Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental & Misc InfoOFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 148SO January 14, 1992 Open Space Plan- -Attn. James Beil NYS DEC 50 Wolf Rd. Albany, NY 12233 -4250 Comments on the Draft Open Space Protection Plan: _ f TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 The City of Ithaca's Conservation Advisory Council asked me to pass on to you the following comments, regarding the proposed Open Space Plan: "In the forward- looking City of Ithaca, funds have been allocated for purchase of land or conservation easements from willing sellers, in order to protect the City's watershed (Six -Mile Creek). To date, two particularly critical parcels have been purchased. The City's Conservation Advisory Council fully supports the State's plans for open space protection. We urge the State to make purchases of land or development rights from willing sellers, and to use its power of eminent domain with great caution, and only in the most extreme cases." Sincerely, Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair (fC �pvuvH �uv.���` �nQ�lo✓ "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Chartwell Associates Cc: Common Council and Mayor BPW & DPW Building Dept. City Attorney Shapiro and Hotchkiss (CAC) From: Date: Re: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Jan. 26, 1992 Fairfield Crossing —new site plan for 7S_�� 14 units of affordable housing s� The CAC's EAF subcommittee (Shapiro, Hotchkiss, Darlington) has considered the above EAF and has the following recommendations: Recommendation: Negative declaration Comments: 1. Many of our Oct. 8th comments have been addressed in the new site plan and new EAF. We would like to raise once again, however, the possibility of having the parking lot drains (if there are any - -we could not find them on the maps) equipped with traps for parking lot effluents. Apparently such drains are quite common; Dennis Drader in DPW has information about them. (They are required at gas and service stations.) 2. Given the concerns raised by neighbors at the earlier hearing regarding Spencer Rd. traffic and safety problems, for both children and adults, we wonder if the City might take some action to alleviate these problems. The addition of more cars and more children from the proposed project would seem to increase the urgency of such action. 3. The vegetation plan shows Virginia creeper around two sides of the project, presumably on a fence. Would this be a safe distance from small children, or in an area they are unlikely to be? The plant has poisonous berries (or at least that are highly suspect) Also, would it be far enough from other plantings so that it would not choke them out? (It's a fine plant in many situations, but can really take over, if given the chance!) 4. The three yew bushes should probably be males since the females have red fruits, the seeds of which are very poisonous. The yews are proposed for places where children would be passing close by. Comments on the EAF: 1. Part I, page 3, #3: "Specify what type of vegetation and how much will be removed...." (This was answered, "0. ") 2. Page 4, a and d: Lower portion of site is listed as in or next to 100 -year flood plain. Will the units be safely above this? What effect will this have on the site, and what effect will the construction (including a large amount of fill) have on flooding on adjacent sites? 3. Part II, # 1: at least the f irst two thresholds that are checked should be checked in column 2 since the threshold is met or exceeded (see instructions for Part II). Given the potential for flooding on the site, the handwritten threshold also should probably be checked in column 2. (Items checked in col. 2 should be discussed in Part III.) (For example, will the fill and the buildings change the grade and drainage patterns in such a way that adjacent sites will experience greater flooding ?) 4. Page 7, #14: (Effect on transportation). We think first threshold should be checked ( "Alteration of present patterns of movement of people...." )sac A f0J-k;.0 rAaF. * -1 A- sk,* 1 bwK«%.A,kcwauw�, -�•-� -��. ��.5 a,-.J caws 4-��- ekco u,,,tt �� a:�- 4L. - ?.or,4- ;we � �a.r Sr�..�e✓ rck e� i..�u, ✓� a.- dead+ . THe tM,- 7&rctbt--- � ✓error/ eta The Exec -H. fiv..e 5tott� � p i to l <fAG 4!5Prl2e--1- 4r Ma ✓1lJ Cuomo r� of nlerV y/mn*- Chamber �l r►y, /V - y. rz zz rjealr bpV -rnor a "emo : Ccs+c -Mae GohSGrvG 17,9n A!dVi'sory �O/AhG /l�lUhec��f /'VOGaIly endorses fGie comprehens/'Ve pro ra," tv reduce lead po / ,5e1?1n, ghat /5 041 t1ii7ed below b% fhz Fr. Plgnn/r j L,vlA sy "head poisoning threatens the health of children in New York State every day. Exposure even to small amounts of lead impairs learning and damages every child it touches. Yet New York State's existing efforts to prevent childhood lead poisoning are inadequate. 'Therefore, we believe that New York must develop a comprehensive program to reduce lead poisoning, as well as identify and treat those children suffering from lead exposure. Such a comprehensive plan must: 1. Establish a New York Commission on Lead Poisoning Prevention including representatives from environmental, medical, education, parents, children's, community and religious getups; 2. Require universal screening of all young children. Children in high -risk areas and siblings of lead - poisoned children should also be a priority; 3. Require the abatement of lead hazards (contaminated soils, water, lead paint) in all residential housing, daycare centers, playgrounds, preschools, kindergartens, and all other schools; 4. Establish regulations regarding methods of abatement of all uildings and set up a formal mechanism for reviewing and recommending new abatement technologies; 5. Require that all inspectors, lead abatement workers, and all other laborers who may be dealing with lead paint in homes and buildings be trained and certified by the state; 6. Create an aggressive public information and education program, providing for educational materials and the establishment of a 1 -800 lead information hotline; 7. Require that lead from paints, soil, or other products be recycled to the maximum extent possible, not disposed of in landfills or burned in incinerators; 8. Eliminate all new sources of lead from our environment; 9, Require that all residential housing be inspected for lead and the results trade known to the G it owner and prospective owner prior to sale; and A,� a new Iz-iem ber of the CePa l/ 17Dn far►- a Gear/ -Frees I1%w yB,.�� fye G��- fuels That fhe5e- are- neees5a. -y ,9r, 1'6 la Lion Mat seeh--s A� r e ✓en /- cG/ldhoee�l lead rd do oµ• .ter, S / P61 S6/�l /�,aIn /���Y �BYk l`We- are �n Yh� pro��ss of d�vetBp� », a'C u�dG tc ✓ lfv�ltr�� Le�rt -•e,5< ! tYft�-,�. Pitt �r atalc!�s!»k�hL�al Th4/1 k- You J'j7�- /Bus' Oc M/s mali`er. Ike looms 75;'rw1t ro/ �YIGI C,Gt!ldhdo /✓�� ^ l / `t /rzC/ �� e14> r"- srar7it'. lets y L?,arArnyI,-7y c--A e� cG Couna/% ryl2mbers ,J -ame5 L. �vrc+r'd� Senciter /vl ar i-iiJ L� S>'-�•; A-ssem h t yma h Er�rii-mrlm,ento/ /�lanr�l, -1 L©lol�% -rdn,/rK�:�S C'6vtr7¢ lfBZi /1`�j / - rlrrl�•,t- ��r� -yene DRAFT COPY 1 -28 -92 YOUR GUIDE TO HANDLING LEAD -BASED EXTERIOR PAINT Health and Safety Precautions for Removal and Disposal Lead Paint -- A Health Hazard Lead -based paint has long been recognized as a serious, insidious health hazard. Burning, scraping, sanding and grinding lead paint produces fine lead - containing dust particles and /or fumes that contaminate surfaces, airborne household dust and soil. Lead poisoning can result in many serious health problems, including permanent brain damage and death. While various agencies, including the New York State Department of Health, have established standards for lead in humans, there is no safe level. Exposure to even low levels of lead is believed to impair learning ability, coordination and hearing. Lead poisoning can result from a single acute exposure or an accumulation of minor exposures over a given period of time. However, it takes the body a long time to rid itself of lead. Lead can remain in the bones for decades! Everyone is at Risk! Young children, because they are in stages of neurological and cognitive development, are especially susceptible to the effects of lead. They also absorb a greater percentage of ingested lead than do adults. Low levels of lead can be very toxic to a developing fetus. Therefore, pregnant and lactating women should be especially careful to avoid lead. Lead poisoning in adults can occur in the workplace. Anyone who works in a smelting, painting or antique business should be especially careful. Personal hygiene is especially important. Hands should be washed prior to eating or smoking. To prevent contaminating family members, work clothes should be removed, left at the work place and washed separately, and workers should wash thoroughly prior to returning home. It is recommended that people in these high risk groups have regular blood tests to detect potential lead poisoning. Eating foods high in iron and calcium may decrease effects of lead exposure. Pets, especially puppies, kittens and birds, can also be affected by lead poisoning and may act as an early warning that family members have been exposed. Look for symptoms such as loss of appetite, constipation, vomiting, blood in urine, lethargy, unsteady walk, or convulsions -- some of the same symptoms an adult or a child might exhibit. If you notice many of these symptoms, or an extreme case of any one, call your veterinarian. Does Your House or Yard Contain Lead -Based Paint? High concentrations of lead have been banned from paint nationally since 1978. Most lead -based paint for consumers was taken off the market prior to the early 1970s. However, much of our housing stock predates the removal of lead from paint. If a house was built prior to the 1960s, it probably has lead -based paint. Vhc sail arovtnd Q hotesa rrJay also eenta+i, !P-ad. A When paint flakes and chips through natural weathering, it becomes ground up and mixed with the soil. Paint that is removed by sanding or " nding" om become mixed with soil or carried to vegetable gardens and areas where children raW play. If paint contains lead, the soil will be contaminated. Soil can be inhaled and ingested, and tracked into the house as dust. Removal of lead -based paint can also affect the residents in the fyOV4 40 4, vicinity of the house being abate To ha ve Voos� .�Oi'! tz�!stGot fo-r -fh pr--ex a ne a aF [asi'r lead cap GDDperoeV✓G 2-V'L.- 2292.., bul ks�ytPj r�C� Identifying the Hazard How do you know if your house contains lead -based paint? The first step is to test those areas being renovated. Make sure that all layers of paint are tested. Methods of analysis include: • laboratory analysis of paint scrapings • portable X -RF (x -ray Fluorescence) analyzer • sodium sulfide solution (6 - 8 percent solution) Paint scrapings analyses must be performed by an accredited environmental laboratory. While the laboratory costs may be high, the results are usually very accurate, as long as the sample you have tested includes all layers of paint. There are many accredited laboratories in surrounding counties. Check the Yellow Pages and call to get prices and sampling instructions. Ct the time of this writing, prices for analysis were approximately $20 - $40 per sample .3 o)"#- ? The Portable X -RF method can be performed on -site, but requires a trained operator. This method is not accurate for some materials such as brick or metal. Sodium sulfide can be used on -site, does not require a trained technician, and yields quick results. However, the results may not be accurate. Metals other than lead in the paint may give false positive results. And, this method may be unable to detect small quantities of lead or lead bound in dark or colored paint. Sodium sulfide test kits can be purchased locally. Lead poisoning from lead -based paint is preventable if the proper precautions are taken! Methods for RemovinE Exterior Lead -Based Paint Sanding, grinding, dry scraping and burning paint are very dangerous methods of removal and should be avoided! Water blasting is also not recommended; if you must use this method, contact your city's waste water treatment plant first. Some effective, yet safer methods are listed below. Your choice of method for removal may depend on additional factors including condition of the existing paint and your finances. • Wet Scraping Slow but relatively safe method (paint comes off the surface in large chips rather than small, fine dust particles associated with sanding and grinding). The area to be abated should be thoroughly wetted before paint is scraped. Make sure a drop cloth is kept under the surface being scraped, so that paint chips can be removed from the site and disposed of properly. • Heat Guns (Operated Below 700 Degrees F) A heat gun (basically an air blower) will soften the old paint, which can then be removed with a scraper or putty knife. Make sure to keep the heat gun a good distance from the painted surface, and to keep the rate of movement fast enough so as to prevent burning or vaporization of the paint. Burning and vaporization can produce dangerous lead fumes! Excessive heat can also start a fire! Keep a wet rag and a bucket of water handy just in case. Keep a drop cloth under the work area, so that the paint can be collected and disposed of properly. Workers should wear gloves, eye protection and respirators with a High Efficiency Particle Air (HEPA) filter and an organic vapor cartridge to protect themselves from fumes. Be aware that the combination of restricted air flow through a respirator and hot weather produces physiological stress. Be sure to drink plenty of water and take regular breaks. People with heart or respiratory conditions should consult physicians before using HEPA respirators. 2 • Chemical Strippers There are now many chemical paint removers on the market. They work by softening or dissolving the old paint. Make sure you follow the manufacturers instructions carefully. And be aware of regulations regarding disposal of paint and the chemical strippers. Also, vapors from some chemical strippers are harmful. Carefully follow the instructions. Chemical strippers with methylene chloride or 1,1,1 trichloroethylene should be avoided. Wear a respirator with an approved organic vapor cartridge when working with chemical strippers. Some caustic strippers are designed especially for lead abatement, and can be used without a respirator (although skin and eye protection is needed). • Encapsulation Encapsulation involves covering the old paint with a new coat of paint or vinyl, aluminum or wood siding. There are also products that bind with old paint, so that the old paint will not chip or flake. Encapsulation is only a temporary solution, but is often a good choice. The lead paint is still a hazard if it later becomes re- exposed. • Replacement Windows and trim, especially those in poor condition, should be replaced. • Reversal Wood trim may be turned over so that the painted surface is no longer exposed. The seams should be sealed. As with encapsulation, the lead paint is still a hazard if it later becomes re- exposed. • Water Blasting Trained contractors may use high powered water spray to remove paint. This method should be used outdoor only, and only when wind speeds are below 15 miles per hour. Contact your local water treatment facility for special regulations regarding removal of lead -based paint by this method. Selecting a Contractor Who Knows About Lead -Based Paint: Many paint removal projects are simple and straightforward, and can be handled by most homeowners. Other projects may warrant the services of a qualified contractor. What should you look for when selecting a contractor? • Check with friends and neighbors, the Chamber of Commerce, the Better Business Bureau and local paint stores for names of reputable paint contractors. Ask the contractor for references. • Make sure the contractor understands the hazards of lead -based paint. O How will the painter protect you, your family and your property from these hazards? o What method will be used to test existing paint for the presence of lead? O What type of method will be used for removal? How will the paint be cleaned up? O Has the painter had training in lead -based paint removal? O Does the contractor have comprehensive insurance that would cover contamination of your property and poisoning of you or other family members? Get all this information in writing. Don't hire a contractor who doesn't treat these issues seriously. Preparation Clean W and ryAkwgt / Safe methods of preparing and cleaning up a paint removal project are as important as the method of removal. Remember to: • Keep windows and doors shut during exterior paint removal. • Keep pets and young children inside during paint removal. • Wash your hands and those of children, especially before food is prepared or served. • Wash your window sills with water and tri- sodium phosphate (TSP) (found in some automatic dishwashing detergents). • Drop cloths should be laid up against exterior walls, extending out 12 to 15 feet, to collect paint scrapings. Gardens and fruit trees should be covered. Ideally, drop cloths should also be hung vertically around the work surface, to prevent wind from blowing paint chips. • Thoroughly clean the site up following every work day. Paint chips and residues can migrate indoors. Be sure to check interior surfaces daily for contamination. Flat surfaces should be washed with a solution of tri- sodium phosphate (TSP). Use at least one ounce of 5 percent TSP in each gallon of hot water. Wear gloves to protect hands. Since washing solutions will become saturated, clean solutions of TSP should be prepared often. Use a spray bottle to wet down all dust. Although phosphates are banned in New York State, tri- sodium phosphate can still be found in some automatic dish washing detergent. • Do not use a regular household vacuum cleaner for clean -up of dust, chips, flakes or paint residue! • Discard all items used for removal and cleaning (coveralls, towels, sponges, mopheads, filters and %lGYI'16VP �---' debris) in a heavy duty plastic bag (6 mil single or 4 mil double). f ►'t'� lY! j� h bo.low d comentr-aiiems g. • (Make sure tenants and neighbors know that paint is being removed from your house, and that they are aware of the precautions and hazards associated with lead. Inform people at least a few days prior to abatement so they can make plans in advance. feaeie- ylro., r paste e /) Symptoms of Lead Poisoning Many people have unknowingly been poisoned by lead. Symptoms of lead poisoning are very similar to those of a cold or the flu. After lead abatement, if you or a family member has the following unusual, persistent symptoms, call your doctor or the Tompkins County Health Department (607) 273 -7275. • loss of appetite • stomach pains • constipation • tiredness or lack of energy • vomiting • anemia • irritability • insomnia • unsteady walk • thirst • blood in urine • metallic taste in mouth • convulsions • joint pain It is often difficult to detect symptoms of lead poisoning in children. Therefore, children should be tested annually, or anytime there is a reason to suspect poisoning. �. Ui�y��in9 any rnat-er�al5 a�so�i�rt�c�! with ,tom /ht �^cir, ®va /� 7 NY-6 COPA-t'men PTO— eorl"'✓at7d"nI$ P0111417eir F)_'Ovenf2oV7 171-etIl e- 5hepuld be, e o n:5 u l t~e d , 4t- die pe'r1;gf-- e_ �I p 6 Alai may ha✓✓.e �t h� h lurid �vnt�nt; l' ms used f�- rep "'t/ and - ,c leA n - t4 4 -coves% / /s, to wels.� a���e s� mop h"ds� filler , i �rop� 'us may a /So be eegntamli?,ated wiM /ead) 4aha Sc,�g�nt�or,.• ��� or 1 Other Sources of Information -- Who to Contact for Hel • Tompkins County Health Department (607) 273 -7275 • Free blood testing for children. • Information on lead poisoning prevention. • Onondaga County Health Department (315) 425 -3271 0 Free blood testing for children. 0 Information on lead poisoning prevention. • Cornell Cooperative Extension (607) 272 -2292 0 Information on lead poisoning prevention. 0 Soil testing for lead contamination. • New York State College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University (607) 253 -3000 0 Blood testing and treatment for animals. a /�l,®t b-ett te_- (as , 3, q "4, e ra n dam, • Tompkins County Solid Waste MannRement Divisio (607) 273 - 5700 /dG�z orof`>r r &h*9� on �� p = -.t/ of hbHsci,otal N+s7�nr�deKs Waes/e si��''e� 800 426 -6553 N�YS P�rfar�Gn} off'- c�v,ronment c/ eer�ser✓�ct'ibh • ( ) Fo774r ✓+t�t$ Hotline 0 Information regarding regulations f"6r handling and disposal of paint, paint removers, old lead paint chips scrapings and dust. • New York State Department of Health Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment (518) 458 -6409 0 Provides information on the health effects associated with lead exposure. • New York State Department of Health Bureau of Community Sanitation and Food Protection (518) 458 -6706 0 Provides information on lead poisoning prevention. • Ithaca Paint and Decorating Inc. (607) 272 -1133 0 Information on and products for safe paint removal. • City of Ithaca Waste Water Treatment Plant (607) 273 -8381 0 Special regulations regarding removal of lead -based paint and the use of chemical strippers when removing paint by water blasting or sand blasting in the City of Ithaca. • Poison Control Center of Central New York (800) 252 -5655 • Your Family Doctor 0 If you believe you or your children may have been poisoned, ask to be tested by your doctor. Testing is inexpensive insurance against the effects of lead poisoning. 5 fradi Yibriot G/ �l � b eh �k�'Yror�s acs /�ane References Heavy Metal: The Perils of Housepainting, by Doug Dylla, The Grapevine (Ithaca, NY), August 24 -30, 1989, pp 1, 8 -9. Paint Removers: New Products Eliminate Old Hazards, Consumer Reports, May 1991, pp. 340 -343. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 1985. What You Should Know About Lead -Based Paint in Your Home, Consumer Product Safety Alert, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, September 1990. Lead -Based Paint: Interim Guidelines for Hazard Identification and Abatement in Public and Indian Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Renewal, September 1990. Toxicological Profile for Lead (draft), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1988, pp. 1 -6. Chadzynski, L., Manual for the Identification and Abatement of Environmental Lead Hazards, Division of Maternal and Child Health, U.S. Public Health Service, 1986, pp. 17 -19. Removing Lead -based Paints, Health Education Promotion Services Group, New York State Department of Health, 1983. Commercial Laboratories with New York State Approval to Perform Environmental Analyses, Laboratory Approval Program, New York State Department of Health, 1987, pp. 31 -33, 43. Lead Paint Fact Sheets, Maryland Department of the Environment, Division of Lead Poisoning Prevention, Baltimore, 1988 -1990. Legacy of Lead: America's Continuing Epidemic of Childhood Lead Poisoning, Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, DC, March 1990. Paint: Waste Reduction, Recycling and Disposal Information, Urban Wildlife Coalition, Kirtland, WA, 1991. The purpose of this brochure is to inform homeowners, tenants and painters of the dangers associated with exterior lead -based paint, and to provide technical assistance regarding identification of the hazard and safe removal, clean -up and disposal procedures. The concern over exterior lead -based paint arose from incidents of lead poisoning and complaints from neighbors that ha o d dd hen exterior paint was l pmg) removed from houses in Ithaca, New York. It became clear that many painters were practicing azardo a hen of paint removal; neglecting to inform homeowners, tenants and neighbors of safety precautions;(andjinadequately cleaning -up the work site yr, .; The intent of this brochure is to provide a single source of information that explains the dangers of and safe methods for handling lead -based paint. Much of the groundwork regarding lead -based paint has already been done — most notably by the City of Baltimore and the States of Maryland and Massachusetts. All are excellent sources for further information. It should be noted that interior lead -based paint, because it is confined within habitable spaces where it is much more likely to be inhaled or ingested, is a far greater potential health hazard than is exterior lead -based paint. Interior lead -based paint will be addressed in a separate brochure. Ir erf- Some where l�J Gh�'ldr�. Pry- e•�ti: -' Cep' prepared by: A6, 1 SO'17n�-jLew Durland, P.E. and the Conservation Advisory Council City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 272 -1713 January 1992 Memo to: John Schroeder, Chair, Planning Committee Dan Hoffman, Chair, Charter &Ordinance Committee Cc: Other members of Common Council and Mayor Planning Board and Dept. CAC members From: Betsy Darlington, Chair, Conservation Advisory Council Date: Feb. 1 1, 1992 The attached resolution is significantly different from the one we sent to Common Council late last fall. The distance from the Cayuga Inlet Flood Control Channel that would be almost totally restrictive has been reduced from 150' to 50' (including DOT's 25 -foot easement). Actions proposed for the zone 100' beyond that would be subject to special regulations and site plan review. Also, the zoning recommendation has been omitted, for now. We hope that when the West Hill Master Plan is considered, the area will be zoned for considerably lower density. (The Plan proposes R -2C.) Many communities fail to protect their stream corridors, and realize only too late what they have lost. The Town of Ithaca is currently consider- ing significantly stricter regulation of environmentally sensitive areas: stream corridors, steep slopes ( > 15% ), wetlands, and flood plains, in particular. Some coordination with them could save time and effort. We hope your two committees will be able to take up our resolution soon. Could you please let me know when you'll be considering it so that one or more of us can come? Thanks! PROPOSED RESOLUTION FROM THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Regarding buffer zone along Cayuga Inlet Flood Control Channel February 10, 1992 WHEREAS, the Cayuga Inlet Flood Control Channel is an important recre- ational resource for residents of, and visitors to Ithaca; and WHEREAS, the scenic beauty of the strip of land that runs between Floral Avenue and the Channel, as well as of the land along the east side of the Channel, south of the Cherry St. Industrial Park, contributes significantly to the enjoyment of those using the stream corridor for boating, fishing, or walking; and WHEREAS, part of this strip is maintained by the City as a public park; and WHEREAS, the privately owned portions of this area receive drainage from West Hill, thus slowing down and filtering this runoff; and WHEREAS, construction and other alterations of the land surface near the stream could lead to significant erosion and sedimentation of the stream, and degradation of the scenic attributes of the corridor; and WHEREAS, the National Flood Insurance Rate Fvlap (attached) indicates that the land adjacent to the west side of the watercourse is subject to probable 100 -year, 4 -foot flood inundations, for a distance that varies from 25' to 300' from the Channel's bank; and WHEREAS, as exemplified on the accompanying chart, many communities restrict development within a buffer zone along streams and waterways, and the Soil Conservation Service recommends such buffer zones; now therefore be it RESOLVED that the CAC recommends that Common Council prohibit alteration of the topography or construction of any structures, with the exception of pedestrian or bicycle paths, within 25 feet of the DOT's 25- foot permanent easement along the Channel; and be it further RESOLVED that the CAC recommends that Common Council require that any proposed construction or land surface alteration within an additional 100 feet from the "no construction zone" on each side of the Channel require a special permit and be subject to site plan review, with permission to alter the landscape or engage in construction activities to be granted only if the applicant can demonstrate that said alteration or construction will not cause: a. significant sedimentation of the waterway; or b. erosion; or C. degradation of scenic views of the stream or from the stream. Passed unanimously at the February 10, 1992 :Meeting of the CAC EXAMPLES OF STREAM CORRIDOR LAND USE STANDARDS January, 1992 Penfield 200' from center, if stream is = or > 100' wide 100' it It 11 it 50' -100' wide 75' It it it " <50' wide For above buffers, no construction or clearing is permitted within 50' of stream bank; for construction within the remaining distance, Planning Board makes a recornmen- dation regarding approval, to the Town Board, which decides whether or not to issue a permit. Permit can only be issued if applicant can show that the proposed action would not lead to any of five undesirable impacts. (E.g. increased flooding, sedimentation, deterioration of water quality.) Madrid 200' from shoreline of all streams and waterways: all propos- als must have Planning Board approval. Village of Holland 100' from shoreline plus such additional areas as shown on Patent map: any development must go through a special approval process. 50' from shoreline: NO permanent structures except as permitted by Planning Board in accordance with special guidelines. USDA Soil Conservation 500' from high water mark of stream: no structures unless Service screened by vegetation or topography from persons who may be on the stream. For aesthetic reasons. 50' -450' from high water mark, depending on slope: no structures permitted. To prevent erosion and sedimenta- tion. Stream corridor zone: no new dwelling on less than 4 acres of land; but clustering ok. To control density in stream corridor. (From SCS's GUIDELINES FOR URBAN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, in NEW YORK, Appendix R) Lake George Basin 100' from all streams and water bodies classified by DEC 100' from wetland 100' from 100 -year flood plain On slopes > than 15 % For all of above: no site preparation permitted without a special erosion control permit. Village of Lansing 200' on each side of "thread" of streams: special permit and environmental review required for any uses that would change the natural environment. If action would not change nat. env., a special permit only is required. Town of Ithaca (Proposed) 500' from center of 6 -Mi. Cr. 200' from center of Lick Brook, Buttermilk, Coy Glen, Cascadilla, Fall Creek (latter may be changed to 2501) For both zones: environmental review, Planning Bd. approval, strict performance standards. A buffer strip ranging from 100' to 210' from high water mark (distance determined by slope) is proposed in which there may be no structures. (Details of proposed ordinance too long to include here.) 500 -Year Flood poundary 100 -Year Flood Boundary ZONE_, Zone Designations ON!