your community outreach…both your willingness to listen and your patience with some of the harsher critics. I think that your usage of the field is a great outcome for the ECC and the neighborhood. I had one quick question/concern. I live on Oliver St in the block that runs parallel to Nebraska just south of the site. As you probable know, it’s one block (between Utah and Moreland), so it’s a quiet street with no sidewalks. Often there are children playing in the street, and there is not really a reason for any through traffic. Do you have a planned route for busses to get to the North side of Nebraska in front of the site? I am hoping with some planning, we will not have a big increase in traffic on our block. Particularly if that traffic involves large busses speeding down our street.
T-15: Does Maret’s proposal meet sight distance requirements along Nebraska Avenue?
T-16: The Comprehensive Transportation Review (CTR) analysis is based on trip vehicle occupancy of 2.1. Where does that standard come from?
- D-1: Where would trash bins and dumpsters be located?
- D-2: How often would the trash receptacles be serviced and what access route would be used?
- D-3: How many auxiliary buildings are proposed?
- D-4: What is the proposed size, height, and materials of the outbuildings?
- D-5: What will the setbacks from neighboring properties be?
- D-6: How will the outbuildings be accessed?
- D-7: Where would retaining walls be located and what are their proposed heights and construction materials?
- D-8: What would be the setbacks from the retaining walls to neighboring properties?
- D-9: How close would leveling extend to the Rittenhouse alley and to homes abutting ECC land on the east side of the site?
- D-10: What fences and nets are proposed? What are their height, materials, locations, and setbacks from property lines?
- D-11: What kind of materials are being proposed for the green buffer?
- D-12: What is the anticipated height and density of the buffers on all sides of the site?
- D-13: What setbacks from residential properties would be required?
- D-14: How will the locker rooms and restrooms be used by Maret and by third parties? What steps will be taken to reduce congestion and noise in this vicinity?
- D-15: How will the locker rooms and restrooms be cleaned and maintained? Will they be locked when not in use?
- D-16: What is the proposed location, height, size, and setback of the proposed scoreboard?
- D-17: What is the proposed location, height, size, and setback of the proposed goalposts?
- D-18: What is the proposed location, height, size, and setback of the proposed shot clocks?
- D-19: What is the brand name of the artificial turf being proposed?
- D-20: What is the composition of the base, substrate, and artificial grass fibers?
- D-21: Will the artificial turf have impacts on the air and watershed?
- D-22: How will heat island effect be mitigated?
- D-23: Other than security lighting, is any other lighting being proposed for the project?
- D-24: What assurances would prevent the later addition of increasingly intrusive night lighting?
- D-25: Would temporary lights be prohibited?
- D-26: Could you move the bus stop to Utah Avenue? After all, Nebraska has to put up with the parking lot and probably the food trucks.
- D-27: Detailed information (e.g., cut sheets) of artificial turf product. Any studies to relieve concerns about possible harm to environment or people.
- D-28: Cut and fill maps/drawings.
- D-29: Soils and groundwater geotechnical report.
- D-30: 3-D model of the proposed development.
- D-31: Mock-up of the scoreboard.
- D-32: Mock-up of a goalpost.
- D-33: Stake the field so people can visualize the size.
- D-34: Where can fences like those proposed for this site be seen?
- D-35: Confirm that renderings are corrected to accurately represent tree coverage, especially on the east side of the property, where existing houses are obscured.
- D-36: Confirm details of no “solid fence."
- D-37: Confirm that dumpster will not be near Utah alley.
- D-38: Confirm 20-30 foot setback from Rittenhouse alley to field.
- D-39: Confirm height of wall on inside of Rittenhouse alley setback.
- D-40: Confirm whether the scoreboard would be moved from center field location.
- D-41: Confirm if scoreboard remains in center field, as shown, it would be inside the wall and not on the setback; confirm if scoreboard is retractable.
- D-42: Demonstrate the physical impact on the sports complex in relationship to each home surrounding the proposed development.
- D-43: Could you provide a list of the types of turf that you are considering, including possible suppliers or manufacturers?
- D-44: You have indicated that Maret is preparing a 3D model of the site.
- D-45: Can you please tell me where the Heritage trees would be move to? Will they stay on the ECC property, or will they be located elsewhere?
