Cape Fear River Watch is in a unique position. We own property directly attached to the proposed Gateway Project and are also an environmental organization that has been asked to take a position on the rezoning effort.

The Gateway Project as presented does indeed appear to be forward looking and it seems that an attempt is being made to be environmentally sensitive. For instance, the idea of using underground tanks for the reclamation of stormwater is indeed potentially a way to mitigate some of the affect of a high density development. The offer to maximize green space and open it to the public is attractive.

However, from an environmental perspective we do need to point out our concerns. On Tuesday, September 7, 2004 City Council adopted the City's first Future Land Use Plan. The Plan was accepted and portrayed to the public as the guide for the physical development of the City over the next twenty years. The plan was developed following a series of more than 80 meetings and input from more than 600 citizens.

In this plan you agreed that to protect the Cape Fear River, development should limit impervious surface coverage to 25% in Watershed Resource and Conservation Areas. You then made an allowance to this guideline for projects that conformed to adopted “exceptional design standards for enhanced stormwater controls.” A series of necessary elements required for exceptionally designed projects was determined. These items were said to be baseline requirements which must be met in order for any development to be considered as an exceptionally designed project.

When the River Front Mixed Use zoning district was established another exception to the suggested standard was adopted and the maximum 25% impervious surface coverage was increased to 50% if exceptional design standards could be demonstrated.

From our position City Council, expected and has always asked the same thing that we are asking. That is for the applicant to be prepared and willing to make the necessary investment to explain and document in detail any technology that is being proposed as an “exceptional design.” Demonstrate that it is a proven and workable technology that will protect the environment, and the water quality of our river.

We believe that any “exceptional design” must be understood at a level that will allow for it to be documented and incorporated into the list of special considerations for development in an RFMU zoned area or area blanketed by the City’s Future Land Use Plan. Our concern is that this has not been done and that if the request is approved you are setting a precedence. One that weakens the City’s Future Land Use Plan and does not provide the level of protection to our river that was intended when the River Front Mixed Use zoning district was established.

In conclusion we are pleased that the applicant has expressed a desire to be environmentally sensitive. We are also encouraged that they have reached out to consult with Cape Fear River Watch for our review and input. Our concerns are that we do not feel that sufficient detail is provided to define the special use of the property and waterfront to satisfy the rezoning request. The density of the project is our second most concern. In short if the rezoning is permitted based on an artist rendering versus engineering drawings then the expression “the devil is in detail” may come to haunt us. If the project is approved and the infrastructure can not support the density and traffic the Gateway to the city may instead become a Gate to the city.

Attachment A

Stormwater Controls. Reduce total pollutant load leaving the site and minimize changes in overall site hydrology by use of LID techniques, or a combination of LID and conventional techniques.

To qualify for bonus points in this category, the following guidelines shall be met:

(1) Site design and impervious cover reduction practices shall be used to the maximum extent practicable to minimize runoff volume;
(2) Serial combinations of the following techniques shall be used to result in a post development time of concentration (Tc) equal to the pre-development Tc:
a. Vegetated swale conveyance of runoff;
b. Disconnecting impervious surfaces;
c. Lengthening of flow pat;
d. Increasing resistance (roughness) of flow path;
e. Maximize use of sheet flow over vegetated surface;
f. Increase flow over pervious soils to increase filtration;
g. Flattening grades;
h. Use of decentralized bio-infiltration, and infiltration, and storage (cisterns);
i. Iterations and combinations of the above as approved by the City Manager.
(3) The entire retention storage volume must be retained and infiltrated.
(4) All added landscaping areas shall be made hydrologically functional for retention.
(5) The stormwater management plan shall include an approved maintenance plan and schedule.