`11 100 -Year Flood Boundary 500 -Year Flood Boundary ZONE B Base Flood Elevation Line ^- x-513— With Elevation In Feet** Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 987) Where Uniform Within•Zone•• Elevation Reference Mark RM7X River Mile • M1.5 "Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 'EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS ZONE EXPLANATION -A Areas of 100 -year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. AO Areas of 100 -year shallow flooding where depths are between one (1) and three (3) feet; average depths of inundation are shown, but no flood hazard factors are determined. AH Areas of 100 -year shallow flooding where depths are between one (1) and three (3) feet; base flood elevations are shown, but no flood hazard factors re etermined 1 -A30 Areas of 100 year flood; base hod elevations and _flood hazard factors der«t�• A 4 4 f'I__ j A99 Areas of 100-year flood to be protected by flood protection system under construction; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. B Areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500 - year flood; or certain areas subject to 100 -year flood- ing with average depths less than one (1) foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood. (Medium shading) C Areas of minimal flooding. (No shading) D Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood hoards i ZONE C y ZONE E Co Co SRI J IT 0 a ZONE A4 ZONE B y ZONE C 2 C1 �• ONE B BRINDLEV STREET— ZONE BI TABER STREET 0011, t ZONE B ZONE( iviemo to: Cornmon Council and iNlayor Planning Lad. and Dept. Cc: CAC Members Frorn: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Re: EAF for W. State St. rezoning EAF Bate: Feb. 11, 1992 The EAF subcommittee (Hotchkiss, Shapiro, and Darlington) has considered the above EAF. Comments: We feel ill- equipped to comment on this proposal. It has been discussed extensively by numerous knowledgeable people, and we have no expertise in this area. Possible loss of affordable housing is of concern to us, but we do not know how to evaluate either this or the one mitigating proposal we have heard (to permit greater building height if a developer were to commit to including affordable housing units). We also feel unable to evaluate possible impacts on the residential neighborhoods along Green St. and Seneca St. We hope that improved bus transportation along these three streets will be provided, especially if parking should become a problem. What about a small shuttle bus running along State St. between the Commons and the West End, for example? We regret being unable to comment more thoroughly on the EAF, but this is an area we feel is more properly left in the hands of people with more experience in city planning. Memo to: John Schroeder, Chair, Planning Committee Dan Hoffman, Chair, Charter & Ordinance Committee Cc: Other members of Common Council and Mayor Planning Board and Dept. CAC members From: Betsy Darlington, Chair, Conservation Advisory Council Date: Feb. 1 1, 1992 The attached resolution is significantly different from the one we sent to Common Council late last fall. The distance from the Cayuga Inlet Flood Control Channel that would be almost totally restrictive has been reduced from 150' to 50' (including DOT's 25 -foot easement). Actions proposed for the zone 100' beyond that would be subject to special regulations and site plan review. Also, the zoning recommendation has been omitted, for now. We hope that when the West Hill Master Plan is considered, the area will be zoned for considerably lower density. (The Plan proposes R -2C.) Many communities fail to protect their stream corridors, and realize only too late what they have lost. The Town of Ithaca is currently consider- ing significantly stricter regulation of environmentally sensitive areas: stream corridors, steep slopes ( > 15% ), wetlands, and flood plains, in particular. Some coordination with them could save time and effort. We hope your two committees will be able to take up our resolution soon. Could you please let me know when you'll be considering it so that one or rnore of us can come? Thanks! OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 Feb. 11, 1993 Dwight Mengel, Director of Transportation Tompkins County Planning Dept. 121 E. Court St., Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Dwight: Thanks so much for coming to our joint meeting of the County's CAC's and EMC to tell us about the MPO. We were sorry you weren't able to make it for the whole meeting, but I imagine we'll eventually want another meeting of this sort, as the MPO process develops. (I'm delighted, by the way, that your office is now downtown, even if the move interfered with your plans to get to our meeting earlier.) After the meeting several of us were talking about "planning," and we all agreed that we are fortunate to have you and Jim Hanson in our County Planning office, particularly given your interest in improving the area's mass transportation and bicycling systems. Thanks again! Sincerely, Betsy Darlington, Chair An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 Feb. 11, 1993 Jim Hanson, Commissioner of Planning Tompkins County Planning Dept. 121 E. Court St., Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Jim: Thanks so much for coming to our joint meeting of the County's CAC's and EMC to tell us about the MPO. We especially appreciate your willingness to come despite a long day of moving your office to downtown. (Now, if we could only get the Post Office to do the same!) I found your explanation of the whole process involving the MPO very helpful, and I think everyone else did, as well. After the meeting several of us were talking about "planning," and we all agreed that we are very lucky to have you and Dwight Mengel in our County Planning office. Thanks again! Sincerely, - "I Betsy Darlington, Chair "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Memo to: 3u.1 kY%5 Dept. Dan Liguori- -Kolar Machine Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (McDonald, Shapiro, Darlington) Re: EAF for landfill permit at 425 Cliff St.- -Kolar Machine Date: Feb. 12, 1993 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Comments: While the end result should be an improvement over the present condition of the site, we have several concerns: 1. 2 years is an awfully long time for this operation to occur, and could be a major annoyance to neighbors and commuters. Is the lack of fill material the reason for the long time- frame? 2. It is critical that mud not be tracked onto Cliff St. The exit from the site should be stabilized with gravel,and tires cleaned off before leaving. the site. Mud in the street is hazardous when wet, dusty when dry, and would add to the silt load in Cayuga Inlet and Cayuga Lake. Will someone in City Hall monitor the site to be sure that mud is not being tracked onto Cliff St.? 3. Can one section be filled and seeded before proceeding to the next section so that there won't be a two -year period with bare, unattractive fill eroding down the slope? 4. We don't know anything about calcium chloride. How benign is it, especially after reaching waterways? Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Wm. Benson Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Shapiro, McDonald, Darlington) Re: Request for comments on proposed alterations to stream flow from Floral Ave. to Inlet Date: Feb. 12, 1993 Two components of Mr. Benson's proposal appear to be good ones: making the banks of the stream's outlet into Cayuga Inlet less steep, and planting vegetation to hold the soil. We recommend that, if further alterations are to be considered, an engineer with expertise in hydrology be hired by Mr. Benson to assist in the planning. Betsy Darlington, David Kay (P &D Board), and Bill Benson met at the site on Feb. 11, and Mr. Benson explained what he was considering. Currently, the stream's outlet to the Cayuga Inlet Flood Control Channel is eroding. In spots, the sides of the gap near the Inlet are too steep to support vegetation, and are collapsing. On this particular day, the only moving water found (under the ice and snow) was coming from the south, not from the northern culvert. It was difficult to determine the source, but it probably was from the stream that comes down the hill just south of Towerview Apts. The standing water in the cattail marsh east of Floral Ave. was covered with ice, but as far as could be determined, water was not moving through that portion of the site. (During wet weather, this presumably is not the case, however.) What Mr. Benson said he'd like to do is deepen and widen the area that has already been cut fairly wide, near the Inlet, and make the banks slope gently so they won't continue to erode. Appropriate vegetation to hold the soil would be planted -- perhaps ornamental grasses and /or quick- rooting trees or shrubs. The reason for deepening and widening the area is to create a small harbor in which to keep a boat. Mr. Benson agreed that quite a bit of deepening would be required in order to get a boat in and out of the Inlet. The dredge materials would be spread over the surface on each side of the small stream, to contain the stream and keep it from flowing over the land. He would like to build a house east and north of the stream. Before discovering that the moving water was coming from the south, he had been talking about putting a house on the south side of the stream as well, but later suggested that perhaps dredge material would only be deposited on the north side, and the water encouraged to spread out over the south side. He would give up the idea of a house on that side. On the drawing he, provided, the cross - hatched areas are where he originally thought he'd spread the dredge materials. Kay and Darlington raised several potential problems with him. One was that if the land were raised along the stream, the effect would be to have the water move faster. Because of the faster flow and a smaller area for filtering of silt, there would be an increase in the amount of silt entering the Inlet. If, in addition, the entrance from the Inlet were enlarged and deepened, the silt being carried by the stream would most likely be deposited in his new harbor (because the rate of flow would be reduced when the water reached that point). He could end up with a constant problem of having to dredge silt out of his harbor. If, on the other hand, the harbor were not enlarged, any extra silt would be carried to the Inlet. Another potential problem might be created where the stream meets the Inlet. What might water rushing down the Inlet during a flood do to the banks on each side of the harbor? He said that Jon Meigs had also raised the possibility that silt from the Inlet might get into the harbor. Darlington urged Mr. Benson to get advice from an engineer with experience in hydrology before sinking money into a plan that might not work the way he intended it to. An engineer with experience at streamside stabilization using vegetation rather than rip -rap or gabions was suggested- -not only because it is more attractive but also since Mr. Benson clearly indicated that he would much prefer that. Also, Darlington gave him a copy of the attached article about "Fiber - Schines" which might be usable at this site. Kay's and Darlington's hunches about what might happen if he proceeded as planned were just that, hunches, albeit based on some experience with erosion problems. Given the damage moving water can cause, more technical advice than they could give seemed like the logical next move. The one part of the plan about which there seemed little doubt was the advisability of making the banks of the outlet near the Inlet less steep, and getting vegetation established on them. Whatever agency has jurisdiction over the 25- foot- wide easement along the bank of the Inlet might have to approve the project first. - 101, "01-1) Betsy Darlington 204 Fairmount Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Betsy: i L. H. BAILEY HORTORIUM 467 MANN Lie RARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, NEW YORK 14853 -4301 TCLI- PHOr4C: 607 -255 -2131 17 February 1992 Here is the information about which we spoke yesterday concerning Hackberry - feeding butterflies in the Coy Glen area. There are two, and possibly three, species of concern. Asterocampa clyton, the Tawny Emperor, has a well -known population in and near the Glen, as documented by Arthur M. Shapiro in his 1974 publication BUTTERFLIES AND SKIPPERS OF NE14 YORK STATE (enclosed). Don Miller, a lepidopterist from Syracuse, while seeking the Tawny Emperor, stumbled upon the Hackberry Butterfly (Asterocampa celtis) there as well, in about 1986. I strongly suspect that a third Hackberry- feeder, the Snout Butterfly (Libytheana bachmannii),also lives there, since I saw a fresh adult in Ithaca in July, two or three summers ago. The two species of Asterocampa fly in early to mid - summer, and females lay eggs on leaves of Hackberry ( Celtis occidentalis), their only foodplant in this region. The larvae hatch and grow for a few weeks, then enter a resting state throughout the winter, probably in the litter under the trees. After the Hackberries leaf in the spring, the caterpillars resume feeding, mature, pupate, and produce adults in June and July. Thus there is one brood per year. If the Snout reproduces with us, it probably has a similar life pattern. Examination of Shapiro's range maps for these three butterflies will reveal that the two Asterocampa are at their northern limit with us, particularly A. clyton. A. celtis occurs spottily to Syracuse and near Lisle, but is not at all common, and is always associated closely with Hackberry trees. The Snout Butterfly, until my observation at Ithaca, was not known in N.Y.S. off the coastal plain in the New York City area and on Long Island. The two we surely have are part of Ithaca's biological treasures, and should be safeguarded if at all possible. If the Snout lives with us, it is even more precious. Although Hackberries occur spottily in this region, they themselves are also unusual trees, always tied to lime in the soil. They are worthy of preservation where found, especially if older, and particularly when they harbor and support populations of such unusual butterflies. Thank you for your interest in these organisms. Sincerely, �� 1 Encl. DIVISION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Robert Dirig, s an urat -CU Herbarium & Curator of Liche CUP herbarium) NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES A STATUTORY COLLEGE OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY Figure 53 ro-.R .w�a waw. avrr Asterocampa clyton --- Strymon melinus r 43 Figure 54 r. jg " �a 4. w wa Asterocampa celtis 42 � .t +,x l'4 y a-- '"r.,. m�, � .m _ ..t _ � . }..�,>,r?ti�`'hNbfN�it� ri•. - � .op` Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Jerry and Claudia Weisburd Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW & DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair 7a, Date: Feb. 16, 1992 Re: EAF for Weisburd project on Floral Ave. (30 ± houses) (Preliminary remarks - -we have not yet seen Parts II and III, nor had comments from one of our subcommittee members. We rec'd Part I Friday night, Feb. 14, hand - delivered by Jon Meigs) Three of the four of us on the EAF subcommittee (Hotchkiss, Shapiro, Darlington) visited the site with Jerry Weisburd this morning. The three of us then met and discussed the proposal and as much of the EAF as we have received (Part I). When Paul Salon (the fourth member) returns to town in a week, one of us will show him the site. He works for the Soil Conservation Service and has considerable expertise re soils and drainage, one of the major concerns with this project. We will provide you with more complete comments after he has had a chance to look at it. However, we wanted you to have whatever remarks we could provide, in time for your February 18th Codes meeting. One question we have is whether or not the road could be built in phases, as parts of the project are completed. Given the current economic situation and the large number of houses on the market, demand for these homes might not materialize. It would be unfortunate to build the road unnecessarily. Until we have received Parts II and III of the EAF, we will reserve specific comments on the EAF. At this point, our concerns center primarily around: Drainage Preservation of the open space set - asides Aesthetics (esp. the view from across the valley) Overall impact on the City of losing a very nice woodland Indoor air pollution The presence on the site of rare species Drainage: We will withhold most comments on drainage until Paul Salon can take a look at the site and the soil survey, on or after Feb. 24. As the applicants have pointed out in their written statement, the more trees that can be retained, the less runoff there will be from the site. The EAF states that, after completion, 2/5 of the site will be unvegetated or covered with impervious surfaces. We also note that the soil test results provided by the applicant were not especially near the site: at the Coy 2 Glen -13A intersection, at the bend in Glenside, and at the southern end of West Village Place. Open space set - asides: Exactly how these areas will be protected ties in closely with the proposals in the West Hill Master Plan for connecting greenways, as well as with the necessity of protecting three rare species of butterflies and the tree species on which they depend. In addition, it is essential that a mechanism be established to ensure the protection of all trees in the set -aside areas, and as many as possible on individual lots. Before this project is given approval, we strongly recommend that the Planning Board determine how these areas - -as well as individual lots - -will be protect- ed. Aesthetics: This development will remove at least 2/5 of the vegetation on the site, according to Part I of the EAR We have rarely seen a site that has retained as many trees as the developer had intended. Inevitably, the view from the valley, and the hill on the other side, will be degraded to some extent. How much degradation will depend on how many trees actually are removed. The proposed lay -out (at least the initial one) should protect the view better than certain other plans would. (We haven't seen the revised plan yet.) Overall impact on the City: On the one hand, the project would provide housing for people with moderate incomes, a recognized need, although we understand this will be for a relatively short term. (Most affordable the first year, with decreasing affordability over the following 19 years, after which the homes would be available at going market rates. Mortgage payments made to INHS would be made available to others in the City needing affordable housing.) The project could help keep popula- tion growth in the City, rather than sprawled out across the countryside. This has several environmental benefits, as the applicants point out in their application. On the other hand, the City has very little high quality forest left within its borders, but much space available for development in less sensitive areas. In addition to the quality of the forest on this site (considerable diversity for such a small site, a number of large trees, and one locally scarce species), it also is on a steep slope (10- 15 % slope--50% of site; over 15%--45% of site). Trees protect slopes from erosion and excessive runoff onto sites downslope, and they provide cooling and air cleaning (much needed in the City). In addition, they provide wildlife and aesthetic benefits. Keeping the City liveable is also impor- tant to preventing suburban sprawl. Whenever possible, development should occur in places that have already had their natural features disturbed or destroyed, and we recommend protecting the few remaining natural areas. Tree species noted on the site include hackberry, red oak, white oak, two or more hickory species, black cherry, walnut, sugar maple, red maple, white ash, 3 willow, sycamore, red cedar, white pine. The white pine grove is especially nice, and we think the plans would protect this. If not, we recommend it. We recommend that all trees to be protected from cutting be identified with tape before final project approval is granted, and that contractors be instructed to leave them undisturbed. Protective fencing will be needed - -if possible, out from the trunk as far as the drip line. Whether or not the site has significant herbaceous species is impossible to tell at this time of year. The large deer population could have wiped out anything significant that might have been there, however. The site has a fair amount of privet and some multiflora rose, both invasive alien species whose main utility on the site is in protecting the site from erosion and providing oxygen from their leaves. They also provide berries and cover for birds and other wildlife. Native plants would be equally good for these purposes, but would not have the disadvantages. We suggest replacing them with native shrub species. Indoor air pollution: The proposed homes will be super energy efficient, and we wonder what air exchange provisions will be incorporated into the design to prevent problems with indoor air pollution. Presence on the site of rare species: Certain spots on West Hill support healthy populations of hackberry trees ( Celtis occidentalis), scarce in this region. Three rare species of butterfly depend entirely on this plant, and are considered among the rare treasures of our local fauna. (Tawny Emperor -- Asterocampa clyton, Hackberry Butterfly -- Asterocampa celtis, and Snout Butterfly -- Libytheana bachmannii.) This particular site has an unusually large number of hackberry trees, varying from young to mature specimens (some are surprisingly large), and it is likely that their butterfly associates are found on the site as well. One of Tompkins County's Unique Natural Areas (I -28) is nearby on Coy Glen Rd., and is designated a UNA because of its hackberries and their butterflies. The two Asterocampa species are known to breed on the site, and it is considered likely that the Libytheana, the rarest of the three butterflies, does as well. It would be worse than unfortunate if the population of hackberries on the Weisburds' site were diminished, particularly if such diminution made the site no longer large enough to support viable populations of the butterflies. An additional concern arises because of the unusual life cycle of the Astero- campa species: the larvae enter hibernation in August, emerging the following spring. They hibernate in the leaf litter under the trees and are vulnerable to disturbance - -such as people walking around under the trees. We learned about the butterfly associations and life cycles only after our visit this morning, and can only hope that our own tramping around in the woods did not inflict too much damage. The impact of having 27 or so families living on this small site could be devastating. El This entire topic needs more expert advice than we ourselves can provide - -for example, from Robert Dirig (lepidopterist) and Nancy Ostman or F. Robert Wesley (plant ecologists). Although hackberries are scattered over much of the site, we noticed that many are concentrated along the two gullies and near the western property line. While the set -aside areas along the main road apparently will be given to the City, how the set - aside along the remaining gully will be protected remains an open question, with some saying the City won't want it. We urge the City to take responsibility for that set - aside as well. Several considerations lead us to this conclusion: 1. The presence of a number of particularly fine hackberry specimens; Z. The possibility of this forming part of a greenway connector along West Hill, as proposed in the W. H. Master Plan; 3. The desirability of separating vehicular and pedestrian traffic; 4. The near impossibility of protecting the gully from tree cutting, if it is in private ownership. Even if deed restrictions prohibited tree - cutting, such cutting would be all but inevitable. Illegal tree cutting could also occur if the City owned it, but neighboring landowners would have better recourse for getting such activity stopped and punished; Retaining these small forested areas is in the best interest of the entire commu- nity, not just the residents of that particular subdivision. We hope that, if the project is approved, the City will be willing to accept responsibility for ownership. ani,uiiil of lnuofl },, to 6 percent slopes (H ,ri;ll,l( aulonnfs of the.( ill plowed 1:11 cr is a Ini c 1, f ire 111111 ]cached r;lal'cy sillsuil. Illlltul'lll «18.11111 sll)gl88 C(;11,TI >Ill)� cnlltallls_uni r(, le, soil rllate.rial has sloping p:lrts and has P�1 i'I s• 11'lien this ";� treat. oil small knolls,v toil material, and dais rev fiat places AN-here er Only about 10 percd material above the. f_oi a, I has surface layer of As of the somewhat p'C lall to be mapped. I1I6 leposits of soil eroded.i nly- With Rhinebec drained, and with. pasture, or forest.'. "C are among those to W fine texture and relati soil, this soil is less. .11an are many other soi; vicinity of Ithaca are) including industrial �i ems of instability and,, oductive of suitable ci o& ;ement. The surface ter and has poor struct " 1 erosion is at contin T' apply :organic matter an L' nu• cultivation, the use d diversion terraces -an some areas. Some fields :1111111(r the included spo nzK trogen, phosphorus, :and arT yields. Nitrogen is espe- atter supply than in in n generally is nearly neit. ' loderate amount of lime: lid suitability group 6a 2 percent slopes, erodes, )led, sloping, clayey soil. ,f the drainage range fof ' strong *1 y sloping parts�� {' of individual areas, the. aterIal that was fornlerly;�;. Ile texture is ]leave silty(`._ S:i percent, of each areaa,,'( remain, but enougll of'':. plowed ill > to make the 1. About nil percent of I)Otit of erod(ld laterial 011 vex stokes on It I I(e sides lolw \(;ticrw-;Iwt Illroll h Ill\11'1:1\'-� ('WI -NIl \I: \ %, )(WN :V I Judson -silty clay loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes, (•ro(led (HsD3). Tllis moderately steep soil is in the drier if ,:f the drainage range for the Hudson series. Most that. have been cleared and cultivated have lost ,•11 „Il;fll of the original plowed layer that some of the clavey- .nl,jl„il h:ls been turned by the plow. Some spots lla.ve lost :Ill .,f the ori!jinal surface soil, and in these places the rl:,l\cd layer is silty- clay. Forested areas and a few pas - rlr(•d areas are uneroded. M";t of this soil occupies uniform slopes on the sides f \:Illevs. Many areas are cut by shallow channels that \\filter only- during \yet periods. Some of these chan- : ,•I- :-:.:ulot, be crossed by farm lnachinerv. Areas in the Inn,,: Valley have uneven, hilly topography, and a few 111:111 areas, nlost.ly in the Inlet "alley, have slopes of more Irm --�u percent.. In a few places, streams leave undercut. Il„• i,;tse of these slopes and masses of soil material have tilll ,e(1 (io\ylnhlll. This soil is associated 1111 iiiIN R 1811 •,i ier Hudson soils and with the Hudson - Cayuga complex. This soil can be used safely for sod - forming crops, pas - lniv, or forest. A row crop can be grown occasionally in • filer to reestablish sod. Nonagricultural uses currently m l,. lc recreation, wildlife, and housing. Instability of i1:• - !! material creates special problems in some kin(ls of ­u1�t ruction. i-i r toil . SidJ1CCt to colltilluilhr serious erosion. It is 11”, dron�,llt y, for it loses 11111(71 �\�uter Jv runot . Ii prop - ••1'IV Ill:lll;lgr(!d it clue le 1na(e 1 -1o( crate v product 1 \'e of ;:1\- crops and pastures. If -tilled crops arc !fro \\n, aril,; of sad arc nee(led for water control. Sonic areas !,•,•,1 little. Phosphorus :uul potassiuill fertilizers ire .11('O- �:lrw for "00:1 yields of legumes. Aitr0,cn fert.rer is 1 d fur cross other than ]cg(u0es. (Cnpabdity unit. ; i : (\o01l;11, snitabillh-rollp (.b) '.l1ld;On- Cayuga silt. loams, 2 to 6 percent slope", - 'I'Ilis 'nail consl�ds of areas ill \011:-11 1111(1- :l1v closet\ ;ail; I1:I l -, loruu•d in ;( 11,111 111:Int1(•.of 1:11;1, ;,•diun•Ilt; ,,, -(•r _facial till,• r:Il1_ e;t tl,all lure. 01:111 Incntit rig, tt:lpl,ul 9 yalle.vt t l )llvex hill tllo soil: ttic or 11, •uutcled t periods Dssecl Wit lllalll \\'('I the short lacilstril ;'�ecl in a r - are the I tllga Soils ire the 1: `• Qaffecte(1 a ssoclai formed ;Se and L torinea in glacial L111. 1\e:tr StrealuS a sandy or gravelly spots are included to landforms join nearly level areas, Ovi( are the common associates. The ma spots of the somewhat poorly draine• the lacustrine deposit is thinnest, and t drained Rhinebeck soils, where it is th of the poorly drained Ilion soils are in drainways. These spots occupy less t delineated areas but interfere with til Theso soils are suited to crops, pastu can be, used for some vegetable crops. respect to Cayuga Lake makes souse al suited to some hinds of fruit. host aV pally for production of grain and for- of dairying. Some are in urban us nonagricultural uses is limited in song( of the material and by bedrock, which 10 feet below the surface but is at a ( ill Sollle places. Management needs are moderatel soils are moderately susceptible to er, are gentle enough that erosion is not a lent. In addition to appropriate c areas need contour cultivation, conto- (li\-ersion terraces for control of water waterways that cross these areas are places. Sonle areas need lime for ]Oz( need fertilizer for high yields of all lueds :u•e about, the same as those of ten:lnco of the or- *anic- matter content gait, for structure of tile plowed lave \tan\ fields can Ile subsialltially inn drainage. of the. included wet, spot; ]Ic -ti; \\-oodlawl ;Iiit ;ll)ilii\- --rout, G Iludson- Cayu--a silC loanls. 