- D-46: Can we get a "winter" view (bare trees) of the 12' of retaining walls behind the 28th Street backyards?
- D-47: What is the thinking about vegetation options for improved screening, evergreens?
- D-48: What is the distance from the 28th Street homes’ property line to the field itself and to the goal post on the east side?
D-1: Where would trash bins and dumpsters be located?
D-2: How often would the trash receptacles be serviced and what access route would be used?
D-3: How many auxiliary buildings are proposed?
D-4: What is the proposed size, height, and materials of the outbuildings?
D-5: What will the setbacks from neighboring properties be?
D-6: How will the outbuildings be accessed?
D-7: Where would retaining walls be located and what are their proposed heights and construction materials?
D-8: What would be the setbacks from the retaining walls to neighboring properties?
D-9: How close would leveling extend to the Rittenhouse alley and to homes abutting ECC land on the east side of the site?
D-10: What fences and nets are proposed? What are their height, materials, locations, and setbacks from property lines?
D-11: What kind of materials are being proposed for the green buffer?
D-12: What is the anticipated height and density of the buffers on all sides of the site?
D-13: What setbacks from residential properties would be required?
D-14: How will the locker rooms and restrooms be used by Maret and by third parties? What steps will be taken to reduce congestion and noise in this vicinity?
D-15: How will the locker rooms and restrooms be cleaned and maintained? Will they be locked when not in use?
D-16: What is the proposed location, height, size, and setback of the proposed scoreboard?
D-17: What is the proposed location, height, size, and setback of the proposed goalposts?
D-18: What is the proposed location, height, size, and setback of the proposed shot clocks?
D-19: What is the brand name of the artificial turf being proposed?
D-20: What is the composition of the base, substrate, and artificial grass fibers?
D-21: Will the artificial turf have impacts on the air and watershed?
D-22: How will heat island effect be mitigated?
D-23: Other than security lighting, is any other lighting being proposed for the project?
D-24: What assurances would prevent the later addition of increasingly intrusive night lighting?
D-25: Would temporary lights be prohibited?
D-26: Could you move the bus stop to Utah Avenue? After all, Nebraska has to put up with the parking lot and probably the food trucks.
D-27: Detailed information (e.g., cut sheets) of artificial turf product. Any studies to relieve concerns about possible harm to environment or people.
D-28: Cut and fill maps/drawings.
D-29: Soils and groundwater geotechnical report.
D-30: 3-D model of the proposed development.
D-31: Mock-up of the scoreboard.
D-32: Mock-up of a goalpost.
D-33: Stake the field so people can visualize the size.
D-34: Where can fences like those proposed for this site be seen?
D-35: Confirm that renderings are corrected to accurately represent tree coverage, especially on the east side of the property, where existing houses are obscured.
D-36: Confirm details of no “solid fence."
D-37: Confirm that dumpster will not be near Utah alley.
D-38: Confirm 20-30 foot setback from Rittenhouse alley to field.
D-39: Confirm height of wall on inside of Rittenhouse alley setback.
D-40: Confirm whether the scoreboard would be moved from center field location.
D-41: Confirm if scoreboard remains in center field, as shown, it would be inside the wall and not on the setback; confirm if scoreboard is retractable.
D-42: Demonstrate the physical impact on the sports complex in relationship to each home surrounding the proposed development.
Question D-42 cont'd: This must be shown in a clearly defined way so that all stakeholders are able to understand the direct impact of Maret’s proposal. A measurable 3-D model is suggested. This should be very specific, showing grades, wall, fence, and netting heights, as well as trees, vegetation, and outbuildings.
D-43: Could you provide a list of the types of turf that you are considering, including possible suppliers or manufacturers?
Question D-43 cont'd: We understand that you have not determined the specific turf that will be used on the fields. It would be useful, however, to understand the specifications and characteristics of the turf that you may use.
D-44: You have indicated that Maret is preparing a 3D model of the site.
Question D-44 cont'd: Could you identify what will be included in this model (e.g., depiction of all surface improvements, including the proposed retaining walls, fencing and netting, storage sheds and associated elements in relationship to each of the houses that surround the proposed fields) and when you expect this model to be available?