2 U. eroded (IiuB3). - -• 'llit nlal,pin!" 111111. ;011 and ('awu�a ;oils III:tt 1mve. Imcr. CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR TO: Betsy Darlington FROM: Trish Norton RE: Weisburd Response to CAC Concerns DATE: February 20, 1992 5 CODE: 607 TELEPHONE: 274 -6550 FAX NO.: 272 -7348 Attached is a response from the Weisburds to CAC concerns about the butterfly species on West Hill. Please share with other CAC members and respond. Additionally, I had a conversation with a Cornell Professor Emeritus of Lepidoptery on Wednesday who informed me that the snout butterfly does not breed in this area. He mentioned that the hackberry is extraordinarily common in other parts of the U.S. 0 Printed on Recycled Paper An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Pr, y,ai- February 19, 1992 To: Planning Department From: House Craft Builders, Inc. MEMORANDUM RE: Relevance of presence of Asterocampa clyton, A. celtis, and Libytheana bachmannii on 5 acre tract at 452 Floral Avenue The report from the CAC states that "three rare species of butterfly" may be present on the Floral Avenue site, and that the "impact of having 27 or so families living on this small site could be devastating (to this possible butterfly population)." At the Codes meeting of February 18, 1992, Betsy Darlington spoke of potential "death of a species" should the populations on this site be interfered with. As a result of these assertions, House Craft was directed to establish the extent of the population of these species on the site in order to then determine the extent of mitigating measures needed to protect these species, if any such could, indeed, even be adequate. Implicit in the supposed need to determine the extent of the population and subsequent protection measures, is the presumption that the species are, in fact, rare and therefore needful of special consideration. The mere existence - even in great numbers - of these species is no indication of need for protection unless the species is rare. Further, it would have to be shown, along with rareness, that this particular site was important to the survival of these unusual species. House Craft has found that these species are neither rare, nor of such limited habitat that this particular site forms a last refuge. Libytheana bachmannii The Libytheana, cited by the CAC as "the rarest of the three butterflies" is named the "common snout butterfly" in field guides. Its range covers the entire eastern and central United States, north into Canada, south into Mexico, and west to the Rockies. The family of Libytheidae is small - the population is sub - divided into only a few different species - but they are represented on every continent in the world. (Pyle, 1984) "The family, though a small one, is worldwide... well- established in the Americas." (Howe, 1975) Interestingly, the Libytheana is highly mobile, and they "emigrate in remarkable numbers" (Pyle, 1981). One source mentioned occurrences of Libytheana mass migrations in which 'the sky darkened'. "A strong migrant, huge flights are frequent... Males mainly perch to await females, though they seldom return to a previous resting site." (Scott, 1986) The "common snout" belongs to a family "represented on all continents, yet with only one genus... (they) migrate in great swarms." (Howe, 1975) In fact, according to the Audobon Society, Libytheana is such a traveller, that the only place it stays put is in the South: Page - 1 "( Libytheana is) probably resident only in the South." (Pyle, 1981) The presence or absence of the common snout on the Floral Avenue site, therefore, says nothing about whether they will be present the following season(s), and clearly, this particular site is not significant to the well being of these highly migratory, world -wide butterflies. Asterocampa clyton and celtis Asterocampa celtis is the most common and widely distributed Asterocampa, while its near relative, A. clyton, has a slightly smaller range: both cover the entire East coast north to Massachusets (A. celtis to Canada), south to south Georgia (A. celtis to Florida) and west to the Dakotas and east Texas. Though the range of A. clyton is slightly smaller than that of A. celtis, "this species is much more widespread and abundant than would appear from collections," and it is "locally abundant, especially in the South." (Howe, 1975). The Audobon Society describes the habitat of these Hackberry butterflies as, "In the vicinity of hackberry trees in deciduous woodlands along roads trails and margins; also suburbs, city parks and streets." (Pyle, 1981) Though the female remains near the hackberry, the males wander, "...often patrolling a city block or more away from the nearest hackberry tree." While A. celtis successfully adapts to urban conditions, A._ clyton "...does not adapt to city habitats as successfully as its near relative.' (Pyle, 1981) A. clyton is not, however, a rare species, variously described as having a wide range, being "quite common in the Ohio valley ", "locally abundant" and "commonly seen," etc. Neither butterfly is rare; clearly A. celtis, being so successfully adapted to city habitats will not be threatened even by 27 families; and A. clyton, distributed across more than half. the U.S., does not depend on this site for its future. The site will not be 'urbanized' to the point that no hackberries will remain, for either A. celtis or A. clyton. Given that none of the above species is rare, that they all have a wide range and are not dependent on these five acres, that one, at least, is an urban resident, and that Libytheana ( "the most rare ", according to CAC) , even if present is not a permanent resident in any case, House Craft does not consider that study of the extent of the populations on the site is warranted, since no extraordinary protective measures are necessary even if the species are present in large numbers. The position of House Craft Builders is that the mitigating measures of lowered density, clustering, and protecting the gullies by removing them from private ownership are more than adequately environmentally protective. Page - 2 REFERENCES Howe, W.H. 1975. The Butterflies of North America. New York: Doubleday and Co. Pyle, R.M. 1984. The Audobon Society Handbook for Butterfly Watchers. New York: Scribner's. Pyle, R.M. 1981. The Audobon Society Field Guide to North American Butterflies. New York: Knopf. Scott, T. 1986. The Butterflies of North America. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press. Page - 3 DEPARTMENTOF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT H. MATTHYS VAN CORT. DIRECTOR CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TO: Mayor Nichols Planning Board Common Council CAC Members BPW & DPW Building Dept. City Attorney Jerry and Claudia Weisburd FROM: Patricia Norton CD Coordinator RE: Res- porise to CAC Memo on Weisburd Project DATE: February 21, 1992 ... CODE: 607 TELEPHONE: 274 -6550 FAX NO.: 272 -7348 The CAC memorandum dated 2 -16 -92 raises a number of concerns about the Weisburd affordable housing project on Floral Avenue. The project, which is under consideration for inclusion in the CD grant, consists of the construction of 27 single family homes. Attached is the Weisburd's response to the concerns raised by the CAC about the butterfly species. Further information provided by Cornell Professor Emeritus of Lepidoptery, John Franclemont confirms that the Asterocampa clyton and celtis are common in other parts of the U.S. and are not an endangered species. The population in the Coy Glen area has persisted for the last 35 years. Franclemont stated that to his knowledge, the third species, Libytheana bachmannii, has never been seen in the area, and if it occurs, it is a stray. The Weisburds have been meeting with Engineering, Water and Sewer, Planning, and the Planning Board, and the CAC to respond to other concerns outlined in the memo before preliminary subdivision review in March. 92cdbg\cacbutte.res Pnnte(1 on Recyded Paper An Equal Opportunity Employer with an A1Lrmalws AGl,cn r - t- cc : ?J !) FjPW A Drv) Notes on Weisburds' memo of 2/28/92 c c a I-L* -vr W ci ak ,,*s 1. Once the soil tests have been done, a written report on the characteristics of those soils is a must. Are they highly erodible or not? The Tompkins County Soil Survey (p. 112) says, "Layers of poorly graded silt, fine sand, or sand present problems if open ditches or subsurface drains are installed, because these materials are subject to erosion, sloughing, and slumping. Subsurface drainage systems installed in such layers must be protected against plugging with the silt and fine sand." It also says that "...gravelly and sandy outwash soils are normally droughty and have a low water - holding capacity." (Do the soils on the site fit the last description ?) 2. To see some good examples of problems resulting from poor engineering design, look at the steep bank above the newly straightened Burns Rd. and the banks of the Flood Control Channel (Cayuga Inlet). It's important to understand the characteristics of a site's soils, and how to design a project to avoid future problems. 3. I drove slowly back and forth along Floral Ave., Glenside, and Coy Glen Rd. On Coy Glen Rd. I could find just two hackberries in the line of fire of salt spray from cars, one at the top of Glenside, and none along Floral Ave. These three trees may be hanging in there because the bank slopes down steeply around them, away from the road, so salt would be unlikely to accumulate in the soil around the roots. Along Floral Ave., aside from the fact that the bank slopes up from the road in most places, there is a band at least 6 feet wide (often much wider) with no trees of any kind. Where are the hackberries Jerry Weisburd referred to along these roads that have survived road salt? 4. On February 29, one of the gullies was carrying water (don't remember which, but I think the southerly one). 5. The gullies were formed by erosion, probably when the site was bare 60+ years ago. The banks should not be eroding now because they are thoroughly vegetated. 6. The water in the gullies, at least at this time of year, does peter out before reaching the lowest parts of the site. The explanation I was given for this is that, when the gullies eroded to begin with, the soil was probably removed down to a porous gravelly layer. 7. The site would not be muddy now, first because it is covered with leaves, and second because it is mostly frozen. The soil on the sides of the gullies is very soft now. 8. The City Engineers will be addressing the safe removal of water from the site, to protect homes and the road from flooding. Erosion, and resulting siltation, is not their concern. 9. On page 2, para. 4: if homeowners own the gully as part of their individual lots, won't they also have ongoing insurance and tax costs? 10. The fact that Wesley stated, correctly, that no endangered, rare, or threatened species were on the Coy Glen site does not mean that he felt the site was unimportant. In fact, he and Nancy Ostman wrote the UNA report for the site. He feels protection of regional rarities is very important. 11. Dirig's letter contradicts the final sentence of para. 1 on page 3. Also, Libytheana was seen, by two lepidopterists, not "possibly" seen. 12. Yes, it's a value judgement as to whether or not one cares about saving these unusual species. However, it's a scientific question as to whether or not the project might have a significant impact on them. That is what the Planning Board must determine; the value judgements should be made later, during the DEIS. 13. No one knows how much you can destroy of a local species before it no longer exists in an area. 14. What percentage of the hackberries would be saved by the set -asides has not yet been determined. See additional discussion of this in CAC's Mar. 3 memo. 15. Re examples of the butterflies in other locations: for one thing, these places have a more favorable climate, so "the livin' is easy." Also, what info do you have about where they actually are breeding? Rather than making guesses, let's find out from experts. Maybe trampling would not cause our local populations any harm, but let's hear that from those who know. 16. View from Floral Ave. will be protected by the treed slope. Views from across the valley, and -- nearby, from directly north and south of the site - -will suffer. 17. Article III of the zoning ordinance, Section 30.32, says, "No lot grading or tree removal in connection with the construction of a building shall be undertaken until a building permit for such construction shall have been obtained. " 18. While it is true that property owners may cut down trees on their property, and the current site is unprotected from such events, it also is true that the proposed project would cause far more destruction than anything that is happening on it now. Asa, a logS,6 ct; c-LK .tSSww �, a- 1.4 4t a,. sLc �aHwot . 19. Towerview Apts. actually removed relatively few trees, except for the bank in front which, because of unfortunate BZA parking requirements, had to be steepened. The buildings themselves were built on an existing shelf with an old foundation on much of it. Most of the vegetation where they sit was brush - -esp. multiflora rose. The woods behind were not of the high quality of the Weisburd site. My recollection is of a predominance of young boxelders, perhaps with young walnuts as well. 20. Comments with my name on them, but with the statement that the remarks are from the subcommittee, are, in fact, from the entire subcommittee. We work on content and wording together. 21. When there are no communal play areas, and lots are very small, many people choose to create such areas in preference to saving trees. One might feel that's ok. But let's not, at the same time, claim that the lots will be treed unless we're prepared to require restrictions on cutting. The trees could be cut, so there may not be a "treed buffer all around." 22. It's true that much of the City is built on steep slopes. East Buffalo St., from Stewart Ave. to Eddy St., is 16 %, Williams St. is 17 %, Columbia (from Hudson to Giles) is 14 %, Giles (from Water to State) is 13 %, So. Cayuga (uphill from Spencer Rd.) is 15%. Steepest of all is Pleasant, from Turner to Aurora, at 23 %. Hook Pl. and Sunrise are 17 %. (Elm and Hector aren't on DPW's list I was given.) These slopes do present problems, during wintry weather and times of heavy rainfall. These problems should lead us to want to avoid such steep slopes in the future. They should not be used as an excuse to repeat them. On the current site, where the western cul de sac roadway would be, slopes of 26% are on the eastern portion with 20% on the upper portion. (Presumably these will be made manageable with cutting and filling.) The lower cul de sac's slopes range up to 20% (more, if you measure straight up and down the slope). Parts of the main road would either be steep (up to 21.6 %) or there will be cutting and filling to even out the grades over the length of the road. Are site soils such that steep earth embankments won't slump? Also, see CAC comments (Mar. 3 memo) regarding construction on steep slopes. I think it is true, however, that nothing is proposed on slopes that currently are above about 34 %. _? - S . -T\,-', S V-,A w...p y C.,_ 0. -.-A ST . a I K_n, � -rim �CA..�'�S � 2� 1�{ N..A.w.c� . 9 J- �aL v�A$ - loea.�n re.nQ,'X & L',. -+�u \yv_ � o. 41 S,� cvr.: Aft . Aw Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. ., Cc: Paul Mazzarella, INHS Weisburds Rostens Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW & DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Darlington, Hotchkiss, Salon, Shapiro). New member, Paul Salon, works for Soil Conservation Service. The subcommittee has spent considerable time on the site. Date: March 3, 1992 Re: LEAF for 27 -house subdivision on West Hill, along Floral Ave., on 5 -acre wooded slope RECOMMENDATION: Positive declaration If just one significant impact on the environment may result, a positive declaration is required, unless it can be shown that mitigating measures to be taken by the applicant will be effective in eliminating the impact or reducing it to an insignificant level. In this event, the requisite mitigating measures must be mandated by the lead agency. We foresee a number of potentially significant impacts, if this proposal is approved in its present form. These result, in part, from the density of the project combined with the steepness of the slope. Our major concerns center around runoff; density (number of houses); lack of adequate play areas for children and no parks nearby; impact on the future of the clustering concept in the City and future affordability facilitated by it; aesthetics; and impact on at least one, and possibly four, regionally rare species. All of these impacts are interrelated. NOTE: At this stage of the environmental review process, any potentially significant impacts on the environment are identified and considered. Possible social benefits of the project may not be used as justification for issuing a negative declaration; such considerations may be weighed during the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) stage of the process. At that time, the lead agency decides whether or not it feels that the social benefits are, so great that they outweigh any significant environmental impacts. NOTE: I It appears that portions of Part 2 were not filled out in accordance with the instructions. These state that "maybe" answers should be answered "yes." In addition, they state that "if impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. " Col. 1 is checked only if the impact will occur but is less than the threshold. Finally, the instructions state that if there is doubt about the size of the impact, it should be considered as potentially large, and described more fully in Part 3. Under SEQR, if a potentially large impact cannot be adequately mitigated, a positive declaration must be issued. M 2 NoTE: As the City Attorney advised at the February 27 meeting, if a negative declaration is issued and it is found that any of the information contained in the EAF was inaccurate, the decision could be challenged in court. Given the high level of public controversy surrounding this project, such a suit should not be ruled out. Examples of information in the Initial Application and Part 1 of the EAF (provided by the applicants) that we feel need review include: * The "Initial Application" states incorrectly that houses would be grouped "away from slopes. " (See #6, below.) Curiously, the best places to build (the areas with least slope) have the fewest houses. Also, with no provision for it during construction or after, the statement that a "treed buffer" would remain "all around" is probably inaccurate. What little the builders could save (unlikely to be much, given average lot sizes of only 3326 sq.ft.), could be cut down by homeowners wanting small play areas for their children. * #4 (a) and (b) (soil info) According to the Tompkins County Soil Survey, the soils are Hudson silty clay loam, not "sand silt." Soil tests at various places on the site will be needed to determine if the Survey is accurate. * #5 (depth to bedrock) The eastern portion of the site (near Floral Ave.) is outside the limits of the Soil Survey, but just to the north, the Survey shows rock outcroppings along Floral Ave. Just to the south, the Weavers' monument property has bedrock close to the surface that required blasting for their new building. We recommend further investigation of depth to bedrock at the eastern end of the property. * #6 (slope percentages) From a preliminary check of site slopes (drawing 7-- current topography), it appears that more than 45% of the site has slopes exceeding 15%. We find that a small area around the northern end of the lower cul de sac has the gentlest grades (under 7 %), and houses #5 -9 would require little cutting and filling. Houses #13 -17, along the main road, have slopes under 12 %, and portions of lots #25 -27 range from 10% to 13 %, but with part of house #25 being placed on an 18% slope. The rest of the site appears to range from 15% to over 33%, with many building sites exceeding 20 %. A large amount of cutting and filling could be required for constructing both the road and the houses, with impacts on runoff, siltation, aesthetics, and cost. * #12 (scenic vistas) The site is highly visible from across the valley and the valley itself. * #14 (stream info) Two intermittent streams run through the property. * B -1 -g: We suggest 270 one -way trips per day might be more accurate. (At a recent meeting, we were informed by staff that 10 trips per household is the average.) * B -3: How was 1.5 acres of vegetation removal calculated? What mechanism would be used to assure retention of .5 acres of vegetation in the developed 2 acres? How would the "treed buffer all around" (as stated in "Initial Application... ") be protected? With fencing during construction, then deed restrictions? * B -4: Site has numerous mature trees. * B -5: What about replanting trees to mitigate various impacts? (Not just grass.) * B -8: If a rock shelf (see #5, above) extends along the eastern end of the site, blasting may be required for building the road. (Near Floral Ave., the grade for the road would be reduced from over 33% to - -we think - -10 %, in accordance with City requirements.) * B -16 How would applicants assure that,pesticides would not be used by residents? Q * B -20: While energy use is not an issue here because of the super- efficient design (NYSE -Star program), this statement is erroneous, unless homes the families would move from are to be demolished, and their spaces left vacant. It simply is not true that there can be decreased energy consumption, if you increase the number of homes, regardless of the type of house. * B -21: Water usage also is not a problem, but amount is likely to be more like 6500- 8,000 gal. /day, if project has 100 residents. (Filtration Plant info on residential water consumption in the City.) * Drawings: except for DWG 7, these do not accurately depict the terminus of the northerly gully. Information provided in Part 2 that we feel is inaccurate (as previously stated, if a threshold would be or might be exceeded, it must be checked in col. 2): * #1, both thresholds: col 2 * #6, "yes "; last threshold: col 1 or 2; under "other impacts " -- increased rate and volume of runoff from the site (col. 1 or 2, depending on engineer's calculations). * #7, second threshold, col 1 or 2; under "other impacts " - -col. 2 * #10, both checked thresholds, col 2 * #11, both checked thresholds, col 2 * #13, under "other impacts ", col 2 * #14, under "other impacts," col 1 or 2, and add "Octopus" * #16, 2nd threshold, col 2` * #18, checked threshold would have a negative impact Part 3 contains many assertions with which we disagree, as well as several internal inconsistencies. It would be more fruitful for us simply to evaluate the impacts: COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC POTENTIALLY LARGE MIPACTS: A. Runoff: 1. Increased volume and rate of runoff from the site, with possible impacts on properties below the site, and on Floral Ave. The northerly gully drains into the driveway of an existing house on Floral Ave. The southerly gully runs into a small (12 ") pipe south of the same lot. Note that runoff from all the house sites except those along the lower cul de sac would drain into the southern gully. (Some runoff from sites 10 -17 would also go into the northerly gully.) All lots along the lower cul de sac would drain into the northerly gully, which empties into the existing house's driveway. A very small percentage of peak flow would be carried in an 8 -inch pipe to the culvert at the NE corner of the site. We are told by a neighbor that in spring, water runoff from both gullies overwhelms the two areas around the house, flooding Floral Ave. His own property, to the south, has significant problems with water running off the hillside in the spring, and he says that the ground all over the hillside is very wet and muddy at that time. Some runoff from house lots #10 -17, and #1, would be carried by the proposed vegetated drainage swale along the road; culverts (drawing 5) lead from this swale to the southerly gully. With significant loss of tree cover, compaction of soil from construction, large increases in impervious surfaces, and v _ 4 potentially large amounts of fill (which is especially subject to erosion and also is difficult to revegetate), .the increase in rate and volume of runoff from the site could pose substantial problems for the City (on Floral Ave.), and for homeowners below the site. An engineer will have to make the calculations to determine exactly how much additional runoff would occur, and what mitigating measures would be needed. 2. What measures would be taken by the applicants to prevent erosion, esp. during construction? One effect of erosion could be increased sedimentation of Cayuga Inlet and Cayuga Lake, with impacts on aquatic life. Another effect would be loss of topsoil, making revegetation of the site more difficult. After construction, kids playing in the gullies could cause erosion problems (another reason for providing adequate play areas). The problem of runoff is not simply one of getting the water safely off the site and into pipes; it also is important to ensure that this water is not loaded with silt. The applicants have pointed to the lack of erosion along the new Town water line as evidence that the soils won't erode. The Town Engineer informs us that the water line was installed in October, and the first heavy rain did not come until December, by which time the ground was frozen. Once the ground has thawed, they will be seeding the line to prevent erosion. Bare soil on slopes erodes. 3. Due to the proximity of the lots to one another and the steep slopes, roof water flowing onto adjacent properties could be a problem for homeowners. Roof water drainage systems would aid in reducing surface runoff, decreasing erosion, and facilitating revegetation and maintenance. B. Density of project. This proposal would house large numbers of people on a small site, with insufficient communal play areas. The gullies and the steep slope leading down to Floral Ave. are not suitable play areas for small children. No playground is nearby. Lower income families would end up bearing the brunt of the impacts from poor project design. Although this project is less dense than would be allowed under the zoning, one cannot ignore the fact that any subdivision or large project proposed for the site would need to pass environmental review. Constraints indicate&by that review could limit the intensity of development to something far less than the zoning would permit. Clustering can be an excellent way to preserve valuable and usable open space and to reduce costs, thereby making housing more affordable.. However, we feel that, regardless of the type of development (clustered, normal subdivision, multi - family apt.), each site has a certain maximum "carrying capacity." The proposal should be scaled down in order to remain within this limit. Otherwise, the project will set an undesirable precedent. C. Aesthetic impact of replacing a wooded hillside with tightly spaced, relatively uniform houses with (possibly) brightly colored ceramic -on -metal rooftops (info from Codes meeting on Feb. 18), and -- except from Floral Ave. -- little tree cover to screen them (from close up and afar). The steep hillside to Floral Ave., and parts of the two gullies, would be about all that remained of this woodland. The view of the site from the valley and across the valley would be dramatically altered. k In addition, it should be noted that the site currently has a large number of mature trees, of diverse species, many of which would be destroyed. The diversity of species at the site is now uncommon in the City and includes black cherry, bird cherry, 4 species of hickory (shagbark, pignut, bitternut, and red), white, red, and black oak, flowering dogwood (several fine specimens in the path of development), hackberry, ash, sugar maple (some especially fine examples), red maple, sycamore, walnut, willow, hop hornbeam (ironwood), white pine, red cedar. What other flora and fauna is associated with this forest? These impacts could only be mitigated by substantial reduction in number of houses and strict controls on removal of trees. D. Regionally rare species. (For more information, see recent letters from Robert Dirig and Nancy Ostman, Tompkins County Unique Natural Area discussion of Coy Glen site - -I- 28, and Feb. 24 memo from Darlington.) Impact on at least one regionally rare tree species ( hackberry) and possibly 1 - 3 regionally rare butterfly species. Lacking an inventory of plants and animals on the site, it is impossible to know whether or not other scarce species would be affected. Such an inventory is essential before this project is approved, yet will not be possible until late April, at the earliest. Since hackberries have special habitat require- ments, the possibility of other rarities cannot be dismissed. The major concentrations of hackberries are near, and along, the western property line (an area not protected in the plan), and along the gullies, including the long section in the southern gully where the road would be. (Scattered specimens are outside these areas.) In addition, forester. :Mike DeMunn (P &D Bd., 2/25) reported that hackberries are intoler- ant of salt. Construction of the road would eliminate numerous hackberries, and salty runoff (particularly in the southern gully) could kill still more. No systematic inventory has been made of the hackberries, nor have protection areas been demarcated on the site. If regionally rare butterfly species are breeding on the site (and the assumption must be that they are), they would be vulnerable to trampling, from August to the time the trees leaf out the following spring, since the larvae are believed to hibernate (as larvae) in the leaf litter around the trees. With little play area outside the gullies, and -the northerly gully proposed as a pedestrian greenway, this problem needs to be looked at more closely. What method would be used to eradicate the unusually healthy population of poison ivy (thick trunks of it growing up numerous trees)? If chemical methods would be used, what effect would these have on the hackberries and butterflies? The project's potential impact on these species cannot be significantly reduced without moving the road, setting aside an area near the western property line, and reducing density. E. Traffic. We are unable to evaluate the potential impact on traffic along Floral Ave. and at the Octopus. If walking to Floral Ave. is difficult, esp. in winter, would residents be sufficiently motivated to use public transit? F. Size of set - asides and provision for their protection: Inadequate provision for, and protection of, set - asides. No plan has yet been devised for the protection of these areas. We recommend that this project not receive any approval until an adequate mechanism has been M established. Common Council approval would be needed if the City is to hold conservation easements on, or to own, the set - asides. Could the set - asides be owned by a homeowners' association? Would the cost of setting one up substantially reduce affordability? Could INNS or the City set it up, since it is thought that the applicants would be unable to do so? G. This is a large project, with potentially far - reaching impacts, not just on the residents of the proposed project, but on the City as a whole. Environmental degradation can be costly to a community, with the negative effects often borne most by those with the lowest incomes. The Block Grant application, in our view, is driving this proposal ahead, leaving insufficient time for careful planning and environmental review. Ultimately, the City, as well as those the project is supposed to benefit, will be the losers if this plan goes forth as proposed. Would 14 homes (51 % of the units, as required by HUD) for lower - middle income families justify this cost? Only a carefully prepared DEIS could make that deter- mination. IF THE PROJECT RECEIVES APPROVAL DESPITE THE ABOVE COMMENTS: A. We recommend that the applicants be required to post a performance bond. (Is this done routinely anyway ?) (Of course, this would not prevent environmental damage that we're concerned about.) B. We recommend that, during construction, set - asides and the trees along the backs of lots, be protected with construction fencing, placed out at least to the drip line of the branches. C. We recommend that the Planning Board require that various measures be taken to reduce runoff and erosion from the site. E.g.: during construction, any area that would remain bare for 3 or more months should be seeded down; siltation fencing should be in place before construction starts; roof water drainage systems should be included in the design (see A -3 on page 4). D. We recommend just one gully crossing for the westerly cul de sac, as in the earlier design. Two crossings would be unnecessarily destructive. E. We recommend that road construction and other site preparation not extend past the lower cul de sac until the remaining lots have been sold, or until there is a demonstrated demand for them. F. We recommend following the Planning Dept.'s advice that there be an educational campaign on the importance of our local hackberry population. Residents of West Hill need to be informed of their importance. Perhaps legislation regarding their protection is also needed. G. We recommend that the roadways be as narrow as permissible. to Memo to: Patricia Norton Planning Board and Dept. Weisburds Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW & DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair; Date: Feb. 24, 1992 Re: Hackberries and butterflies at Weisburd site on West Hill Thanks for your memo regarding your conversation with Professor Emeritus Francle- mont. It is indeed true that the three butterfly species we named are, or at least have been, common in other parts of the country, and I apologize that we did not make clear in our earlier remarks that we were talking about regional rarities, not global ones. Wolves are common in parts of Alaska and Canada, yet are rare in the lower 48 states. Most people agree that protecting wolves is important, even though they are common farther north. A small, though carefully done, development project encompasses some of the nearby Coy Glen Unique Natural Area. This 7 1/2 -acre site ( "Hackberry Lane ") is designed for 5 houses, two of which have already been built. Educational materials are provided to prospec- tive residents (something that would be a good idea for the Weisburd project, too). Each deed at this development has deed restrictions regarding cutting of hackberries of any size, and of other species if above 4" in diameter, within a certain distance of the property line. The developer was concerned enough about protecting the trees and the butterflies that he set aside the main hackberry area. The developer himself has four pages of deed restrictions (at a different location on Coy Glen Rd.). If anyone has had trouble getting a mortgage because of their deed restrictions, he is unaware of it. Other subdivisions also include deed restrictions. If, despite the protective measures at the Coy Glen site, it should become unviable for the existing population, the Weisburd site could become an especially significant reservoir for the species. Of course, none of us knows for sure if the butterflies exist there, and it is essential that the project proceed under the assumption that they are present. Even if there are none now, this would be a place they could move to, near the Coy Glen site, in the event the latter became inhospitable. My understanding, from talking with several different scientists, is that hackberries also, while common in other parts of the country, are scarce in this region. Inlet Valley is about the only place where one can find relatively healthy numbers of them. Outside of that area, one finds only isolated examples in a few locations. Hackberries continue to be cut down (many were lost when the recent Town water line was installed, and probably also when West Village was built) I know of no scientist who does not feel that it is important to protect locally rare species, even if they may be common at some far off location. I find it particularly disturbing to think that a project receiving government funding might cause harm to recognized regional rarities, either the hackberries themselves or the butterflies. Regarding Libytheana bachmanii: As Robert Dirig said in his letter, a couple of summers ago he found an adult butterfly in Ithaca that was freshly hatched, indicating that it probably was from a site in Ithaca. Even though he tells me it has not been observed at the 2 Coy Glen site, he feels it is quite possible that it does breed there, or at least, has. Dirig, by the way, is a recognized authority on butterflies, and a new Cornell Bulletin, written by him with Carolyn Klass, on butterflies of the Northeast, is currently in press. One might ask why it matters if a species is extirpated from one part of its range, as long as it remains common somewhere else. This question has moral and philosophical answers, but also scientific ones. For one thing, rare examples of a species that are surviving some distance from locations where they are common may be genetically somewhat different from the main populations, and able to adapt to harsher conditions. Once you eliminate an outlier population, you diminish the potential range of the entire species. Also, as conditions and climate change, you want to have available as many genetic strains as possible to maximize the adaptability of the species to changed conditions. Let's say, for example, that global warming really is occurring. If so, the climate here will change, and our forest species will no longer be as capable of surviving. Trees can't walk. The more restricted the range is of a given species, the less able it will be to populate new areas before it's eliminated from its home range. Our local population of hackberries could form a reservoir for the future of the species as areas farther south and west of us became inhospitable. The same principle applies to their butterfly associates. They can fly, of course, but it won't do any good if there are no hackberries to fly to. New York State, like most states in the nation, has recognized the importance of protecting species that are regionally rare even if they may be numerous somewhere else. Our planet's tremendous diversity of species is being reduced at an alarming rate, with many scientists forecasting that by the year 2000 one -fifth of all our species will have disappeared. In some cases this will be from dramatic, large scale events, but in many others from numer- ous small events. As local species are extirpated, a gradual coarsening of the biological fabric of the region is inevitable. Now, for possible solutions to the problem: How about reducing the total number of houses and creating at least one communal play area, something currently lacking in the plans? As the project is now designed, virtually the only place for play would be the gullies and the steep slope down to Floral Ave. In addition to the unsuitability of these areas for small children, heavy use of the gullies could harm hibernating butterfly larvae and cause erosion. Every deed should have restrictions in it prohibiting the cutting of hackberry trees or spraying of Bt or other insecticides. Other trees left on individual lots after the houses are built should also be protected with deed restrictions. During construction, construction fences will be needed to keep work crews from destroying the buffer of trees that the drawings show around each house. These areas should be demarcated prior to approval of the project so everyone will know when making a decision about the project how much would be saved. Assurances that "as many as possible will be saved" are inadequate; we have seen on other occasions where every single tree was cut down despite such assurances. Given the tight space the crews will be working in, it would be far too easy just to remove the trees. In addition to the concentrations of hackberries along the gullies, a large number are along and near the western property line. This area could be added to the set - asides. A problem still needing a solution is placement of the road. Its proposed location would require removal of a number of hackberries. Memo to: City Atty., Chuck Guttman P &D Bd. Chairperson, Susan Blumenthal Cc: Dick Booth From: Betsy Darlington 7-%-s� Date: March 8, 1992 Re: Environmental review process for Weisburd project I am very concerned about the direction that the environmental review appears to be headed. If things proceed as they have begun, SEQRA will not have been complied with. For one thing, the review, as currently written, fails to meet the H.O.M.E.S. test. In order to meet this test, established in a court case in 1979, the lead agency must comply with Section 36.6 (h) (2) of our City EQR ordinance (which says the same thing as 617.6 (g) (2) of the State's). I am enclosing a copy of a court case -- Shawangunk vs. Planning Board (157 AD2d 273) - -that might be helpful, if you aren't already familiar with it. In addition, Type I Actions may not be given Conditioned Negative Declarations. [ "Conditions" used in this context are only those which the lead agency imposes in order to mitigate potentially significant impacts, but over which the lead agency has no control (e.g. actions by Common Council or the Board of Public Works). Mitigating measures imposed by the lead agency, and which they do have control over, are not "conditions."] I foresee two "conditions" that could be imposed in this case, yet a CND is not permitted for Type I actions, so a pos. dec. is necessary. Interestingly, the enclosed decision does not appear to use the word "conditions" in this sense, but simply as any mitigating measures imposed by the lead agency. My interpretation of the term came from one of the SEQR workshops I attended a couple of years ago. At this stage of the review, it is not permissible, as I understand it (and Charles Lockrow, Senior Analyst in Regulatory Affairs at the DEC confirmed this to me), to determine that, because there will be a desirable social benefit, there will not be a significant environmental impact. In reading Thys's Part III, this is indeed what he is saying. In Part I1, he identifies a number of potential impacts, some of which should have been checked in col. 2 (potentially large impacts) because they are not up to opinion, but are statements of fact. (E.g. construction on slopes exceeding 15 %, and clear cutting of over .5 acres.) In Part 111, he says that, generally speaking, these impacts cannot be mitigated because to do so would reduce affordability. In other words, the potentially large impacts remain. Value judgements about whether the social benefits outweigh the environ- mental damage may not be made until the DEIS stage of the review, as I under- stand it. To do otherwise is to violate both the letter and the intent of SEQRA. Furthermore, without doing an EIS, there is no opportunity to thoroughly explore alternatives. This project, in the CAC's opinion, has the potential for several large impacts. A 5 -acre, steep, forested slope (much of it over 15% and even 20 %) will have at least 2/5 of the trees removed. A regionally scarce species (hack - berry) is on the site, and very likely, two (possibly three) regionally rare species (butterflies) as well. It has not been established that these would be adequately protected with the proposed layout, although we are looking at ways of reducing the impact to an "acceptable" level. Runoff and erosion are additional concerns, as well as the appearance of the hillside from the valley and across the valley, lack of adequate play areas for the kids, and no provision yet established for protection of the set - asides. Even Th y s, in his review, says that, "The effect of developing this site, even at a density similar to that permitted in the nearby Glenside neighborhood of the Town..., would be substantial, since considerable site change would be involved. " The statements that follow this do not do anything to refute this, yet he recommends a neg. dec.! Although Part II and Part III were prepared by the Dept., it is actually up to the Planning Board to make sure that it is property completed. I really do not think that, as it now stands, it would hold up in court. Type I Actions are so listed because they are more likely to have a significant impact. Our local ordinance (Section 36.12, pages 27 -28) states, "The fact that an action or project has been listed as a Type I action carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment and will in almost every instance require an EIS. " I think we all share the desire for more affordable housing, and greater density as well, in the City. Yet these goals cannot be used as an excuse to evade properly conducted environmental review. I would appreciate hearing from you on these issues, and hearing Chuck and Dick's opinion as to whether or not I've got it all wrong. Thanks! cd . ° .= a m 'C: cd 0 > v� 00 c0 Z a O 'U aS R A . m U to O "0 x �+ m v (� � C) C ci f rn �j Uj c.. > O p W r+ '^ a O 0 O nD� � Z O v 0 +' ^Ca >" m5do w atyi, °m O b O cd O O- 3+ 4-) U cw a�� a °•.. ate+' y.. p.d..v.'U QD c0 oc!)"cOd, o0-o" co R M r. cd m m t, � b cd a) QQ 43 0 V cd > pD a � i=. .+ m (3) m c0 " m En . r+ ^ts " _ W o a °_ � `r' �° o C aUi U a: m " m .� 4-1 A bl) ° C-�.�� a.. 12 U �a� •.m� �N 'cd c O � cn El) ° ; M GD CU m V 'b a O O o O h0 , m hD {' i cc M oti � 4) C) +,v bD0 ;; mom_" �nDCD O y'b �� °' o a�a}�. .bay °�°'m vmwo,ra0�c�q ��;"'�a?�,.�a o y to 0 > U cd 0 �O m 10 p a 6+ C OU +� co a) °'o °° ; cdu O�M 0 7 cu vmoao CD 4 O O O °o co Z o° mmo "+� a.mcd om��wNcd wO�0 ° Cz p, s. X Z o° 0 m° 0 m oW�Z 4Z o.° two " rn 3"w carol �q obi 3'b s �� d > > o rn � 0 ., -o > a m m 11 m cd v * + RHO S n' „ •v Fes. 9. Q o0 O m m A .0 i� oo'v ai t0. R) t � o o O ." o ai m a 45 0 co as U CO 'm a� o me rn 0 E= cd 49 ja 79 co H E- a,o� 0 °oo. .0 b °m a� o W -4r4 M o s m o d R t o`3° +ov � -o �` � o oo m >1 W $ L j� 0 3 0� o a cd m o z cs, cd °" d 0„ ate+', '-' A-4 m `1 .� O Cl) ..,U� 0 co A� .0 >o ��oo� �m C, ui v a °° °�' m m c:. m E N . O op + C1 C O cd cd O V1 �-+ O c� OD i m ca a> C 'O r1 `" to a) cd m a) C �' +' ' ° a - O c` O O cd -�, °_ N° N ark O b O y U j L U) .-� V] a) t.. '-' ,J ; W u , a a) c0 " m a> `n o aLi n� o O id o cd " CO U ►• +> nD > r- E .x W O m U ,� ° O cn O c — •� O oW oa)TS o °Gi. °}'.-�30.� 17) �.c ° +, w�,*-oUo 0 D ° c n Ch n� o c� a� ° cd z U 0 0 cn o ti app O 'o a� ° cd o Z U a> O ° W L7 O cd o cOd w > b cd o n�`ni ,1 -omav, o�� ... ° °o�m°oa= i`4mNC co °w�°a'��'- ti cd ' S w � cd a...� v� � v m & SCL) o. -o � � CO 0) " J -. i —. r N -c) r+ A r u s _d A s l d M J 'F CL- rj- rn u o O U -6 o a �- o a -- o -� a, o a CO o o o �v U Z xw C' o w Wo z .a G. U d O U o �. L o 0 co as U CO 'm a� o me rn 0 E= cd 49 ja 79 co H E- a,o� 0 °oo. .0 b °m a� o W -4r4 M o s m o d R t o`3° +ov � -o �` � o oo m >1 W $ L j� 0 3 0� o a cd m o z cs, cd °" d 0„ ate+', '-' A-4 m `1 .� O Cl) ..,U� 0 co A� .0 >o ��oo� �m C, ui v a °° °�' m m c:. m E N . O op + C1 C O cd cd O V1 �-+ O c� OD i m ca a> C 'O r1 `" to a) cd m a) C �' +' ' ° a - O c` O O cd -�, °_ N° N ark O b O y U j L U) .-� V] a) t.. '-' ,J ; W u , a a) c0 " m a> `n o aLi n� o O id o cd " CO U ►• +> nD > r- E .x W O m U ,� ° O cn O c — •� O oW oa)TS o °Gi. °}'.-�30.� 17) �.c ° +, w�,*-oUo 0 D ° c n Ch n� o c� a� ° cd z U 0 0 cn o ti app O 'o a� ° cd o Z U a> O ° W L7 O cd o cOd w > b cd o n�`ni ,1 -omav, o�� ... ° °o�m°oa= i`4mNC co °w�°a'��'- ti cd ' S w � cd a...� v� � v m & SCL) o. -o � � CO 0) " J -. i —. r N -c) r+ A r u s _d A s l d M J 'F CL- rj- rn u clq 0 41) 1314 co ° cE H 3 : • o v v a) CO en v o Ca ca v O cd Cd O q- a) l7 'ti v� N r Or ci E N ho > o 0 U .. r, w"43o :3 43 0. a) a) b „ , ,o �� m co aoi 3 ° a o0 a . °° .Cc � ,4 � tn .4j �. a) o o A. o �'C 3ca� o °�oca0. rcoo�; o4-' > >, oo' `0 N a°i a is a a) o cc O 'b S h4 U +� O m Z r) O c C1 v .a 0 +� 0 r. (1) N .a) p o' O hD '� b O O co E 'O c O 'r O ai � y r .a m~ a) �. -o w A. �, hn > .. cn ea O o�tn°)3cd in.En °;o�,0)x cc Z �a)a�3 x a" yqy o A j �c ho >, 4 c $.4 !1 Q 0 O cd `z o aC ti ) CO a3 ca d +3 c v O O cd ° 4F . g. Cd tl co in .1: +' +' O O jy ca P: 45 x V�� C O C `� - c6 " 2 3 o -- � u �O. 00 0 O '� cC � �4) a) +� o N -• Q Q "~ ° +' cC s co O d O o O c� [d cOi y '� of ''�.� r-1 c'" � p �' >, � a) a) _U c o°°a.- m� a, 5oa. °ova) o�p a)o a� F-1 .— w od�4- '��a°.CL 'o+'�oocd`�� �'oviava.�oca.rb032C X0 ou oo °�n°`�` it! r . .-c o u ° — Cl.. d U ° d a ° � � cam a) U) o � ° cl ° ;, o c- „ u ct p4 Q oo >, o u ° o ..2 a> at ',� o >, ,> ►-• a cX N c3 o O� o 04 c 't W °� •-� hOp ca > O ca cD � h pc"j +� o `�' • O 010— W � 0 O c > p r - R. C o�`a`a �•� n�ic� 0 �`vcD cac bpa)a,s-[QtWo`10 ,ate o��) v= N • � ; , �-• `�' c) c, y� �. c, hD �, �, „"7 C `" Z . � c) 3 C% d CO) a7 Z O Q r v co x °,''a, o.cU 3' (D;�a�� ate) 0 y 3 0'0 co ,; o�ca 4) w E o) CL ^ s. +) r. as co cA o o -o 0 0 .. 'O cn U ... v) 0. CD >, cc —, (J y v cn cn c) ° O W � � � 'o '� 40) 9: `) ° c rn q w ' 0. ° r' ° � ..n o o o C�'r ; '" Ef, o o' ca q:j � n rz ° �°o' coo `n ° � c�u.� �'�c o'er �o° °+��,WN a) 3 �p� > o O - o t, a) H o '—' g ca .ti .� - a) `'- ca ° a) -o ° F. °p x �' cam' y v � 2 o W c cd a) -a o° +, o M rn +) � o ca O v c.. a) o v v) m c cO & Z hn v) x ' o cd cc — 4. U .... ,� `� > o ai +) x o o o cd 3 �, c. w ca 4, a) v r 3 o �. o.r a, - o o m ° a a) ca a) `� ca �v.0 �, o �x o ° ca ,D a, 4�.0 E °��;U ca o - � .0 o �= �.. > v c a) c O 4-1 � ° O c0 ' a2 U � -., � � � a) � v N y � .-, � � ca O cFa � co :j r Q as o~i ca cn ° . d ^ U � '° o O. Z a ;; ?� a ° �; E .o w is '-' 0.b ai a3 CO CD 4J i�o °vuicc �a)a"i0.0.`°� ��a�3 °a °> °ti°.o� -o'"- 'Da?W�n...� .7 cacam(1)(1) N cca _�COL-0 ,G_ �'0.�a) aoo.. a�a)o• oa�c o� c CO L- v).� a) � m a>i u, cd ca �.?.��.° o CIL �r O ,� `� .� a p x ,-, cn ai -.-. i ..� r>-�, r...... c„ l� - O () r '� as [[//�� (v c) Q > a) ri c ^! > o r+ aJ ' G1 p .: Cl- 41 c QU o ti a) ° c . Q) tw c cu F. 'ti �+ ti b cn tl cn o cd > d �-] 0. -CO a1 cC t� cn ca a) Lt ca rn O m a) `2 , ca ca °' o) O v) Ln W , + '�) a) X u� a co c .[ .° -' +' ppU ti v m c ° k ca �' aci 00 ca "" �' 00 o n) v a � a, L o ca � at� a en o $.o .� `' � z4� ov��QCl.'o �'s ov `�r°� -v rn o c a7 �'.4 «i `.� > p 3r -r o n) b e R 0� g:: a) cn U c u y cp .-a C o t. � Q N " y'^ p J�t ��+ pip N �°. " rU' �' L A. �cj a1 a `03 o°OO 1] 'O 0 a U � c O ID o o v .-� a. � a L4 Gi, x ro ao bcc��d.mep�ca>,yyc�>�`�� N F Ex-. r-ti O •'p A c4 O ' W N : a' , ,� Oi 0 S A z A C C o � ° a cy G c C a •� ` a G cv cYi p � � 4''- � Z► o r�"a. y c C / wcv D j ° ° O .a s C14 — .D o Z � o .� .� z •0 •N to '� G/'° c •a•p Z vi N Z O O �~ �'O Lb v y c� G= o>, y� v � W o� Z x ° 3 ai o .s a� is ° C co c c a>i �' W crj CJ o Q cd �M� a, G a w a�� y a 3 ,, a s c aaoqq z r W CL. �; 0. 0o a> ° .� c. > " a� '° 3 ° C7 ° > . aoi c � 4 W c � v '� � x v U ° 3 � 8 � ° „ ° ba Cd z ]� U, E a> cd Q W a' c v v a~i °°� a a.� "E co c'vN W v a Z QL1'i m spa,' ° W u�xcc °' ^'��_ °'Kama U p o> o-o co ��,Cr-M d°Eq."03 U W c F-� o bo co z pC z'L7 a bar, ca `� 0 c00 3m�S'o � >a'12 z � � cri G� Z oci c/) A O E� 'L ° o .�- c 3 o w c v co H b a� Z¢ to v w a oa �� 3 0 ���E� -° mac. °�� >��n� w ca o M cd a� O n�+� cco�Na�d�n�5 °.ca,-vv 000� c �'s Q c. o P� a a� o '� n v D � o ti ca b '> ai �s 3�° o �o a�E CDO .'G a m. NaN� Q cd a ° `�� ° �c �' $�x�: �-g'm o cco cQ� aQ) . y Q x U x W cca rZ q, O app a o .. ►.> It >Uc_o�a ti cdom O ►�►r� a� O coq L+ (� V '� L: �j �, �C Z a• 0 o �' 44 A. •C •�� o �c ~ F �+ c�D ch 3 Q E-+ +g' ammo 0 0 � � � o +� co I co ' . 'z O r z a>i cd w (U•x� 'b 4-' b v m O (1) 8 Co co N o o m u x 3 4-. ch aS vii ° . co '� CL) T v o W 1 00 ca tj Cd a° A W o r-4-� Ei co � 41 a �? co a +' w a' w � � , 0 C � G m y s, o �, x ►: ca d C13 P­ N O co m R. � '� N U$ a) �� G Off . 1... CAP ' /� ` �• `— / / � yap , \ c e. O / ; m j Ilk • ,t . k.. {r'9��F#eMhtr �'�,yklJy,.! 1;,, ,� 'y: ` }.' • .,,.,y�� r • . ++sp, ' ww „�„ ",t- �gr • .. / �� I �\� • - im m '�' a� >Z "� .- -- \:v � .�_,.-,rte_ - \ .- -._- /��o♦d' /��5' •� Fill yll '' t' ,� g�Q> `_ ' ' i \. _ �_aN• -_ � Tom! �_- —_ _ a w ♦ Y • b Sumid ' I � •ga �e� r� ; � CC,, • W 4 L e ♦ .Vl /*6r/ � • 1L F i f• I T a ) • F l i ly p V1 a Rte, Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Cerberus Frat. Pi Kappa Phi Cc: Common Council and Mayor BPW & DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Betsy Darlington, Bara Hotchkiss, Rob Shapiro) Date: March 10, 1992 Re: Minor subdivision (lot line change) at 152 Highland /55 Ridgewood Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Reuben Weiner Cc: Common Council and Mayor BPW & DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Betsy Darlington, Bara Hotchkiss, Rob Shapiro) Date: March 10, 1992 Re: Post -facto approval of subdivision on Elmira Rd. (Wendy's) Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) { t DRAFT -- please send or call, Betsy with comments by March 25 ANNUAL REPORT CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL March 12, 1992 LARGER PROJECTS: 1. Lead Paint: Worked throughout the year with Lew Durland on a brochure to inform people about the risks associated with removal of lead paint. The brochure should be ready for printing in a month or two, and will explain the dangers, how to test for lead in painted surfaces in the home, and how to remove it safely. Comments on drafts have been gathered from health professionals, painters, and others throughout the state. Lew Durland, Judy Jones, and Bara Hotchkiss have been the major players in this project. 2. Conrail spraying practices: Met with representatives from Conrail, and walked along their railroad right -of -way, to explore ways to minimize pesticide spraying in sensitive areas such as near waterways and along the edge of the Fuertes Bird Sanctuary. They agreed to reexamine their vegetation control program in Ithaca, and get back to us with plans for change. Keith Waldron was the principal negotiator throughout. 3. Inlet Valley: Worked on, and sent to Common Council, a resolution regarding develop- ment controls along the Cayuga Inlet Flood Control Channel, recommending set -backs from the water and lesser density than zoning would permit. 4. Six -Mile Creek - -Silt Dam and Firing Range: Responded to citizen concerns by meeting with Chief McEwen and Chuck Baker to learn more about City activities in that area. At Chief's invitation, had a field trip to the area with McEwen, Baker, and others. 5. James Bay: Studied this issue and sent a resolution to Governor Cuomo opposing the purchase by NYS of energy from the James Bay hydro project. 6. Private incinerators in the City: Responded to citizen complaint regarding incinerator at a neighboring apartment complex. Found that such use is permitted in the City, but the permit had lapsed. Also learned that new State air quality standards to take effect eventually will probably force many of these facilities to shut down. 7. Household Hazardous Waste: Five members helped with the County's Household Hazardous Waste collection in the fall. 8. Stream quality project with Southside: Started organizing for a project with Southside Community Center, also involving help from the Finger Lakes Land Trust. This project, to be in May, will be with Southside's after - school program, and will be to heighten awareness of the importance of stream quality, how it can be protected, and how it could affect people who fish in the streams, then eat the fish. SMALLER PROJECTS: 1. Gave Ida Webber the CAC's commendation award for her recycling work over the years. (Our monthly award, started a few years ago, quickly turned into a quarterly award, and in 1991, became an annual award - -or an "as -the- spirit- moves -us" award.) 2. Reviewed about 30 environmental assessments (EAF's) (far fewer than in other years). The largest, and most time - consuming of these, was for Weisburds' West Inlet proposal, still ongoing. 3. DEC pesticide regs: Met with Reg Louey (DEC) to hear about these 4. Resolutions, letters, discussions, etc. regarding (among other things): Southwest Park, lawn pesticides, recycling in City facilities, recycling project at GIAC, Wilcox Press site, watering of street trees, DPW plans for Six -Mile Creek, DEC and OPRHP's Open Space proposal for NYS, steep slope ordinance, excavation and fill ord., raccoon rabies, storm drain /oil traps, underground storage tanks, DPW's public participation plan, CPF drainage, public transit. AWARD: Received an award from the DEC, recognizing the CAC for its storm -drain stencilling project with fifth graders at three elementary schools. In addition, John Wertis (and Betsy Darlington, as Chair) were recognized as individuals for this project. MEMBERSHIP: Lost two members (Roger Farrell and Guy Gerard), and gained one (Paul Salon, employed by Soil Conservation Service). Notice given to Ithaca Journal for second opening. Continued our new system of reviewing EAF's with a committee of three that changes every three months. Rob Shapiro and Betsy Darlington have, however, been constants, with just one member changing each period. Various members served as liaisons to other committees: EMC, shade tree, public transit, parking garage, solid waste, planning board, parks, Six -Mile Creek. In addition, we have liaisons from Common Council and the Board of Public Works. Members from mid - March, 1991, to mid- March, 1992: Betsy Darlington (Chair), Cathy Emilian, Roger Farrell (resigned in Nov., replaced by Paul Salon in Feb.), Guy Gerard (resigned Dec. 31), Barbara Hotchkiss, Judy Jones, Robert Shapiro, Keith Waldron, John Wertis. Liaisons from Common Council: Carolyn Peterson and John Johnson, followed by Dan Hoffman and John Johnson. Liaison from BPW: Jill Tripp followed by Guy Gerard. 