D-45: Can you please tell me where the Heritage trees would be move to? Will they stay on the ECC property, or will they be located elsewhere?
D-46: Can we get a "winter" view (bare trees) of the 12' of retaining walls behind the 28th Street backyards?
D-47: What is the thinking about vegetation options for improved screening, evergreens?
Question D-47 cont'd: Greater distance than 4’ away from the first 4' retaining wall [behind homes on 28th St.]? Less height if the engineering can sustain that, so the backyards are not in permanent shadow, and different material/facing for the retaining walls, which do not look very attractive in the model?
D-48: What is the distance from the 28th Street homes’ property line to the field itself and to the goal post on the east side?
- SW-1: How does Maret propose to manage, detain, or retain stormwater runoff?
- SW-2: What is the threshold the stormwater management plan is designed to accommodate?
- SW-3: What would be the design goal for water retention of the artificial turf and its gravel bed?
- SW-4: How would safeguards against water damage and erosion be applied and enforced?
- SW-5: Confirm that properties on 28th Street and Nebraska will be protected from water runoff.
- SW-6: Bio-retention plan. Will there be standing water? Will it be fenced? How does it work? Has the idea of a bio-retention pond been abandoned?
- SW-7: Explain the stormwater management systems in detail and show how the proposed development would manage stormwater adequately both locally and in terms of downstream impacts.
- SW-8: I would like to see an environmental impact statement that indicated that the turf field will not add to the drainage woes that have led to years of reconstruction along Nebraska and Oregon avenues.
SW-1: How does Maret propose to manage, detain, or retain stormwater runoff?
SW-2: What is the threshold the stormwater management plan is designed to accommodate?
SW-3: What would be the design goal for water retention of the artificial turf and its gravel bed?
SW-4: How would safeguards against water damage and erosion be applied and enforced?
SW-5: Confirm that properties on 28th Street and Nebraska will be protected from water runoff.
SW-6: Bio-retention plan. Will there be standing water? Will it be fenced? How does it work? Has the idea of a bio-retention pond been abandoned?
SW-7: Explain the stormwater management systems in detail and show how the proposed development would manage stormwater adequately both locally and in terms of downstream impacts.
Question SW-7 cont'd: Please address not only 15-year storm intensity, but also projected storms of greater magnitude, such as 50-year, 100-year, and 200-year storms, all of which have occurred in recent years.
SW-8: I would like to see an environmental impact statement that indicated that the turf field will not add to the drainage woes that have led to years of reconstruction along Nebraska and Oregon avenues.
Question SW-8 cont'd: I also want to know what the off gassing from the plastic is, and whether it will lead to additional pcbs in the watershed.
- S-1: Will the gate to the facilities be locked? Where and how many locked gates will be proposed?
- S-2: If active security is planned (e.g., cameras), would this require additional poles and lighting?
- S-3: Would security personnel be hired to monitor the property when it is in use by third parties?
- S-4: Why is security lighting necessary? What would be its intensity, location, height, and hours that it would be lit?
- S-5: Confirm no lights except minimal security lighting.
- S-6: Confirm that field is completely fenced and locked except when authorized for use.
S-1: Will the gate to the facilities be locked? Where and how many locked gates will be proposed?
S-2: If active security is planned (e.g., cameras), would this require additional poles and lighting?
S-3: Would security personnel be hired to monitor the property when it is in use by third parties?
S-4: Why is security lighting necessary? What would be its intensity, location, height, and hours that it would be lit?
S-5: Confirm no lights except minimal security lighting.
S-6: Confirm that field is completely fenced and locked except when authorized for use.
- C-1: What limits would be placed on the parking and idling of trucks and construction equipment?
- C-2: What limits would control working hours and noise levels?
- C-3: How would the alleys be protected against heavy equipment use and ultimate damage?
- C-4: Would Maret provide a hotline (not head-of school) to handle any/all problems? (Start times, finish times, access of machinery, etc.)
- C-5: Confirm that Rittenhouse alley will not be used for construction or access to field.
- C-6: Confirm that Utah alley will not be used for construction and access to field and building.
- C-7: Will you accept liability for any flood damage or foundation damage?