0,, uru 4- DRAFT -- PLEASE CALLABETSY WITH SUGGESTIONS by March 25. (I'll be out -of -town from March 18 -22) (This was written by Cathy, with changes from Betsy, with Cathy) Memo to: Bill Gray , ���ari;, lu&,, �- o-� Yee wo'" Cc: BPW From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Date: March 16, 1992 The CAC received your memorandum of February 26/92. We are sorry that you misunderstood our intentions in regard to projects in the watershed area. We do understand that these projects concern maintenance and protection of the water supply, but they also involve work and possibly excavation in an area that is an important natural and recreational resource as well as being a water utility area. What we would like to do is work in cooperation with the Public Works Dept. and the Six -Mile Creek Committee in planning projects in a way that would have the least impact on the natural setting. Under Chapter 106 (the legislation that created the CAC), we are given the;responsibility of addressing environmental concerns in regard to projects in natural areas. We are enclosing a copy of the enabling legislation with certain sections relating to this highlighted. If you were to share your plans with us, perhaps we could provide some constructive suggestions. We would like to be helpful, not obstructive. We do understand that you have many responsibilities, and being involved with one more group may be the last thing you want to consider. But, in the long run, our involvement might save time and resources, and help to avert public controversy in this highly visible area. OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT To: From: Re: File: Date: CITY OF ITHACA 100 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS M E M O R A N D U M TELEPHONE: (607) 274 -6527 FAX: (607) 272 -7348 Conservation Advisory Board John Schroeder, Chair, Planning Committee William J. Gray, P.E., Superintendent of Public Works DPW activities along Six Mile Creek Water 065.0 February 26, 1992 ofij0. k This memo is in response to Betsy Darlington's memo of February 11, 1992 as Chair of the CAC. The Department of Public Works currently is discussing three projects in the watershed area. They are maintenance and operations programs required to protect and maintain the operation of the City's water system. They are not Planning projects. As maintenance and operations matters they do not fall under the Conservation Advisory Council. The Board of Public Works is charged with these matters in the City Charter. I am not interested in further blurring the.lines of responsibility and direction within the Department. The Mayor and Board are fully capable of overseeing the operations of the Department. The Common Council Liaison and the Mayor are capable of bringing in Common Council and any committees that they feel are necessary for advisory functions. The Department staff is functioning under the requirements of Board's review, City SEQR, public participation and Site Plan Review when appropriate. If you have any questions or comments I would be glad to review the matter with you. cc: w/ CAC memo date February 11, 1992 Rick Ferrel, Asst. Supt. S & F Dennis Shimer, Asst. Supt., W & S cc: w/o memo as per Darlington memo 2/11/92 4r%• An Equal oppoa.n.ty Erpioyrer -.,In an Affirmative Action Prograrn" tM Recycled Paper J CHAPTER 106 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL § 106.1 Legislative intent The preservation and improvement of the quality of the environ- ment within the City of Ithaca, in the face of population growth, urbanization, and technologic change with their accompanying demands on natural resources, are found to be of increasing and vital importance to the health, welfare, and economic well -being of present and future inhabitants and require forthright action by the governing body of the City of Ithaca. It is recognzied that the ecologic integrity of the natural environment on which humanity is dependent for survival and the natural functional beauty of our surroundings which condition the quality of our life experience cannot be protected without the full cooperation and participation of all the people of the City working in part- nership with local and state officials and with various public and private institutions, agencies, and organizations. Establishment of a commission for conservation of the environment is a necessary step in fostering unified action on environmental problems. [Amd. LL #1, 79; 7/11/79.] § 106.2 Establishment of Conservation Advisory Council* The Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby creates a com- mission which shall be known as the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, hereinafter called the Commission. § 106.3 Membership A. The Commission shall consist of fifteen (15) members, of whom nine (9) shall be voting members appointed by the Mayor, subject to approval by Common Council, and the remainder shall be ex- officio members as provided herein. All members shall be appointed for full terms of two years. Persons residing within the City of Ithaca and not more than two persons residing outside the City of Ithaca who are interested in the improvement and pre- servation of environmental quality shall be eligible for appoint- ment as members of the Commission. All members of the Commission shall have reached their sixteenth birthday on the day that their appointment takes effect, but not more than one voting members *Name of Commission changed from "Commission for Conservation of the Environment" to "Conservation Advisory Council" by Local Law #1, 1978. § 106.3 was also revised. Supp. #15, 5/2/90 106.1 § 106.3 LOCAL LAWS shall not have reached his or her eighteenth birthday. Vacancies i^ on the Commission shall be filled in the same manner as the origi- nal appointment, except that a vacancy occurring other than by the expiration of the term of office shall be filled only for the remainder of the unexpired term. [Amd. LL #5, 89, 6/7/89.] B. The Mayor, two ( 2) Aldermen as selected by the Common Council, the City Attorney, a member of the Planning Board, and a member of the Board of Public Works and other officials that maybe hereafter designated by the Common Council shall be ex- officio members of the Commission and shall retain such membership until the expiration of their term of office. The City Clerk or the Clerk's designee shall attend all meetings to record the official minutes. § 106.4 Officers, meetings and committees At the first meeting of the Commission,. its members shall elect from among themselves a Chairman. The City Clerk or the Clerk's designee shall act as recording secretary. The Commission shall adopt rules and procedures for its meeting. It shall keep accurate records of its meetings and activities and shall file an annual report as provided in § 106.6 of this Chapter. [Amd. LL #1, 79, 7/11/79.1 § 106.5 Powers and duties of the Commission - The powers and duties of the Commission shall be to: 1. Advise the Common Council on matters affecting the preser- vation, development, and use of the natural and physical features and conditions of the City insofar as beauty, quality, ecologic integrity and other environmental factors are concerned and in the case of human activities and developments, with regard to any major threats posed to environmental quality, so as to enhance the long range value of the environment to the people of the City. [41 amd. LL #1, 79; 7/11/79. . "Manmade" changed to "physical "; "man's" to "human ".] 2. Develop and, after receiving general approval by resolution of the Common Council, conduct a program of public information in the community which shall be designed to foster increased understanding of the nature of environmental problems and issues and support for their solution. 3. Conduct studies, surveys, and inventories of the natural and physical features within the City of Ithaca and such other studies and surveys as may be necessary to carry out the general purposes of this Chapter. [43 amd. LL #1, 79; 7/11/79.1 Supp. #15, 5/2/90 106.2 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL § 106.5 4. Maintain an up -to -date inventory or index of all open spaces in public or private ownership within the municipality, including but not limited to natural landmarks, glacial and other geomorphic or physiographic features; streams and their flood plains, swamps, marshlands, and other wetlands; unique biotic communities; scenic and other open areas of natural or ecological value; and of the ownership, present, use, and proposed use of such open areas, so as to provide a base of information for recommendations by the Com- mission for their preservation and /or use. 5. Seek to coordinate, assist, and unify the efforts of private groups, institutions, and individuals within the City of Ithaca in accord with the purposes of this Chapter. 6. Maintain liaison and communications with public and private agencies and organizations of local, state, and national scope whose programs and activities have an impact on the quality of the environment or who can be of assistance to the Commission. 7. Working in cooperation with the Planning Board, recommend from time to time to the Common Council features, plans and pro- grams relating to environmental improvement for inclusion in the master plan of the City of Ithaca and, similarly, recommend to the Common Council appropriate and desirable changes in existing local laws and ordinances relating to environmental control or recommend new local laws and ordinances. 8. Prepare, print, and distribute books, maps, charts, and pam- phlets in accord with the purposes of this Chapter. 9. Obtain and maintain in orderly fashion maps, reports, books and other publications to support the necessary researches of the Commission into local environmental conditions. 10. When authorized by resolution of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, the Commission may accept by gift, grant, devise, bequest, or otherwise, property both real and personal in the name of the City of Ithaca, as may be necessary to conserve and other- wise properly utilize open spaces and other land and water re- sources within the boundaries of the City of Ithaca. Such real property may be accepted in fee for land and water rights, or as any lesser interest, development right, easement, including con- servation easement, covenant, or other contractual right including conveyance with limitations or reversions. 11. Carry out such other duties as may be assigned from time to Supp. #3, April 5, 1978. 106.3 § 106.5 LOCAL LAWS time by the Common Council. § 106.6 Reports The Commission shall submit an annual report to the Common Council not later than the first day of April of each year, con- cerning the activities and work of the Commission and from time to time shall submit such reports and recommendations as may be necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Chapter. § 106.7 Bud &et The Commission shall submit to the Common Council in a manner prescribed by the controller a request for funds including all allocations for services performed by members of other depart- ments. § 106.8 Compensation and expenses The members of the Commission including ex- officio members shall receive no compensation for their services as members thereof but may be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties within the appropriations made available therefor. § 106.9 Construction This Chapter shall be deemed an exercise of the powers of the City of Ithaca to preserve and improve the quality of-the natural and physical environment on behalf of the present and future inhabitants thereof. This Chapter is not intended and shall not be deemed to impair the powers of any other public corporation. [Amd. LL # 1, 79; by changing "manmade" to "physical ".] Authority; Gen Mun L § 239 -x. HISTORICAL NOTE This Chapter is derived from Local Law # 3 of the year 1970 which was passed by the Common Council and became law with the approval of the Mayor on November 4, 1970 and was filed in the Office of Sec- retary of State in December 9, 1970. It was amended by Local Law # 1 of the year 1978 which was passed by the Common Council on De- cember 28, 1977 and was approved by the Mayor on January 16, 1978. It was last amended by Local Law # 1, 1979, passed by the Common Council on July 11, 1979. Supp. # 5, April 3, 1980. 106.4 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 Memo to: Supt. of Public Works, Bill Gray Cc: BPW From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair - zk 1 Date: March 16, 1992 The CAC received your memorandum of February 26/92. We are sorry that you misunderstood our intentions in regard to projects in the watershed area. We do understand that these projects concern maintenance and protection of the water supply, but they also involve work and possibly excavation in an area that is an important natural and recreational resource as well as being a water utility area. What we would like to do is work in cooperation with the Public Works Dept. and the Six -Mile Creek Committee to find ways to help minimize impacts on the natural setting. Under Chapter 106 (the legislation that created the CAC), we are given the responsibility of addressing environmental con- cerns in regard to projects in natural areas. We are enclosing a copy of the enabling legislation with relevant sections highlighted. When you share your plans with us, we will try to provide some constructive suggestions. We would like to be helpful, not obstructive. We do understand that you have many responsibilities, and being involved with one more group may be the last thing you want to consider. But, in the long run, our involvement might save time and resources, and help to avert public controversy in this highly visible area. An Equal Opportunity Bnploye, with ar A!hrnative Action P,.-,,.ram ' Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. (Jon, Trish, Thys) Weisburds From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair, Re: New drainage plans for West Inlet subdivision Date: March 25/92 At last night's meeting, it came out that the drainage plan for the site has been substantially changed since completion of the LEAF. While the new plan addresses the runoff problem we raised concerning increasing the amount of water to be carried by the two gullies, I wasn't quick enough to realize till after the meeting a potential problem with the new idea. If I understand correctly what Jerry Weisburd said, all the water coming from west of the site to the southerly gully, and most of the runoff from developed areas on the site itself, would be directed to a storm drain system next to the road, and carried to the 4 -foot culvert. Here's my concern with this idea (if I understand it!): While the application and EAF indicated that there will be considerable opportunity for water to percolate down through the soil to the groundwater, the new plan seems to severely limit this. That will mean far less groundwater recharge on the site (and of course, much more surface water leaving the site soon after each storm). Reduced groundwater recharge is a problem for at least a couple of reasons: First, it is groundwater that keeps our streams flowing during dry periods. If this is reduced, the water level in the streams will be lower during dry periods, and higher during flood events. While the change from this site alone might not have a significant impact on the Flood Control Channel (Cayuga Inlet), the cumulative effect of this type of handling of runoff from this and other sites, could be a real problem - -and maybe already is. Perhaps that's one reason the Flood Control Channel's banks are eroding so badly. It may be carrying more water than it should during times of heavy rain or snowmelt. How much additional impact this could have on the Lower and Carpenter properties (as compared with the drainage as proposed with the EAF), I have no idea. The second problem has to do with pollution. Urban runoff is now consid- ered the main nonpoint source of water pollution. It is made worse by systems that limit opportunities for pollutant -laden water to percolate through the soil. If you just let all that water go directly into storm sewers, it doesn't have any opportunity for the soil to remove pollutants (as well as sediment). I hope that, once the soil tests have been done on the site, you will be submitting them to Gary Lamont or a soils expert, along with the drainage plan, since they can apply their experience in this area to evaluating the plans. DPW, at least as I understand it, has a somewhat narrower charge, and so their analyses may not include these additional environmental impacts. Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Reconstruction Home Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Shapiro, Wertis, Darlington) Re: EAF for expansion of Reconstruction Home Date: April 19, 1992 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Comments: Concerns from neighbors seem to be primarily with existing noise and the potential for an increase in it (loading dock and dumpsters, exhaust fans on west side, and change -of -shift noises); traffic and parking; and aesthetics (esp. loss of view). Would it be possible, and effective, to make the proposed gates (to the loading area) out of sound - absorbing, or at least, solid material? Could evergreen trees be planted between the sidewalk and the western wall of the present building and of the addition? This would provide year- around softening of the wall's appearance. Could workers be given incentives to take the bus or walk to work? E.g., how about free bus passes? This would help relieve parking and congestion problems, and also reduce noise at change of shifts. Could the activity court be moved to the west side of the addition, with a large glass window? This could help make that side of the building more friendly to the neighborhood, and also would give the patients something to look out at? We urge the applicant to use energy efficient materials and design- -NYSEG could probably give advice. We are pleased to see that the building has been pulled back farther from Albany and Fayette Streets, on the latest plat (April 17/92). This should provide greater protection for the large beech tree, and a little more green space along Fayette. We urge the applicant to locate the east foundation wall as close as possible to the old foundation, in order to protect the tree's root system. Will all the mitigating measures listed in Part 3 ( #10) be implemented? In the EAF: Part 1, page 5, #21 (water usage): a typo? 40 additional patients would probably use about 4000 gal. per day. Part 2, page 4, #7 (drainage): "other" is checked, but not explained. Additional runoff will be one effect. Part 2, page 8, #16 (noise, etc.): Inadvertently checked "no" (but answered "yes" in Part 1). (There of course will be a lot of noise during construction, and some additional noise after construction.) Memo to: Common Council and Mayor Planning Board and Dept. Cc: CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's Darlington) Re: Revised EAF for new Court Facility Date: April 19, 1992 Recommendation: Negative Declaration EAF Subcommittee (Wertis, Shapiro, Comments: Concerns that we raised earlier appear to have been adequately addressed. Regarding sedimentation of Six -Mile Creek, especially during construction, we understand that a more complete system of siltation fencing is being planned than is shown on the erosion control plan we were given. The most troublesome area from this standpoint is probably the steep bank below the current parking lot, until new vegetation has become established. The hillside at the back of the site could also cause problems. In addition to extensive siltation fencing, perhaps the banks can be seeded with a fast - growing grass until new trees are planted. If the banks will be bare for an extended period, some measure to protect the soil (and creek) is imperative. (The siltation fencing itself won't prevent erosion; it will protect the creek from the effects of erosion.) We recommend that any debris that escapes from the site during construction, and especially any that falls into the creek, be cleaned up daily. We recommend that several different tree species be planted along the rebuilt bank. (If just one species is planted, and disease should strike, then they'll all be lost.) The steep bank below the parking lot has at least three hackberry trees. Could the planting plan include several replacements for these? They're an uncommon plant in this region, and in addition, have rare butterflies associated with them. In addition, their foliage is a brilliant red in the fall, and birds are attracted to their berries. Also, could the landscaping plan include some evergreens along the bank? (Native ones, if possible.) We are not commenting on the appearance of the building itself since we have only the vaguest idea of what it will look like. •I%- Memo to: P &D Bd. and Dept. Building Dept. DPW Pat Kennedy, Assistant City Attorney From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chairs. Date: April 24, 1992 Re: Meetings of the CAC's EAF subcommittee Pat Kennedy and I have been talking about the open meetings law and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and how they relate to our subcommittee meetings. It appears that our spur -of -the- moment meetings, often held on weekends in one of our homes, don't comply with either one. Our meetings have to be announced in advance and held in an accessible place. Therefore, from now on we will hold our meetings in City Hall (usually the 3rd floor conference room) each month on the Thursday prior to the Planning Board's Codes Committee meeting. Our meeting will usually fall on the second Thursday of the month, but occasionally on the third. (May 14, June 11, July 16, Aug. 13, Sept. 10, Oct. 15, and Nov. 12.) We should have all EAF's by the previous Thursday (May 7, June 4, July 9, Aug. 6, Sept. 3, Oct. 8, Nov. 5.) Exceptions could be made for really simple ones - -e.g. minor changes in lot lines between two owners' properties. If these get to us the day before, that should be fine. These dates fit in with the schedule we worked out with the Planning Dept. some time ago but which has often not been adhered to because of late arrivals of EAF's at the Planning Dept. Unfortunately, this new set -up will mean a loss of flexibility. We will no longer be able to receive something the Friday before the Codes meeting, call a hurry -up meeting on Sunday, and get comments out by Tuesday. Meetings held over the phone for the simple EAF's also will not be possible. If an applicant doesn't get the EAF to you in time for you to meet this sched- ule, he or she will simply have to wait until the following month for prelimi- nary approval. We're all bending over backwards to speed people through the process, and our subcommittee has gone the extra mile until now. But we have to comply with State laws. -�� C11 Memo to: Common Council's Planning Committee From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chairs. Re: Proposed changes in CEQR (referred from Planning Board) Date: May 12, 1992 The CAC agrees with Barbara Blanchard's proposal (forwarded to the Planning Committee by the Planning Board), that Common Council change the wording of the paragraph in the City's Env. Quality Review ordinance relating to Type I actions and EIS's. We voted unanimously to recommend that the State's language be adopted, should you decide to change the wording. If some other wording is considered, we recommend that the City Attorney check it to make sure that it is not weaker than the State's language. Local ordi- nances may be stronger, but not weaker, than SEQRA. This is how SEQRA is worded: "However, the fact that an action or project has been listed as a Type I action carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a signifi- cant effect on the environment and may require an EIS." I have italicized the part that is different from the City's wording. Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Cc: Weisburds Mayor Nichols Bill Gray and Tom West (DPW) Rick Eckstrom (Bldg.) Pat Kennedy (Atty.) CAC members From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Re: Weisburds' West Inlet project Date: May 12, 1992 At last night's CAC meeting, we had a lengthy discussion of the West Inlet project, in light of the new drawings. This memo was discussed and it incorporates the opinions ex- pressed by members of the CAC. Members felt that, during the review process, the CAC had raised a number of problems, but that few of these had been adequately addressed, and some not addressed at all. Members also felt that the City is falling into the common trap of trying to develop a marginal site for affordable housing because the land is cheap enough to seemingly enable such a project. However, when you try to develop a marginal site beyond its capacity, numerous problems present themselves. It is usually costly to get around these, and what looked like an "affordable" site quickly becomes unaffordable. The size of the pipes needed for the storm drainage is just one example. The original plan called for 8" pipe. The new plan calls for 30" pipe--a lot more expensive than 8" pipe. Members also pointed out that clustering is intended to increase environmental protection of a site, not decrease it. It is not supposed to be twisted this way and that in order to put more development on a site than would a standard subdivision. If this site were to be developed for the latter, the lot sizes would have to be at least 5000 s.f. The same areas now being called "set- asides" would not be built on, and the entire site would have more open space, more protection. The CAC feels that the clustering concept is being abused. 1. Last Wed. (May 6) I attended the BPW meeting at which the W. Inlet project was discussed for the first time. Board members were given the new drawings (still labeled as "preliminary") to look at. In the brief look I had of the drawings on Wed., I noticed a substantial change in lots 8 and 9, a change which greatly reduced the size of the set -aside along the northerly gully. The next day, Bill Gray kindly gave me his copy of the drawings, and I went home to check them against the ones for which the Planning Board gave preliminary approval. I found a number of changes. Using a planimeter to measure the new set - asides, I discovered that they had shrunk by about 39 %! (If you include - -as I assume you should not - -the portion labeled as a flood control easement to the City, the shrinkage is 25 %.) The total site area is now given as 4.906 acres. On DWG 4 that you gave prelim. approval, the developers stated that the set - asides would be 80,100 s.f. (1.83 ac.) My measurements of the set - asides show them to now total only 1.1216 ac. (48,857 sq.ft.), or 39% less than what you approved. Though I assume you can't do so, if you include in the set -aside area the flood easement portion, then the total acreage of the set - asides comes to 1.3758 (59,930 s.f.), giving 25% less than you approved. (My accuracy is not as great as these decimal places would imply; I give them so you'll know how I arrived at my figures.) In both the developers' and my measurements, the area to be bulldozed on each side of the road is excluded from the set -aside area. (I am looking again at the earlier DWG 4, and I made the new measurements on the new map #3-- "Grading and Drainage Plan".) One thing that has grown is the size of the lots. Instead of adding up to 89,275 s.f. (2.049 ac.), they now add up to 104,155 s.f. (2.39 ac) - -an increase of 17%. In addition, the cul de sacs appear to take up more space than before, and a wider area is shown for grading for the road than was shown on the earlier plat. In addition, some set -aside was lost when the developments; this is not an unrealistic requirement. An additional problem is that the new plan still does not address the problem we raised concerning roof drainage. This water will run off the roofs, and flow from one yard to the next. Given the soil characteristics, steep slopes, and small lot sizes, many lots are frequently going to be very wet. Finally, if the sumps are not maintained, they will not function properly, and sediment from the site will enter the drainage channel and then Cayuga Inlet. CONCLUSION: 1. The new site plan's open space set - asides are even more inadequate than the one you gave prelim. approval for. 2. The set -aside allotment violates both the letter and the spirit of the zoning ordinance since all of the set -aside area is "unbuildable," rather than just 50% of it. Clustering, rather than giving the site greater protection, is being abused and the site will receive even less protection than a normal subdivision would provide. 3. The hackberries will not be given the same -- albeit minimal - -level of protection that you voted on. If Common Council refuses ownership or conservation easements, this will be even less. 4. The drainage plan will not protect properties either on the site or across the road from damage, nor protect the Inlet from increased siltation (from increased erosion of the drainage channel, if not from erosion on the site itself). Trying to put this project on this site is like trying to fit into a shirt that's several sizes too small. You'll split the seams and pop buttons, and trying to hold it together with a few pieces of masking tape just won't do the job. SOME POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: Eliminate the upper cul de sac part of the development (lots 18 -27); Eliminate lot #9; (this space could be used for the pedestrian "greenway" we keep hearing about but not seeing any provision for); Shrink lots 10 -17 back to the size shown on the drawings on which you based prelim. approval; Require a drainage plan that will prevent an increase in rate and volume of runoff from the site; Require a roof drainage system that will protect the individual lots from runoff from adjacent lots. SUMMARY TABLE: Total site: 4.906 acres (developers' figure - -df) ( x 43,560 = 213,705 s.f.) Give to City (roads and set - asides): 2.515 ac (df) Former set -aside area: 80,100 s.f. (1.84 ac) (df) New set -aside area: 48,857 s.f. (1.1216 ac) Former lot total: 89,275 s.f. (2.049 ac) (df) New lot total: 104,155 s.f. (2.39 ac) (df) Lot area increase: 17% Set -aside shrinkage: 39% r Memo to: Common Council's Planning Committee From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair 7�_ � � Re: Proposed changes in CEQR (referred from Planning Board) Date: May 12, 1992 The CAC agrees with Barbara Blanchard's proposal (forwarded to the Planning Committee'by the Planning Board), that Common Council change the wording of the paragraph in the City's Env. Quality Review ordinance relating to Type I actions and EIS's. We voted unanimously to recommend that the State's language be adopted, should you decide to change the wording. If some other wording is considered, we recommend that the City Attorney check it to make sure that it is not weaker than the State's language. Local ordi- nances may be stronger, but not weaker, than SEQRA. This is how SEQRA is worded: "However, the fact that an action or project has been listed as a Type I action carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a signifi -. cant effect on the environment and may require an EIS." I have italicized the part that is different from the City's wording. Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Cc: Weisburds Mayor Nichols Bill Gray and Tom West (DPW) Rick Eckstrom (Bldg.) Pat Kennedy (Atty.) CAC members From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair 7iJs Re: Weisburds' West Inlet project Date: May 12, 1992 At last night's CAC meeting, we had a lengthy discussion of the West Inlet project, in light of the new drawings. This memo was discussed and it incorporates the opinions ex- pressed by members of the CAC. Members felt that, during the review process, the CAC had raised a number of problems, but that few of these had been adequately addressed, and some not addressed at all. Members also felt that the City is falling into the common trap of trying to develop a marginal site for affordable housing because the land is cheap enough to seemingly enable such a project. However, when you try to develop a marginal site beyond its capacity, numerous problems present themselves. It is usually costly to get around these, and what looked like an "affordable" site quickly becomes unaffordable. The size of the pipes needed for the storm drainage is just one example. The original plan called for 8" pipe. The new plan calls for 30" pipe - -a lot more expensive than 8" pipe. Members also pointed out that clustering is intended to increase environmental protection of a site, not decrease it. It is not supposed to be twisted this way and that in order to put more development on a site than would a standard subdivision. If this site were to be developed for the latter, the lot sizes would have to be at least 5000 s.f. The same areas now being called "set- asides" would not be built on, and the entire site would have more open space, more protection. The CAC feels that the clustering concept is being abused. 1. Last Wed. (May 6) I attended the BPW meeting at which the W. Inlet project was discussed for the first time. Board members were given the new drawings (still labeled as "preliminary ") to look at. In the brief look I had of the drawings on Wed., I noticed a substantial change in lots 8 and 9, a change which greatly reduced the size of the set -aside along the northerly gully. The next day, Bill Gray kindly gave me his copy of the drawings, and I went home to check them against the ones for which the Planning Board gave preliminary approval. I found a number of changes. Using a planimeter to measure the new set - asides, I discovered that they had shrunk by about 39 %1 (If you include - -as I assume you should not - -the portion labeled as a flood control easement to the City, the shrinkage is 25 %.) The total site area is now given as 4.906 acres. On DWG 4 that you gave prelim. approval, the developers stated that the set - asides would be 80,100 s.f. (1.83 ac.) My measurements of the set - asides show them to now total only 1.1216 ac. (48,857 sq.ft.), or 39% less than what you approved. Though I assume you can't do so, if you include in the set -aside area the flood easement portion, then the total acreage of the set - asides comes to 1.3758 (59,930 s.f.), giving 25% less than you approved. (My accuracy is not as great as these decimal places would imply; I give them so you'll know how I arrived at my figures.) In both the developers' and my measurements, the area to be bulldozed on each side of the road is excluded from the set -aside area. (I am looking again at the earlier DWG 4, and I made the new measurements on the new map #3--"Grading and Drainage Plan".) One thing that has grown is the size of the lots. Instead of adding up to 89,275 s.f. (2.049 ac.), they now add up to 104,155 s.f. (2.39 ac) - -an increase of 17%. In addition, the cul de sacs appear to take up more space than before, and a wider area is shown for grading for the road than was shown on the earlier plat. In addition, some set -aside was lost when the 3 developments; this is not an unrealistic requirement. An additional problem is that the new plan still does not address the problem we raised concerning roof drainage. This water will run off the roofs, and flow from one yard to the next. Given the soil characteristics, steep slopes, and small lot sizes, many lots are frequently going to be very wet. Finally, if the sumps are not maintained, they will not function properly, and sediment from the site will enter the drainage channel and then Cayuga Inlet. CONCLUSION: 1. The new site plan's open space set - asides are even more inadequate than the one you gave prelim. approval for. 2. The set -aside allotment violates both the letter and the spirit of the zoning ordinance since all of the set -aside area is "unbuildable," rather than just 50% of it. Clustering, rather than giving the site greater protection, is being abused and the site will receive even less protection than a normal subdivision would provide. 3. The hackberries will not be given the same -- albeit minimal - -level of protection that you voted on. If Common Council refuses ownership or conservation easements, this will be even .less. 4. The drainage plan will not protect properties either on the site or across the road from damage, nor protect the Inlet from increased siltation (from increased erosion of the drainage channel, if not from erosion on the site itself). Trying to put this project on this site is like trying to fit into a shirt that's several sizes too small. You'll split the seams and pop buttons, and trying to hold it together with a few pieces of masking tape just won't do the job. SOME POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: Eliminate the upper cul de sac part of the development (lots 18 -27); Eliminate lot ##9; (this space could be used for the pedestrian "greenway" we keep hearing about but not seeing any provision for); Shrink lots 10 -17 back to the size shown on the drawings on which you based prelim. approval; Require a drainage plan that will prevent an increase in rate and volume of runoff from the site; Require a roof drainage system that will protect the individual lots from runoff from adjacent lots. SUMMARY TABLE: Total site: 4.906 acres (developers' figure - -df) ( x 43,560 = 213,705 s.f.) Give to City (roads and set - asides): 2.515 ac (df) Former set -aside area: 80,100 s.f. (1.84 ac) (df) New set -aside area: 48,857 s.f. (1.1216 ac) Former lot total: 89,275 s.f. (2.049 ac) (df) New lot total: 104,155 s.f. (2.39 ac) (do Lot area increase: 17% Set -aside shrinkage: 39% May 12/92 Dear CAC Members: Near the end of last night's meeting, after a couple of you had left, it came out that there are some (on Common Council ?) who think I may not represent the CAC but just myself. The Weisburd project was an example, I gather. It was decided that a show of opposition to this project from as many CAC members as possible would be a good idea, particularly at the Planning Board meeting when final approval is to be considered. This will be at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, May 26 in Common Council Chambers. You could either express your opinions right at the beginning when there's a time allotted for public comment, or you could wait till the project itself is discussed. Even if we don't succeed in stopping this ill- conceived project, we at least will have let our views be known, and shown that I am not just speaking for myself. Please try to come if at all possible! Thanks! 7_1-�1 Betsy Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. William J. Walsh Cc: Common Council and Mayor BPW, DPW Building Dept. From: City Attorney Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Darlington, Shapiro, Wertis) Re: Minor subdivision at 912 112 - 914 N. Tioga St., so that two houses now on one lot will be on separate lots Date: May 15, 1992 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) * Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Manos Enterprises Cc: Common Council and Mayor BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Darlington, Shapiro, Wertis) Re: Minor subdivision at 355 -7 Elmira Rd. (Manos Diner) Date: May 15, 1992 Recommendation: Neg. dec. (no significant impact) Any chance of planting some trees in or around the parking lot? Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Jon and Rose Krupas, Joseph and Elizabeth Krupas Cc: Common Council and Mayor BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Darlington, Shapiro, Wertis) Re: Minor subdivision at 515 Hector St., mainly so a tree planted by applicant 25 years ago will be on his property Date: May 15/92 Recommendation: Neg. dec. (no significant impact). (As tree- lovers, we appreciated the reason for the lot line adjustment.) Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Cornell University-- Laurine Gilbert Cc: Common Council and Mayor BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Darlington, Shapiro, Wertis) Re: Balch Drive area improvements Date: May 15, 1992 Recommendation: Neg. dec. (no significant impact) Comments: 1. What's the status of this in light of Fall Creek's designation? (We think the designation goes up as far as the foot bridge.) 2. In light of the project's proximity to Cornell Plantations land, and in particular, the very special woodland north of Beebe Lake, we recommend that the applicant discuss with Cornell Plantations the choice of species to be planted. Invasive alien species could be a problem. We hope native species that would be compatible, both aesthetically and environmentally with that woodland, will be used. 3. Careful erosion control measures will be needed during construction to avoid siltation of Fall Creek. 4. We urge Cornell to be diligent in cleaning out the sump drains here (and elsewhere on campus) so that silt isn't carried to the creek. We gather this is a low priority on campus and may at times be neglected. itM�w �s C "ORNELL PLANTATIONS j . The ARBORETUM, BOTANICAL GARDEN, and NATURAL AREAS of CORNELL UNIVERSITY I Planning Board City of Ithaca Planning City Hall Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Board Members: ONE PLAN•I'ATIO S ROAD May 25, 1992 r l' H CA, N.Y. 1-185o -2799 (307-255-3020 I am writing to verify the presence of a large red mulberry tree on the Floral Avenue site proposed for development by Claudia and Jerold Weisburd, and to let you know that protection of this locally rare species, and the habitat where it is found, is very important. Red mulberry, Morus rubra, is very difficult to identify without leaves or fruit. This weekend, for the first time this year, the leaves were large enough to permit F. Robert Wesley to make a positive identification of a tree, which was unidentifiable last winter. This tree on the Weisburd site is quite large, about sevml&-n inches in diameter. Red mulberry is a rare species in the region, even rarer than the hackberry, which is also found on the proposed development site. There are six sites with hackberry in Tompkins County, but this is now the only known site in Tompkins County for red mulberry. Other sites for red mulberry are listed in the old floras of the region, and closer investigation may reveal other red mulberry trees in the inlet area or on some of the other historic sites. However, the old floras indicate that both red mulberry and hackberry were scarce seventy years ago. Formerly, the two species were found on similar sites, and sometimes on the same site. Ithaca is at the northern edge of the range of both species, so they are found only in warmer, protected areas near the inlet or in ravines along the lake shore. Both species are usually found on limey sites such as this one. The presence of red mulberry on the site is in itself significant, but the presence of this rare species with the hackberry suggests that the natural habitat on the development site may be particularly worthy of preservation. The site is located in an area that was once known to be floristically and zoologically very rich. The presence of red mulberry raises the concern that other rare species, especially herbaceous species that could not be found or identified during the winter, may have been missed in the earlier environmental review of the property. Now that spring is here, it would be possible to do a more complete environmental review of the natural habitats on the proposed dpvelopment site. I hope you can take advantage of the opportunity that still remains to review this property during the growing season. Sincerely, Nancy stman, Ph. D. Natural Areas Coordinator Cornell University i Planning Board City of Ithaca Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Board Members: Division of Biological Sciences Section of Ecology and Systematics Corson Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 -2701 May 26, 1992 It has come to my attention that a proposed housing development on Floral Avenue will destroy a large red mulberry tree (Mores rubra). I am writing to express concern about such a loss. My specialty is studying the historical and present day vegetation around Ithaca. Like the hackberry trees, which you have decided to protect at the proposed development site, red mulberry is uncommon in the Ithaca area. I have conducted two studies that are pertinent to documenting just how uncommon red mulberry is. In one study, we encountered mulberry only once in 55 different forests sampled; in the other study we encountered mulberry only 4 times in more than 400 sites sampled. In addition, red mulberry, when it occurs at all, typically is present in a stand as one individual, or as a few scattered individuals. Thus, destroying one large mulberry tree is likely to be equivalent to eliminating one of the few localities in the Ithaca area where it occurs. Clearly, red mulberry is a special local tree that deserves the same sort of attention already accorded to hackberry. Thank you for your consideration. 4 PLM /sa Sincerely, P. L. Marks Professor and Chair New York State College of College of Arts and Sciences New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Veterinary Medicine 5.��1Q -►� ��� tom. -had a� 1qz Hello, my name is Barbara Hotchkiss. In addition to being an environmentally concerned West Hill resident, I am honored to be a member of the City's Conservation Advisory Council, and to serve as its liaison to the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council. I have strong hopes that the City is conducting an objective costs - benefit analysis of this proposed project. While a lot of attention has been given to the perceived benefits of this project, namely Qe ftta / much needed affordable housing for the City, I wonder whether =,al (and potential!) costs, both environmental and fiscal, have been as carefully projected and assessed. For a number of reasons, this site seems highly inappropriate for this development - -not the least of which are its many ravines, diverse and dense woodlands, highly erodable and slumping soils. I will not repeat the listing of all the potential environmental costs that have been detailed in previous CAC correspondences, but I have to ask you whether such large scale destruction of Ithaca's scarcely remaining green space is justified. Has the City factored into its cost - benefit analysis the cost to its Department of Public Works of maintaining the steep roads that are proposed? And how much will it cost to maintain the sump drains which are supposed to collect siltation drained from the site? And what if these sumps are not maintained properly? What kinds of problems are potential for neighbors, local roads or the Flood Control Channel if these sumps do not function as has been suggested? What recourse does the City have if they do not function properly? I wonder whether the City isn't inadvertently setting a bad precedent for future cluster housing projects if they allow this many houses to be amassed in this fashion on such biologically diverse and geologically challenging terrain. Is it possible to put less houses in this space? Aren't there any other sites in the City to accomplish the building affordable houses and receipt of H.U.D. financing? For example, the previously proposed mutual housing project seemed to offer so much more in the way of affordable housing without the concomitant environmental damage; since it was proposed in an open field, it did not present nearly as much of a problem. Are these homes going to be as desirable as they are thought to be? I couldn't help but wonder, as I walked the steep slopes of the proposed Weisburd site with the developer and other CAC members, and after reviewing engineering plans allowing for some driveways with 26 e'ce�rz` slope, how many people are going to willingly choose such steep grades for approaching their homes, whether by foot or by vehicle. What if the houses do not sell? Can fewer houses be built on a short road as a pilot project before going full scale? Or can this be done in stages to study how well the proposed site engineering actually works? Finally, I have to ask the Board to stand firm on asking the developer to comply with the originally accepted plan, so that the original set asides and various contingencies for protection of special trees are upheld. Please maintain perspective on all the losses and gains presented by this proposed project and preserve what remaining green space we have in our lovely community. STATEMENT TO PLANNING BOARD - -May 26, 1992 -- Weisburds' West Inlet project The Conservation Advisory Council's 4- person subcommittee that reviewed this project discussed the new drawings last night, and we have the following remarks: 1. The new drawings are substantially different from the one you gave prelim. approval. We urge you to delay your decision until the numerous new issues can be resolved. In fact, in light of some new information which I will get to shortly as well as the many changes that have been made in the plan, it may be that a new environmental review should be done. 2. You granted preliminary approval, based on certain assumptions and conditions - -e.g. "avoidance or mitigation of potential negative environmental impacts as discussed in detail in the environmental assessment." The CAC felt that what you approved before did not live up to this promise, but the new plan is far less protective even than that. And now there is no suitable place where kids can gather to play together, the one small area behind lots 8 and 9 having now been given to those lots. 3. While clustering is intended, as stated in your prior review, to provide greater protection, it is being abused here and used as an excuse to develop the land far beyond what is reasonable, sensible, or protective of the environment. The number of units is not so much the issue as the amount of land being used for them. For example, if all the units were put around the lower cul de sac, you'd have far more protection of the site, and real areas for kids to play. 4. In light of the new drawings, the Board needs to see new calculations for the "unbuildable" portions of the set - asides. E.g., the flood control easement area (which didn't even appear on the map you approved), and the new steep slopes along the road cannot be counted as "buildable." (" Unb uild- able" is not defined in the ordinance merely as areas of steep slope, by the way, but also as areas that are "not normally appropriate for building con- struction. ') 5. You have not even seen the soil test results as required in the EAF. On May 12, 3 samples were tested by Empire Soils. I got the results this morning and spoke to a man at Empire about their meaning. They show very high percentages of silt and clay, and he said such soils are highly erodible and also are subject to slumping. He said the results were consistent with the Hudson silty - clay -loam soils shown in the Tompkins County Soil Survey. He was amazed when I told him how many houses were to be put on the site - -the reaction I've gotten from numerous other knowledgeable people to whom I have spoken. 2 6. The environmental assessment gives the following reasons to support your negative declaration. "Phis reads, "The use of smaller lots [the lots have gotten bigger], set aside of areas of steepest slope [the lots now encroach even farther into steep slope areas, and there is more grading on steep slopes, for the road], and minimiza- tion of paved areas through clustering limit the area which will be disturbed [the southerly gully will now be bulldozed nearly from one end to the other].... "The hackberry trees on the site, which may support populations of locally rare butterflies [confirmed yesterday by lepidopterist, Robert Dirig, who found the larvae], will be protected. Many of the trees are located in the gullies which are part of the open space set aside." As I mentioned, the new plat shows that one gully will be bulldozed, the other gully will be encroached on by lots 9, and 10 -17, and lot 17 actually crosses the gully. Of the hackberries shown on the map, I count about 36 -43 that will be destroyed that wouldn't have been under the plan you approved. In addition, yesterday I counted the number of hackberries over 2" in diameter just along the northern side of the southerly gully. Where the developer shows 25 hack- berries (including 7 in the road itself), I counted 42. (In other words, 53 -60 more would be destroyed by the new plan.) 7. Finally, the tree F. Robert Wesley suspected might be a red mulberry, is indeed one. (It is located at the southern edge of the proposed road.) This is uncommon everywhere except a small area of Texas. Nina Bassuk has never seen one, nor has Nancy Ostman (Cornell Plantations), nor has an experienced forester I talked to (Mike DeMunn). Nina looked it up in several books and told me that there isn't much written about it because it is so rare. Nina tells me it requires a moist, rich site, and that it could not tolerate distur- bance from road building. Nina, as well as four plant ecologists I spoke with, felt strongly that this tree should be protected. It is healthy and large, for the species- -maybe 60 -70' tall, and 17" in diameter; a truly magnificent tree. Most landowners would be thrilled to have such a tree on their land, and proud to protect it. We hope that will be true here, as well, and everything Jerry Weisburd has said about his love for trees would indicate that it will be. I have letters to you from Peter Marks, Chair of Ecology and System- atics, and Nancy Ostman, Cornell Plantations. Neither of them could come tonight. SOME RECOMMENDATIONS: A. We would like to propose that the road be terminated at the first cul de sac until those 9 lots have sold. With 31 houses on the market all over downtown Ithaca for sale in the $65,000- 85,000 range, and with the limitations of this site, we strongly suspect these lots will be slow to sell. To go to the 3 expense of providing all that infrastructure, and causing so much environmen- tal damage, when those upper lots may never sell, seems to us to be wastefull of both money and the environment. B. Furthermore, we strongly recommend moving the road northward to provide protection not only for the red mulberry but also for the southerly gully. I can tell you later about my conversation today with Lynn Gifford (one of the City engineers) regarding the grading plan for the road. Moving the road to the north would probably mean eliminating lot #10- already a marginal site, with grades ranging from 20% to over 46 %. C. We also propose reinstating the set -aside area at the back of lots 8 and 9, and other set aside portions that have been eliminated. However, if the road is moved northward, perhaps the new set aside line along lots 10 -17 could remain as now drawn since new set aside would be added south of the road. D. We recommend that the lower cul de sac be moved back to its ap- proved location in order to protect the northerly gully to the extent shown on the earlier plan. This would also enlarge lot 9 so that you could shave back some of its border with the gully, thus providing a location for a possible connecting greenway, as proposed by the developer, and giving kids access to the set -aside behind lots 8 and 9. E. We recommend planting native trees, especially hackberries, where grading for the road will occur, as shown on the landscape plan included in your preliminary approval. F. The zoning ordinance requires that set - asides be dedicated as "common land for the benefit of the members of the subdivision. " This could be through ownership by a homeowners' association, with a conservation easement to the City specifying restrictions, or through ownership by the City. Ownership by individual lot owners we feel would violate the ordinance. G. Your preliminary approval was conditional on the final drawings being substantially the same, and on protection of the environment. You know that the plan does not do this, and no amount of wishful thinking will make it so. The fact that there may be sound engineering reasons for the changes in layout does not alter this basic fact, nor make the plan acceptable. The engineering requirements merely illustrate the difficulty one faces in developing this steep site beyond its carrying capacity. Comments from Betsy Darlington on the deed restrictions and latest drawings from the Weisburds June 3, 1992 GRADING PLAN: Where is the new grading plan? The new landscape plan appears to show changes along the lines discussed at the last Planning Bd. meeting, but this is not clear. The Board must see what actually will be graded before granting final approval. SET - ASIDES AND "TREE PROTECTION ZONES:" 1. I do not see the rationale behind the changes in the set - asides along the northerly gully and the east side of the lower cul de sac (the piney slope). "Tree protection zones" will not have nearly as much protection as if these were in the set - asides, as you had approved on March 24. The "tree protec- tion zones" should be added to the set - asides, if you are to meet the require- ments that the plan be substantially the same as before and that the environ- ment be protected- -both conditions of your preliminary approval. 2. In addition to the "tree protection zones," the new drawings show significant shrinkage of the set -aside along the southerly gully. The reasons for these changes -- engineering concerns, perhaps - -do not make them accept- able. If these places cannot be reinstated, then add lot 9 or 10, or both, to the other gully set - aside, to make up the difference. The fact that the total area in set - asides may be sufficient to meet the zoning requirements is irrelevant; what matters is what the Board approved on March 24. 3. If, despite this, the Bd. approves the new drawings, there must be legal descriptions of these areas in each person's deed, as well as clear demarcation of the areas on the ground so owners will know where they can't cut. GULLY PROTECTION: The gullies were supposed to be protected by the plan, yet the southerly one will be bulldozed on both sides, for the upper half of its length, and on the north side for the remaining portion. The northerly gully is encroached on by private lots, under the new plan. These would appear to me to be substantial changesfrom the plan you gave preliminary approval. DEED RESTRICTIONS: 1. There's a huge loophole in the deed restrictions for the set -aside areas. The last paragraph prior to the one starting, "Now Therefore," gives the developer the right to do anything he likes in those areas during construction. Storing equipment in them, running bulldozers or other equipment through them, etc. could leave these tiny protected areas trashed. If the Board fails to prevent this, it will not have fulfilled its promise to protect the se +- Ca%Ae1s. r � 2 2. The set - asides must be protected with construction fencing to keep all such activities out, and the deed restrictions should make this clear, as well. 3. In addition, the treed border should be given similar protection. 4. The deed restrictions for the set - asides say ( "III ") that a plat showing layout of all improvements has been filed. Either this should be reworded or a plat showing layout of houses should be filed. I'd recommend the latter; some lots include portions of the gullies, and houses could be put in those places. (The build zones do extend into the gullies on those lots. I'm looking particu- larly at lots 9, 10, 17, and 27.) Or move the build zones out of the gullies. 5. All owners of property in the subdivision, including the City, should have "standing" to enforce the deed restrictions anywhere in the subdivision, not just on adjoining property. Otherwise, e.g., owner of lot 21 could cut down restricted trees, and only be challenged by owners of lots 20 or 22. If they didn't want to take action, the deed restriction would have proven worthless. 6. Minor typo at end of the NOW THEREFORE paragraph in City set - aside deed restrictions: It should say "enure," not "ensure." 7. For the deed restrictions on the private lots, the treed border and the "tree protection zones" should be protected equally. In other words, all lots should have the same wording as is currently given just for lots 1 -5, 9, 11 -17. (It is all trees along the 20 -foot border, not just the hackberries, that this border was created to protect.) 8. For deed restrictions on both set -aside and private lots: bikes can be very destructive, and the restriction should read, "Use of vehicles of any kind, including bicycles, on or across the subject property is strictly prohibited." 9. For all deed restrictions, any removal of trees that are "dead, diseased, or have limbs that pose a hazard..." Delete "have limbs (you don't cut a tree down just because a few limbs are dead; you prune off the limbs). And require that any tree removal for these purposes must be by permit from the City Forester or the Shade Tree Advisory Committee. Otherwise, people will cut trees and say it was for safety reasons, even if it really wasn't. LANDSCAPE PLAN. 1. How will areas shown on the landscape plan as having trees, but which are slated for bulldozing, remain treed? Will new ones be planted? If so, what species? 3 2. The new landscape plan does not show as much treed area as the one given prelim. approval. The biggest deficits are in lots 1, 13 -17, the cul de sacs, the lower portion of the upper cul de sac, and the area south of the old house foundation. While trees would, if the site were left vacant, seed into some of these areas, it is unlikely that they'll have much chance to do so, with so many people on the site. Replacement trees should be planted. 3. My feeling is that the new landscape plan and the new set -aside plan do not measure up to the requirement that they be "substantially" the same as what you approved March 24, nor do they provide the protection to the environment that the Board's approval was contingent upon. 4. I am very relieved that Jerry was able to get Bob Wesley out to the site. He's the only person I know of in Ithaca who knows enough to give me confidence that the inspection was adequate. My thanks go to Jerry in track- ing Bob down - -he's not easy to get hold of! ROOT SYSTEMS OF TREES: 1. Could you check again with Nina Bassuk about the depth to which soil can safely be placed over the root systems of trees? Bob Wesley told me that a good rule of thumb is 2". (And no disturbance of the soil to a depth greater than 2 ".) I'm particulary concerned about the red mulberry, but the site has many other trees that could be damaged if too much soil is put over the root system. 2. Construction fencing and tree guards should be placed at least as far out from trees as their drip lines. (The roots actually extend even farther than this.) CHANGES IN DRAINAGE IN GULLIES: A question: could someone find out what effect the changes in drainage in the gullies might have on the plants in the gullies, particularly the scarce ones found by Bob Wesley? With drainage to the gullies being shunted into a storm drain, could this create too dry a situation for these plants? SILTATION CONTROL MEASURES, CONSTRUCTION FENCING, ETC.: These should be in place prior to construction, and they should be maintained in working order throughout construction. Memo to: P &D Dept. DPW Bldg. Dept. From: IL PC Betsy Darlington, Cq Re: EAF subco C Chair Date: mmittee for niid ✓une to June 9, 1992 mid -Sept. The CAC's EAF subcommittee for mid -June to mid-Sept. Peter McDonald Rob Shapiro Will be Betsy Darlington Please send copies of EAF's to each of us. Thanks! ,,A Memo to: Chuck Guttman or Pat Kennedy From: Betsy Darlington and the Conservation Advisory Council Date: June 9, 1992 Re: Lead paint removal brochure Cc: CAC members For over a year, Lew Durland and the CAC have been working on a brochure to inform the public about the risks associated with the removal of exterior lead -based paint. It has been circulated to numerous health and environmental professionals who contributed many worthwhile suggestions and pieces of information. (I'll send you the list I'm getting from Lew Durland of people who have reviewed it.) Now we are "ready to go," with printing it up and making it available in paint stores and other places, and we need to know what approvals we need, if any, from the City or you before going ahead. In particular, there probably should be some sort of disclaimer at the end, and we need your advice on what this should say. I'm enclosing the draft that we hope is the final one. It carefully avoids stating that any method is really safe, though wet scraping is described as "relatively safe." Removal methods are described, along with precautionary statements regarding using them. We had hoped to have this ready for distribution a couple of months ago, but then information we wanted to incorporate came in from the State, and things got delayed. We would like to move as quickly as possible, before this painting season is over. Is that possible for you? Thanks for your help! CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL June 9, 1992 John Andersson Tompkins County Health Dept. Dear John: �� AA TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 The City's CAC and Lew Durland have been working for over a year on a brochure to inform the public about the risks associated with removing exterior lead -based paint. It incorporates numerous suggestions gathered from a number of experts in the field. We are now ready to go with it, and wonder if you have any final suggestions. We were sorry that your overloaded schedule didn't allow you the time to make suggestions on an earlier draft. Thanks for any help you can give us, and if we don't hear from you by June 25, we'll assume it looks ok to you. The City gave us a $300 budget for printing costs this year, which we intend to spend on this project. However, we have no idea how much it will actually cost, and I suspect this will not go very far. Is there any chance of getting some money from your dept. to help with this? Thanks! Sincerely, _&3s-k Betsy Darlington. CAC Chair Encl: 6/7/92 draft of "Guide to Handling Lead -Based Exterior Paint" An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" � Wei Memo to: P &D Committee Doug Foster Cc: P &D Board CAC Re: Substitute land for Inlet Island park land conversion Date: June 9, 1992 From: Betsy Darlington and the Conservation Advisory Council � ;> Thanks for your memo of June 2, Doug. At our CAC meeting last night we discussed the three recommended choices and felt that the first and third were far preferable to the second one. (The vote was unanimous.) If both the first and third could be acquired, so much the better. Both seem to meet with long -term goals that have been expressed for some time by many people. The one suggestion we have is that the third choice be made longer and narrower. This would provide a treed buffer over a greater distance between the bike - trail -to -be and any future development, and would also help retain some of the nice view of that area from the Inlet, Floral Ave., and West Hill. The CAC did not discuss any other possible choices than the three in your memo. Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Titus Towers - -Lew Durland Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Shapiro, Wertis, Darlington) Re: Titus Towers: site plan review for new parking lot, already nearly finished Date: June 12, 1992 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Suggestions: 1. Trees that have been removed and those that are likely to die from probable root damage from laying of the electric line and other root damage should be replaced. 2. Tree island in middle of lot, to keep it cooler, reduce "urban heat sink" effect, reduce air pollution and odors, absorb noise, and improve appearance. This could run either parallel or perpendicular to the long dimension of the lot. 3. Although the large, unsightly dirt pile south of the lot is not part of this project, it should be moved, both to protect the trees over whose roots it has been placed and to improve the appearance of the site. Comments on the EAF: Part 1: .R A-3 was left blank. In itemized list, what is area beyond the parking lot itself that's included in the project area. A -11: (use of area for open space or recreation) -- probably Yes B -3: (vegetation removal): also trees Part 2: #1: (Physical change to site) and #10: is project size more than 1/2 ac.? #6: (Effect on surface or groundwater): Yes. (Creation of drainage swale, small increase in runoff and pollutants. Grassy Swale should help filter out latter.) #16: (Noise, odors, glare, etc.): More cars = more of all these. (Trees will help.) Memo co: planning Board and Dept. sc" enter p Cc: Common °o,incil and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. From: City Attorney Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommi Wertis) ttee (Sha iro Re: Sciencenter plans p g Darlington, Date: June 12 1992 Recommendation: Negative declaration Suggestions: (no significant impact) 1 • Include some native s program). Nina Bassnk pecles in the landscape plan consulted. and Shade Tree Advisory (an d incorporate into ry Council, or Cornell Plantations, antations, might be 2. Plant some "heavy area, to provide shade (etc.) drinkers pe.g. cottonwoods or willoNS__ou tc.) and help with drainage tside the science park 3• Plant trees in sink effect " and around the parking lot, to keep lessen into educational pollutants and noise the lot cooler, lessen " program.) , and improve appearance. urban heat (Incorporate this 4. Include a recycling area. 5• Keep catch basins cleaned from the parking lot, etc. goes. out' and incorporate into program a lessen on where runoff We're glad to hear that very energy efficient materials will be used. C omments on EAF: Site is very near Cascadilla Creek 2• Depth to water and this should le shown in the EAF. though this isn't clear, table is unclear: 5 -7 feet in Part 3 , since it s checked in col. l . 1, less than 3 ft. in part 2 ( #1 Part 2 (##S): (effect on Casc. ) in runoff and additional Cr.): check in col 1: 4. #8 and 12 pollutants (from cars) small to mod. impact from increase DRAFT RESOLUTION FROM CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TO BPW RE BIKES IN NATURAL AREAS July, 1992 WHEREAS bicycles on trails in natural areas can inflict considerable damage to the trails themselves and to vegetation; therefore, be it RESOLVED that the BPW erect signs at various entrances to the Six -Mile Creek Wildflower Preserve and any other sensitive areas that may be identified by the BPW or other City committees, prohibiting bicycles and other vehicles. Suggestion for signage: bicycle symbol with line through it, the words, "No Bicycles," and brief explanation of the reason for the prohibition (e.g. "to prevent erosion of trails and damage to sensitive plants"). Note: signs that simply ban vehicles are often interpreted to mean motorized vehicles; many people think bicycles aren't "vehicles." �1 `-°f � Memo to: Marion Erlichson (intern) Planning Board, Planning Committee From: Conservation Advisory Council Topic: Comments on Cluster Ordinance Date: July 14, 1992 At our June meeting, we heard from a Planning Board member of his concerns with the current wording of the City's cluster ordinance. We also feel that the ordinance has some problems (often simply in interpretation) most or all of which became apparent during the review for the West Inlet project. As time goes on , we may have further concerns to raise with you. But, for now, we hope that you will be able to address the ones listed below as you work on revisions: 1. Number of units permitted.- Our concern is that the number of units proposed for the cluster subdivision be compared to the actual number of units that would be approved for the site in question under standard subdivision. In fact, this seems to be addressed in para. B4 of the ordinance: "The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a cluster subdivision shall not exceed the number of dwelling units that would be permitted on the site in a conventional subdivision under the conventional zoning regulations for the zoning district in which the cluster subdivision is proposed, subject to all applicable development regulations applying to the property in question, plus any other restriction which the Board of Planning and Development has the authority to impose pursuant to Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code. " (Our italics.) In other words, the Board must realistically look at the specific site and determine how many units it would approve for a standard subdivision including any restrictions that would be imposed by Site Plan Review, etc. It seems that this was not done in the Weisburd case: the developer simply laid down a grid over the property and the number of houses that fit was the number used for comparison purposes. 2. Unbuildable areas: this needs to be clearly defined. How steep a slope will be considered "unbuildable "? What does "areas not normally appropriate for building construction" mean? Severely disturbed areas that will not be reclaimed should be considered "unbuildable." Cut - and -fill areas, e.g. along roads, should be considered "unbuildable." Easements (e.g. for flood control purposes or utility lines) held by other parties which give them the right to severely disturb the area covered by the easement should be considered "unbuildable." 3. Set-asides: Purposes to be served by the set -aside should be spelled out. Must some of it be usable space, e.g. for kids to play? If so, what percentage? And define "usable." (Sensitive areas within the set - asides that could be damaged or destroyed by a lot of use should not be included in the portion meant to be "usable.") When a site includes sensitive natural areas, the set -aside should include enough play area for kids so that they do not have only these vulnerable areas to play in. While set - asides could (and should) include unbuildable portions of the site, such areas should not "count" in the calculation if they are "unbuildable." (That is, eliminate the 50% rule.) Portions of individual lots should not be considered "set- aside" unless such portions may be used by any resident of the subdivision, and this must be stated in the deeds. Since, in most cases, developers will find this unworkable, we feel that ownership must either be communal ownership by the residents of the subdivision (e.g. a homeowners' association) or by the City or by a non - profit organization. 4. Buffers: if a buffer is to be provided around the subdivision, it should be decided early in the process what sort of buffer this will be (trees, shrubs, lawn ?) and how it will be protected over the long term. 5. Environmental review: All members of the Planning Board should be aware of proper review processes under SEQR. In particular, any social benefits of the proposed project must not be taken into account until after the initial environmental assessment has been completed and a positive or negative declaration issued. Social benefits (e.g. affordable housing) may be weighed against potential environmental impacts during the DEIS phase of the review, and not before. Moreover, while a happy outcome of clustering can be more affordable housing, the major reason for clustering is to protect open space (fields, woods, wetlands, etc.). Perhaps this needs greater emphasis in the ordinance. Memo to: Marion Erlichson (intern) Planning Board, Planning Committee From: Conservation Advisory Council Topic: Comments on Cluster Ordinance Date: July 14, 1992 At our June meeting, we heard from a Planning Board member of his concerns with the current wording of the City's cluster ordinance. We also feel that the ordinance has some problems (often simply in interpretation) most or all of which became apparent during the review for the West Inlet project. As time goes on-, we may have further concerns to raise with you. But, for now, we hope that you will be able to address the ones listed below as you work on revisions: 1. Number of units permitted., Our concern is that the number of units proposed for the cluster subdivision be compared to the actual number of units that would be approved for the site in question under standard subdivision. In fact, this seems to be addressed in para. B4 of the ordinance: "The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a cluster subdivision shall not exceed the number of dwelling units that would be permitted on the site in a conventional subdivision under the conventional zoning regulations for the zoning district in which the cluster subdivision is proposed, subject to all applicable development regulations applying to the property in question, plus any other restriction which the Board of Planning and Development has the authority to impose pursuant to Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code. " (Our italics.) In other words, the Board must realistically look at the specific site and determine how many units it would approve for a standard subdivision including any restrictions that would be imposed by Site Plan Review, etc. It seems that this was not done in the Weisburd case: the developer simply laid down a grid over the property and the number of houses that fit was the number used for comparison purposes. 2. Unbuildable areas: this needs to be clearly defined. How steep a slope will be considered "unbuildable "? What does "areas not normally appropriate for building construction" mean? Severely disturbed areas that will not be reclaimed should be considered " unbuildable." Cut - and -fill areas, e.g. along roads, should be considered "unbuildable." Easements (e.g. for flood control purposes or utility lines) held by other parties which give them the right to severely disturb the area covered by the easement should be considered " unbuildable." 3. Set - asides: Purposes to be served by the set -aside should be spelled out. Must some of it be usable space, e.g. for kids to play? If so, what percentage? And define "usable." (Sensitive areas within the set - asides that could be damaged or destroyed by a lot of use should not be included in the portion meant to be "usable.") When a site includes sensitive natural areas, the set -aside should include enough play area for kids so that they do not have only these vulnerable areas to play in. While set - asides could (and should) include unbuildable portions of the site, such areas should not "count" in the calculation if they are " unbuildable." (That is, eliminate the 50% rule.) Portions of individual lots should not be considered "set- aside" unless such portions may be used by any resident of the subdivision, and this must be stated in the deeds. Since, in most cases, developers will find this unworkable, we feel that ownership must either be communal ownership by the residents of the subdivision (e.g. a homeowners' association) or by the City or by a non - profit organization. 4. Buffers: if a buffer is to be provided around the subdivision, it should be decided early in the process what sort of buffer this will be (trees, shrubs, lawn ?) and how it will be protected over the long term. 5. Environmental review: All members of the Planning Board should be aware of proper review processes under SEQR. In particular, any social benefits of the proposed project must not be taken into account until after the initial environmental assessment has been completed and a positive or negative declaration issued. Social benefits (e.g. affordable housing) may be weighed against potential environmental impacts during the DEIS phase of the review, and not before. Moreover, while a happy outcome of clustering can be more affordable housing, the major reason for clustering is to protect open space (fields, woods, wetlands, etc.). Perhaps this needs greater emphasis in the ordinance. W Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Common Council and Mayor Building Dept. Various Applicants Cc: CAC members BPW, DPW City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (McDonald, Shapiro, Darlington) Re: VANOUS EAF's, As Lis= BELOW Date: July 16, 1992 1. East Hill Co-op subdiv. (to separate small garage from larger property) 2. 507 -509 Cliff St. subdiv. (so house can be moved to new lot) 3. West Ave. /Edgemoor Land parking lot (23 cars where currently an abandoned bldg.) Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) 4. Satellite dish zoning change: Recommendation: Positive declaration. Comment: We agree with Jon Meigs's assessment of the potential for significant visual impacts. Neighbors need to have an opportunity to object. If there is no objection, and adequate screening is, or will be, provided, deciding on a variance for such projects should not consume an inordinate amount of the BZA's time. 5. Change in zoning re variances for nonconforming structures: Recommendation: Neg. dec. Comment: This appears to effectively make nonconforming structures conforming, and what is now permitted without a variance for conforming structures would be permitted for nonconforming ones as well. What is meant by permitted occupancy? Permitted by the zoning? Shouldn't it say "existing" occupancy? This should be clarified. 6. Inlet Island land use plan: Recommendation: Neg. dec. Comments: a. Our single biggest concern is that there be controls over the appearance of any future development. Changing the zoning before alienating the land, so that warehousing would not be permitted and buildings could not exceed, perhaps, 35 feet would help. But such changes would not prevent unsightly development. Could the Island be declared a special resource zone of some sort, and be subject to more stringent review (as in historic districts)? b. Another concern is with the need for protecting the banks from further erosion. In addition to stabilizing the banks, is there any way to slow down the boats that accompany the shells? Their wake is said to cause most of the problems. The report says as much as 8 feet has been lost in places. If nothing is done, the lovely walk proposed in the plan will be washed out into the lake before too many years. 7. Giles St. -- single - family house within 100' of Six -Mile Cr. rim: Recommendation: neg. dec. (no significant impact) Comments: a. Applicant and Building Dept. have addressed our biggest concern with this steep site: erosion causing mud on Giles St. and siltation of 6 -Mi. Creek and degradation of the site itself. During construction, silt fences and hay bales should be maintained rigorously; the road checked daily for any problems that need remediation; and hay bales placed in the small stream, if water will run into it from the site. b. Another concern has to do with possible widening of the driveway. This is likely to cause sufficient damage to the roots of the trees that these will be lost, with subsequent loss of screening from the road and increased erosion of the steep slope adjacent to the driveway. The driveway cut that's been made into the steep bank may already have damaged tree roots. c. Although no rarities were noted, the site does have some nice spring wildflower species and ferns. We recommend that care be taken during construction to protect as much of this as possible. d. We are glad that this beautiful site will remain largely wooded. Betsy Darlington 204 Fairmount Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Betsy, �- C, I L. H. BAILEY HORTORIUM 462 MANN LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, NEW YORK 14853 -4301 TELEPHONE: 607- 255 -2131 FAX: 607- 255 -7979 Herbarium: 255 -7978, -7981 16 July 1992 This is a follow -up to our field excursion to Coy Glen and environs with F. Robert Wesley on 25 May 1992. At that time we observed partly grown larvae of butterflies in the genus Asterocampa. I took a few home to rear, in order to learn their identities. As you may recall, there were two sets of larvae, one quite large and one con- siderably smaller. I suspected these.to be two species, because of the consistency of their size and presence throughout the areas we investigated. The larger cater- pillar pupated on 31 May, and produced an adult Hackberry Butterfly (Asterocampa celtis) on 6 June, thus proving that this species is a permanent reproducing resident in Ithaca. The smaller larvae continued feeding slowly through early July, finally forming a chrysalis on 6 July, and an adult Tawny Emperor Butterfly (Asterocampa clyton) emerged from -this on 15 July. Shapiro's records for Ithaca of A. cl ton are from 15 -28 July (before 1974), so my observations are in perfect synchrony with the historical information. Nearby records (Upper Lisle, and south of Syracuse) for the other species (A. celtis) are in early- to mid -June, so my record is also as would be expected here. I am very happy to have documented A. celtis at Ithaca. We are so fortunate to have these two species with us. Sincerely, obert Dirig Assistant Curator /Curator of Lichens BH /CUP Herbaria DIVISION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES A STATUTORY COLLEGE OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY RESOLUTION FROM CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TO BPW RE BIKES IN NATURAL AREAS July, 1992 WHEREAS bicycles on trails in natural areas can inflict considerable damage to the trails themselves and to vegetation; therefore, be it RESOLVED that the BPW erect signs at various entrances to the Six -Mile Creek Wildflower Preserve and any other sensitive areas that may be identified by the BPW or other City committees, prohibiting bicycles and other vehicles. Suggestion for signage: bicycle symbol with line through it, the words, "No Bicycles," and brief explanation of the reason for the prohibition (e.g. "to prevent erosion of trails and damage to sensitive plants "). Note: signs that simply ban vehicles are often interpreted to mean mot�ed vehicles; many people think bicycles aren't "vehicles." 74 SS4 �1 -71,11 13 lqq L Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. \ Applicant �Fred-T�.o.s i4ttec,l Cc: CAC members From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Re: Titus Towers storage building Date: July 22, 1992 The application for this proposal was received by the Planning Dept. after our EAF subcommittee meeting on July 16. The EAF has not yet been completed, but the applicant would like to move forward at the next Planning Board meeting on July 27. Since our subcommittee is unable to have a special meeting prior to July 27th, I agreed to give you my own personal comments, based on the drawings and Part I of the EAF which I rec'd today. I want to emphasize that these are my comments, not those of the subcommittee. The others on the committee may have additional comments or may disagree with mine. We will be meeting on August 13 to formally review the proposal. (7:30, 3rd floor conference rm.) The applicant is welcome to attend. 1. On the positive side, 9 trees will be planted to replace 6 that would be removed, and a number of shrubs are shown as well. However, given the large, warehouse -like appearance of the structure, I would suggest many more trees and shrubs, in order to hide what otherwise could be an eyesore. One might hope that a governmental agency would set an example and construct something with a bit more aesthetic appeal. Among other considerations, a City Park is adjacent to the site. Presumably, the choice of this design was dictated by a limited budget, but can't an attractive building be built at reasonable cost? Since, relatively speaking, trees and shrubs are not terribly expensive, how about lots more of them, all around the building (including the west and south sides). Also, the less obtrusive it can be by virtue of its color, etc., the better. (Best of all, however, would be designing an attractive building.) 2. Are white spruces tolerant of wet conditions such as those at this site? Perhaps Dan Schmohe or Nina Bassuk could give advice on this. Also, could some "heavy drinking" species (cottonwood, willow, etc.) be included in the landscape plan? These would help with drainage as well as provide rapid screening of the building. Again, Nina and Dan's advice would be helpful. 3. What provisions will there be in the building's design to prevent the building from displacing a lot of water during a flood (it's in the 100 -year flood zone)? What effect will it have on the park and on drainage in the adjacent drainage system? 4. Part I of the EAF leaves unanswered the question about depth of water table and bedrock. Bedrock is probably very far down, but the water table is quite high in nearby areas of the City, and may be at this location as well. This information should be provided. Also in Part I: As noted in the margin by the Planning Dept., #14 (d) (page 4) should be answered. Since our committee hasn't yet reviewed the proposal, I'm not sure I should even comment on whether or not this should be given a neg. or pos. dec., but my inclination is to suggest a neg. dec., provided that far more vegetation be planted all around the building in order to hide it from view to the maximum extent possible, and provided adequate measures are taken to prevent drainage problems in adjacent areas. An additional provision might be redesigning the building. Memo to: Common Council Thys Van Cort Copies: CAC members Building Commissioner DPW & BPW From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair ^ lls Re: Proposed Excavation and Fill Ordinance Date: July 26, 1992 I discussed the proposed ordinance with Paul Salon, the CAC member with the most experience with drainage, soil erosion, etc. (he works for SCS). We have two suggestions for improvement: 1. Under Section 179 -14, add the requirement that any soil that would be left bare for this long (6 months to 2 years) must be seeded or covered with hay or other material to prevent erosion. The 6 -month figure in the ordinance was probably chosen since it wouldn't do much good to seed the soil down until the weather was suitable. Seeding should be done as soon as successful revegetation is possible. Perhaps this could be listed specifi- cally as one of the things the Building Commissioner can require when issuing a permit (Section 179 -13 (C) and Section 179 -22). E.g.: "The Building Commissioner may impose such conditions upon the applicant as...., which may include rapid stabilization of the soil by seeding or other means at any stage during the project, ... " The phrase currently in (C), "standards for performance," may be sufficient, but seems to be preempted by the wording of Section 179 -14. 2. If topsoil is to be stripped (e.g. as part of some development pro- ject), the ordinance should require that it be stockpiled on -site, and used where ever it is needed on the site, before any excess is sold. (It is not uncommon for developers to strip off and sell the topsoil, build their structures, then leave. The subsoil that's left is difficult to grow anything in, even grass.) Provision for this would be in both Articles II and III. Regarding the EAF: Since the City doesn't have an ordinance regulating fill and excavation, this ordinance clearly could have only a beneficial effect, and the three of us on the EAF subcommittee agree with Thys Van Cort that a formal review of the EAF by the CAC should not be needed. The other two members (Peter McDonald and Rob Shapiro) have approved this memo. TO: Board of Public Works FROM: Cathy Emilian DATE: August 3, 1992 At our last Conservation Advisory Council meeting we discussed the street hierarchy concept that recently has been discussed by the Board of Public Works. The concerns of the residents that were voiced are understandable as the changing of traffic patterns can dramatically effect the quality of life in affected neighborhoods. Many of the suggestions that concerned citizens made as alternatives to relieve traffic problems seemed worth looking into, such as putting back the Plain Street Bridge, synchronizing traffic lights, improving the bus system, and improving the enforcement of speed limits. It also seems reasonable to have a committee or task force to concentrate on traffic patterns that included individuals from highly trafficked (and other) neighborhoods. Decisions that involve the change in traffic patterns need to be derived from somewhere. If the hierarchy plan is not the official plan, then it seems credent that some plan be devised. The input of individuals involved could help prevent such a negative outcry as was apparent when the hierarchy plan and the Hudson Street plan were instituted without active resident involvement. cc: Common Council CAC members r—(- -C( Memo to: John Schroeder, Chair of P &D Committee Doug Foster Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members From: Betsy Darlington, Chair, Conservation Advisory Council TS Re: Substitute lands for Inlet Island alienation Date: August 11, 1992 Acting on your request for additional ideas for substitute lands for Inlet Island parcels, last night the CAC came up wo ideas: . First, we suggest that the strip which has already been recommended by the Inlet Island committee, along the southerly end of the Flood Control Channel, be lengthened to the north and widened to the east to encompass as much of that undeveloped land as possible. This would serve several purposes, but in particular would help retain the beauty of the adjacent waterway and enhance the bikeway- to -be. We also suggest purchase of as much as possible of the 20 -acre parcel immediately to the north of the West Inlet subdivision. This is currently for sale. Given that the W. Inlet project has no suitable areas for group play and that a park somewhere in that general area has been recommended by others (including the West Hill Master Plan?) and that large numbers of children already are living in the vicinity (Polygon, West Village), a large park at this location would be a real asset for West Hill - -a section of the City that has little in the way of easily accessible parks. This parcel includes some very nice woodland as well as a large cleared area that has reached a brushy stage of succession. My own recollection is that the upper portion of the site is not particularly steep, and perhaps part of it could be used for a playground. Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Common Council Thomas Associates; Ithaca Housing Authority James Arnold and Ronald & Margaret Amici Cc: CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (McDonald, Shapiro, Darlington) Date: August 13, 1992 Note: Items #1 an 2 are for Planning Board; Item #3 is for Common Council 1. Re: Titus Towers storage building (40'x 60) Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Suggestions: Alton Ainslie and Patricia Page from Thomas Associates, and Charles. Schweikert from Ithaca Housing Authority were present to explain the project and show us the drawings. Following Trish Page's conversations with Dan Schmohe and Linda Tsang, some changes are being made in the landscaping. She will be consulting with them further on this. Because of budget constraints imposed by HUD, this building leaves much to be desired, aesthetically. Therefore, we feel that it is especially important to provide ample screening with trees, and to have the building's color be a neutral, unobtrusive color, preferably tan or brown. We would encourage planting of trees that will be of various sizes at maturity- -e.g. the shadbush and hawthorn that are proposed plus some large species such as cottonwood, willow, ash, red maple. In addition, rather than completely eliminating the evergreens shown on the earlier plan, we recommend keeping a few evergreens, scattered throughout the deciduous groupings, to provide screening of the building during the winter months. We are glad to hear that they now plan to plant trees on the west side of the building. That side also will be very visible from the adjacent park. 2. Re: Subdivision of one lot into two, at 313 Dey St., to create two house lots Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) 3. Re: Change in CEQR wording (amending Section 176 -12 regarding likelihood of an EIS being required for Type I actions) Recommendation: Negative declaration Memo to: Planning Board and Dept Common Council and Mayor William Kohm Building Dept. Cc: CAC members BPW, DPW City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Wertis, Shapiro, Darlington) Re: Two EAF'S, AS LISTED BELOW Date: Sept. 10, 1992 1. For Planning Board's attention: MINOR SUBDIV. —KOHM (to separate a lot with two houses into two lots, 1006 N. Cayuga St.) Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Question # 8 on first page of EAF needs to be answered (does change comply with zoning ?). 2. For Common Council's attention: SATELLITE DISH ZONING CHANGE: Recommendation: Positive declaration, as was our recommendation in July. Comment: We agree with Jon Meigs's original assessment - -back in July --of the potential for significant visual impacts. Neighbors need to have an opportunity to object. If there is no objection, and adequate screening is, or will be, provided, deciding on a variance for such projects should not consume an inordinate amount of the BZA's time. Do we really want to enable every yard to have a satellite dish sitting in it, without any opportunity to review the situation? Why is this review being done over again? On the EAF Short Form, at the least, # 8 should be checked (effect on visual character of the community). Memo to: Planning Board Linda Tsang From: Betsy Darlington 7S?,,.1 Date: Sept. 21, 1992 Re: Comments on: Site Plan Review Ordinance revisions The Conservation Advisory Council hasn't discussed the July 28 memo from Linda Tsang, so these comments are my own. They are in addition to July 14/92 comments submitted by the CAC on the Cluster Ordinance. Will revisions to the Cluster Ord. be included in the revisions to the Site Plan ord.? The following refer to items in Linda's memo of July 28/92: Page 2, 39.3, A -4: 1000 s.f. of new construction, or including existing structures? Page 3, 39.3, #'s 1 -3: These thresholds seem high. If they're going to be this high, then I'd suggest keeping CAC review of EAF's instead of remov- ing it, as recommended in "D" on page 2. Also - -do the square footages listed include existing square footage or just new footage? This should be made clear in the revision. Page 3, 39.4, D: I realize the object is to streamline things for the appli- cant, but doesn't removing the BZA from the loop mean removing an important safeguard for the public (esp. the immediate neighborhood)? Page 5, #4: 10 days seems very short. What if a neighbor is away? How about sending immediate neighbors written notices? Memo to: Building Commissioner, Rick Eckstrom Applicants: Thomas Amici and Edward Mazza Cc: City Attorney, Chuck Guttman Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (John Wertis, Rob Shapiro, Betsy Darlington) Re: EAF for 116 -118 Ferris Place: filling of portion of Six -Mile Creek gorge for parking lot /yard expansion, behind rooming house Date: Oct. 16, 1992 Recommendation: Positive Declaration (potential for significant environmental impact). In addition, we feel that the applicants should be required to remove the material (large chunks of concrete, etc.) that has already been dumped over the bank, in violation of the the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (portion dealing with gorges). Moreover, this material, if it isn't already partly on City -owned land, is likely to slide onto City land in the future, given the extreme steepness of the gorge wall. Comments: We are unclear how the applicants intend to perform this operation. It appears that in order to enlarge the small yard behind the house, a portion of the gorge itself would have to be filled with countless loads of fill, not only destroying a portion of the gorge and endangering anyone who happened to be below, but also creating a potentially dangerous parking area on top. Siltation of the creek, both during and after construction, and degradation from material sliding down the bank could have a significant impact on fish and other wildlife. In addition to these potentially significant impacts, we feel that the aesthetic impact, at least during the many leafless months of the year, would be significant. The adjacent Columbia St. foot bridge is heavily travelled, as are Giles St. across the gorge and trails down in the gorge. EAF comments: Part I, filled out by the applicants, has numerous omissions and errors - -too many to itemize. Part H. We largely agree with Mr. Eckstrom's analysis, but would suggest the following changes: Page 3, #5: (Impact on body of water): 3rd threshold (Six -Mile Creek), potential large impact. Page 5, #10: (Effect on species): Yes. 1st threshold (impact on fish or wildlife), pot. lg. impact. Page 6, #11: (Impact on views, etc.): 1st threshold (incompatible visual effect), pot. Ig. impact. 2nd threshold (easily visible): we'd put check in 2nd column (pot. Ig. impact). Page 7, #14: (Effect on transportation): Other impacts: small to mod. impact on # of cars on Ferris Pl. (As more off - street parking is provided, the spots on the street that have been vacated will be filled with parking- spot- hungry commuters, thus leading to a net increase in cars on the street. Effect should be small since # of spots to be added to existing parking lot would probably be small (though # was not provided in EAF). Page 9, #17: (Safety): we'd move check to pot. lg. impact (under "other impacts- -risk of sliding materials into gorge below "). #18: (Effect on neighborhood character): 5th threshold (would set important precedent for future projects): potential large impact. Part III: Two suggestions: 1) Last sentence of 3rd para.: "...impact on public safety during and after construction from risk of materials sliding into the gorge." 2) 5th para.: we think that the impact on views and visual character of neighbor- hood would be large. Memo to: Planning Board From: Betsy Darlington ,S � Date: Oct. 26, 1992 t Re: Proposed changes in Site Plan Review Ordinance The Conservation Advisory Council has not discussed this, so the follow- ing comments are my own. I'm hoping to get CAC's ideas at our next meeting (Nov. 9). 1. One of your most important functions for the community is site plan review. I feel very uneasy about giving the Director of the Planning Dept. (whoever that might be) the power to rule on "projects of limited scope," as proposed in #276.3 (B) (on page 3 of 10/14/92 draft). I also am uneasy about the EAF's for these projects by- passing comment from the CAC. For one thing, the thresholds are high. A 6499 s.f. modification or expansion of a residential structure is very large -- equal, in fact, to 3 to 4 comfort- ably sized single - family homes. Not a "project of limited scope." Nor are the other thresholds. Suggestions, if you decide to propose this change to Common Council (which I obviously hope you won't!): a) Modify it so that: * Such reviews would be performed by your Codes Committee; * There would be a notification process for all Board members and a 10-day waiting period during which any Board member could object to the project by- passing the full Board. Upon such an objection, the project would have to go through normal Board review processes. b) Keep CAC comment as part of the review process. If CAC recommends a positive declaration, project would go to Board for normal SPR. c) Lower the thresholds, in any event. Your job is not to serve the developers. It's to protect the public interest. The fact that, if neighbors raise objections, normal Board review would follow, is not good enough. Some neighbors are too timid or intimidated or old or otherwise unwilling /unable to register their opinions. (Maybe even out -of- town.) I understand your desire to free up your time - -for example, to give more time for "planning." SPR is planning. If you turn over so much discretion to one staff person, you may find you'll need even more time to do that planning. 2. #276.4 (C) (Area Variances): I'm not sure that it's a good idea to take the BZA out of the loop. BZA provides an important check - and - balance. 3. #276.10 (Expiration of Approval...): Is two years a change? It seems like a long time. If it has been 1 year, I'd propose keeping it that way. Tompkins County ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Biggs Building A, 301 Dates Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274 - 5360 EMC RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE CITY OF ITHACA CAC'S LEAD -BASED PAINT BROCHURE Whereas, exterior lead -based paint still poses a considerable environmental health threat to a portion of the youth population in Tompkins County and New York State; Whereas, the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council has responded to this environmental health threat with a timely, well - researched document which describes safe methods of handling the removal of exterior lead -based paint; Therefore, be it resolved that the members of the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council recognize the successful efforts of the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council in preparing Your Guide to Handling Lead -Based Exterior Paint. Passed by the EMC at their 10/27/92 General meeting. 21 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions A �� Recycled paper PRESS RELEASE November 10, 1992 The City of Ithaca's Conservation Advisory Council recently re- ceived recognition from the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council for the CAC's booklet on managing lead -based exterior paint. Your Guide to Handling Lead -Based Exterior Paint, written by Lew Dur- land and the CAC, was issued this summer by the CAC. It is available, at no charge, at paint and home maintenance stores, Cooperative Extension, Southside Community Center, City Hall, and other places. Attachments Contact: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair: 273 -0707 Mary Smith, EMC Coordinator: 274 -5361 Memo to: Planning Board and Dept Various applicants, as noted Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Wertis, Shapiro, Darlington) Date: Nov. 12, 1992 1. Re: EAF for minor subdivision at 105 Cherry St. (lot line change) Applicant: Neil Wallace Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) 2. Re: EAF for minor subdivision at 429 -31 Cliff St. (lot line change) Applicant: Daniel Liguori and INNS Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) 3. Re: EAF for Taco Bell development between Elmira Rd. and Rt. 13, next to bank Applicant: Taco Bell Corp. Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Comments: 1. We're glad to see that the large willows are to be saved. Tree guards, placed out at least as far as the drip line of the branches, should be provided so the roots will not be damaged. Shade Tree Advisory Council or City Forester could advise on proper placement. We also are glad to see that a fair amount of landscaping is to be provided, including several large tree species. 2. Is there any possibility of Taco Bell using reusable dishware and utensils - -or perhaps giving customers a discount for bringing their own? The amount of solid waste from fast -food establishments (often disposed of from car windows) should be of concern to everyone. 3. We recommend catch - basins /grease traps for the parking lot drains. While Drawing A1B shows one grease trap, the flow arrows on drawing A1C appear to indicate that water would flow away from the grease trap. What measures will be taken to prevent runoff from entering Rt. 13 -- already a problem during heavy rains? 4. On map AIC, Note #1 says that all trees over 6" in diameter, stumps, and other debris will be "buried in the spoil area." Where is the spoil area? What would be included under "other debris "? We trust this refers to some off -site landfill area. We had trouble deciphering the drawings. E.g. where would cars enter and exit? And drainage system is obscure. MEMORANDUM To: Kenneth Vineburg, Chairperson, Board of Zoning Appeals; and Charles Guttman, City Attorney From: Daniel Hoffman, Common Council; Richard Booth, Common Council; and Betsy Darlington, Chairperson, Conservation Advisory Council Re: Environmental Review for Thorntree Hill Associates' Proposed Commercial Project Within FW -1 Zone Date: December 7, 1992 .In submitting this memorandum, we recognize and strongly support the vitally important role played by the Board of Zoning Appeals. We are not in any way attempting to undermine that role. Nevertheless, information we have received indicates a serious concern has arisen respecting the Board's recent decision on appeal 2153. This information requires us to state our views to the Board. Based on this information it is our understanding: that on November 9, 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a use variance to Thorntree Hill Associates for a proposed commercial development to be located along Elmira Road and partially in a zone designated FW -1 (Floodway) by the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance; that the proposed development would involve the construction of a 116,097 square foot store with suitable parking on approximately 13.2 acres of land, part of which is located in the FW -1 zone; and that the Board of Zoning Appeals conducted no environmental review of this proposed development pursuant to the City of Ithaca's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. We believe that the Board of Zoning Appeals was required by law 1 to consider the environmental impacts of this proposed development, by conducting an environmental review as provided for in the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, prior to the granting of this variance. Our conclusion in this regard is based on 1) the fact that the proposed development is clearly a Type I action under that ordinance, and 2) the nature and significance of the use variance decision in the City's decision - making processes regarding this project. With respect to point 1 above, the fact that this proposed project is a Type 1 action is not open to dispute. It will exceed, or is likely to exceed, several of the thresholds for defining a Type I action in the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, including but necessarily limited to the following: - §176 - 12(8)(1)(x) Any facility with more than 20,000 square feet of gross floor area. - §176- 12(B)(1)(d) Parking facilities or other facilities with an associated parking area for fifty (50) or more cars. - §176-12(B)(1)(m) Any facility, development or project which generates more than 500 vehicle trips per any eight -hour period per day. - §176 - 12(6)(1)(9) Any facility, development or project which, when complete, would generate truck traffic (three -axle or more) of more than 10 vehicles per eight -hour period per day. - §176-12(B)(4) Clear- cutting or removal of woods or vegetation other than agricultural crops from more than one -half acre. - §176- 12(B)(2) Any funding, licensing or planning activities in respect to the types of actions listed in Subsection (B)(1) of section 176 -12 which would tend to commit, entitle or permit the applicant or city to commence such action. In our opinion environmental review was unquestionably required respecting this Type 1 action before the use variance decision was 2 made. With respect to point 2 above, applicable state environmental review legislation and regulations and the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance require that environmental factors be incorporated into planning, review and decision- making processes by City of Ithaca governmental entities at the earliest possible time. The granting of a use variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals constituted the first important decision that the government of the City of Ithaca has made regarding this proposed development. The issuance of that variance changed substantially the legal rights of the affected property owners under the City's land use control laws, and that decision by the Board will substantially influence all future City decisions regarding this project. The significance of the use variance as a major policy choice in the decision - making processes regarding this project would be difficult to overstate. In our opinion it is unquestionable that environmental review should have been conducted prior to the City government's taking this important step. Failure by the Board of Zoning Appeals (or some other entity in City government) to conduct the required environmental review prior to the Board's issuance of the use variance means that environmental factors were not considered at the point in time at which they would be most useful in framing decisions by the City and the project developer. It also means that these factors are less likely to be considered by the City in the future because issuance of the use variance established important rights for the affected property owners that did not previously exist. That variance may make it much more difficult for the City to place major environmental conditions on the project or to disallow it because of environmental factors, if either of these two actions in fact becomes necessary. Among the important environmental factors not addressed prior to the Board's decision were the issues surrounding the classification of part of the proposed development site as FW -1 (Floodway). By law, the only uses permitted in a floodway zone are public and private recreation, and agriculture as an accessory use. Commercial development is not permitted in that zone, and it is clear, therefore, that the issuance of a use variance that will permit K? the proposed development in a floodway zone constituted one of the most significant policy decisions that the City will make with respect to this project. (We would also note in passing that should the boundary line of the FW -1 zone be drawn improperly on the City's zoning map, as the project's sponsors apparently claim, the issuance of a use variance is not the proper procedure for remedying that situation.) Apparently certain persons in the City government have contended that environmental review concerning this proposed development can and should be deferred to a later stage, namely the site development plan review process. Given the clear mandate in applicable state and local laws and regulations and given the significance of the variance decision to the future of the proposed project, we can see no justification whatsoever for this point of view. We recommend strongly that this position be rejected. In light of the above, we urge that the Board of Zoning Appeals, acting in concert with the Office of the City Attorney, review the legality and advisability of its action in granting a use variance to Thorntree Hill Associates, and that the Board rescind said action, if appropriate. In the interests of all potentially affected parties, we respectfully request a determination on this matter as quickly as possible. cc Board of Zoning Appeals Members Richard Eckstrom, Building Commissioner 4 RESOLUTION TO THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS FROM THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Dec. 14, 1992 At this evening's CAC meeting, the following resolution was passed unanimously: WHEREAS, according to the DEC's wildlife specialist, Roger Miner, the two (possibly 3) beavers in Six -Mile Creek between Van Atta's Dam and 30 -foot Dam, are causing only minimal damage, and the DEC will there- fore not issue a permit for the out -of- season trapping (i.e. killing) of the beavers; and WHEREAS, beavers have been in that area on and off for many years without causing a variety of problems some people fear they might cause; and WHEREAS, the beavers in that location are an important educational resource for the children of the City, and are enjoyed by large numbers of City residents of all ages; now therefore, BE IT RESOLVED that the City's Conservation Advisory Council recom- mends that the Board of Public Works not authorize the killing of the beavers in that area of the creek at this time. Memo to: Andrew Mwella, Finger Lakes State Parks Sue Poelverde Jesse Miller Commissioner Lehman, OPRHP Common Council and Mayor From: Betsy Darlington, Chair, Conservation Advisory Council Date: Dec. 14, 1992 Re: Preliminary draft of DEIS and report for Treman Marina expansion /Festival Lands development At this evening's meeting of the CAC, we discussed at length a number of the proposed changes for the Marina and Festival Lands area. We wanted to get to you our preliminary comments at the earliest possible time, and we took separate votes on a number of the elements of the plan. We undoubtedly will have further comments to send on to you after the DEIS is finished. The votes were unanimous on each point. I will list each point, below, but to summarize: * The CAC likes the ideas presented for the natural areas, with the exception of the considerable contraction of the natural and open space areas that would be necessitated by the plan as presented. * . The CAC is opposed to most of the development portions of the plan, but favors a paved walkway to the end of the new bulkhead, should such a bulkhead be approved. * The CAC does not feel that the City should transfer any more land than is necessary for a sidewalk and possibly a bulkhead. Specific elements voted on (all unanimously opposed) were as follows: 1. New road from Rt. 89; 2. New road along west side of the Marina and to the north of it; 3. Additional parking spaces at current lot (the current lot is only half full even on hot, sunny holiday weekends), as well as north of the Marina and along the new bulkhead; 4. New bathroom facilities on north side of Marina; 5. New sewage pump -out station on north side of Marina; 6. Line of trees next to new bulkhead (if more trees are planted, CAC would like to see them in the parking lots); 7. Transfer of Festival Lands to the State, except a portion just large enough to accommodate a sidewalk and possibly a bulkhead. CAC reserves judgement on having a new bulkhead. The consensus was that more information is needed to make an informed decision about this. For one thing, testing of water quality in the lake needs to be more extensive, both in number of samples, times of year when taken, and in substances tested for. Otherwise, there is no way of knowing if the lake can handle more boats. One question we have is why the space for the new bulkhead was enlarged over that shown in the 1989 proposal? Also, is there some reason that the space between the bulkhead and pier 6 can't be the same size as that between the bulkhead and pier on the other side of the Marina? In the discussion, many members spoke about the need for leaving this area undeveloped. People wishing to drive up to the lake to picnic can do so at Stewart Park and Taughannock. If these facilities were not available, then perhaps the proposed development would be needed. There was a strong sense on the council that it is undesirable to have every nice area accessible to automobiles. As the park now stands, it is usable (and used) 12 months of the year by many people who find it an oasis from pavement and cars. Variety in our state parks is desirable: undeveloped lakeshores are fully as valid a use for a park as are sites where picnickers can step out of their cars and start eating. We need both, yet the former is increasingly hard to find. OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Dr. Jerry Hersh Cottage Place Ithaca, NY 14850 CITY OF ITHACA 106 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 December 14, 1992 Dear Dr. Hersh: At our CAC meeting this evening, Judy Jones reported on two deer control meetings she attended, one given at Cornell by Mike Richmond and the other at Cooperative Extension. Richmond said that, while Ropel and Hinder aren't very effective for repelling deer, something sold at Agway really is. It is called BGR and it must be put out each month. In addition, something called "Deer Stopper" is to be licensed soon and apparently works. Interestingly, the Dept. of Ag. and Markets in Albany requires that any meat used for public consumption, such as deer meat, must be shot in the head, yet the best way to shoot a deer is through the shoulders and heart. So, having sharpshooters pick off the deer and give the venison to soup kitchens wouldn't work. (I don't know why they can't shoot them first through the shoulders and then the head!) I think it would be difficult for the public in Ithaca to accept shoot- ing the excess deer in certain neighborhoods, but maybe BGR will work for you. We think that the County Environmental Management Council is going to be discussing the matter in the near future. If so, Bara Hotchkiss, our liaison to the EMC, will report back to us on their conclusions. Good luck! Sincerely, 7.4s1 Betsy Darlington, Chair "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 Memo to: Rick Eckstrom Linda Tsang Members of the Planning Board From: Betsy Darlington '�Itkj Re: Weisburd's Floral Ave. site work problems with mud Date: Sat., Dec. 19, 1992 On Thursday, I got calls reporting that there was an enormous amount of mud running off the Weisburd site, and into Floral Ave. I called the Bldg. Dept. to report the problem, but was unable to go see it for myself. That evening I got another call, saying that the workmen had dug a small trench to divert the water and mud into the northerly stream so that the mud -laden water would stop running onto the road. Thereafter, the mud was carried directly into the stream and then to Cayuga Inlet (with potential impacts on vegetation, invertebrates, fish, etc.) At some point, the southerly stream on the site was blocked off at the upper cul-de -sac so that the water would stop going in the road from that stream, as well. It remains blocked off, and that stream's water now runs down the mud roadway. Yesterday I got yet another call about the deplorable situation at the site the day before, and learned that it had been so bad that there were people directing traffic around it. I finally was able to take a look for myself this morning. Neighbors described the scene to me, and said two large dump trucks were there on Thur., hauling away loads of mud. Although the CAC had always expected that there would be big problems with putting in a road (or anything else) on that steep site, the situation was far worse than anything I had imagined: Today, two days after the rain stopped, water was still running down the new roadway through the mud. The "silt fences" are a joke. They are simply not up to the task. Water flows right under them because they are improperly placed, and they are so short and saggy that you can see where muddy water has gone right over the top of them. Furthermore, they do not cover nearly enough of the roadway's width. The vertical cut for the roadway is nearly 10 feet high, at the lower end, and as I looked at it, mud was constantly falling off it, to be added to the mud already piled at the base. The stream has a new layer of silt in it all the way to the Inlet, and the vegetation is covered with a layer of mud. The new roadway consists of a thick, sticky, clayey layer of mud - -not quite the wonderful, well - drained soil we kept being told by the developer was the soil type on the site. (At one point, I sank in over my sneakers and up to my calves, and thereafter my sneakers, socks, and pant cuffs were encrusted with a thick, sticky layer of clay that proved to be highly resistant to removal.) Large amounts of vegetation, many trees and most of the shrubbery, have been cleared and lie in piles all over the site, even in areas that were not supposed to be cleared for the two house lots he has been given permission to build. This loss of vegetation can only compound the runoff problem. A neighbor reported that, in a conversation with a workman, the question came up about saving trees that had been marked for saving. His reponse was that, if it was in his way, he'd just push it over. I urge all members of the Board to take a look at what already has been a significant impact on and off the site, so that when drainage problems are being considered in future environmental reviews, everyone will understand what this can mean. And so that everyone can contrast reality with the assurances that are given during the review process. I also hope that the Building inspectors will keep a close watch on the operation and enforce strict performance standards, as was a condition of the approval given by the Board. Thanks! Memo to: Planning Dept. Building Dept. DPW City Attorney Mayor's Office From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Date: Dec. 28, 1992 Re: EAF subcommittee for Mid -Dec. to Mid- March, and dates of subcommittee meetings The members of the subcommittee to review EAF's from mid -Dec. to mid - March are: Betsy Darlington Peter McDonald Rob Shapiro Please send copies of any EAF's to each member of the committee, along with maps, drawings, etc. that may be needed to understand the proposed project. We will meet on the following dates, subject to change: Thur., Jan 14 Thur., Feb. 11 Thur., March 11 Thur., April 15 Wed., May 12 Thur., June 17 Thur., July 15 Thur., Aug. 12 Thur., Sept. 16 Thur., Oct. 14 Thur., Nov. 11 Thur. Dec. 16 All EAF's should be in our hands at least one week prior to each of our meetings, unless they are for very simple matters such as minor lot line adjustments. Note: Our subcommittee meetings are timed to be in the week prior to the Planning Board Code s Committee's Monday meetings. These are held the 3rd Monday of each week. Our meetings are almost always on the Thursday before their meeting. Large, complex projects may be taken before the entire CAC for discussion and comment.