Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental & Misc InfoRESOLUTION FROM THE CITY OF ITHACA CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) of the City of Ithaca is the only body officially charged by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca with overseeing the environmental health of the City for the benefit of all residents of the City (Chapter 31 of the City Code), and with commenting on all environmental assessments and environmental impact statements (Chapter 176 -CEQR, Sections 3 -N and 5 -D); and WHEREAS, the development proposed by Thorntree Associates, southwest of the flood levee and westerly of route 13 (said development for a discount store reputedly to be located on 13 acres of land, with over 116,000 square feet of floor space and parking for about 700 cars, located partly in the City's Floodway Zone and in an area shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as having a 100 -year flood hazard of 9 feet) exceeds several thresholds for Type I Actions in the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQR), and at least one thresh- old in the State Environmental Quality Review Act ( SEQRA); and WHEREAS, according to SEQRA and CEQR, environmental review must be completed before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) may act on a variance application for Unlisted or Type I Actions, and, for Type I Actions, this review must be a full environmental review, coordinated with other involved agencies (City Code j 176 -1 -C, -3 -A, -5 -A, -12, -6 -H); and WHEREAS, it is the belief of the CAC that the BZA improperly granted a variance for the proposed development without conducting any environmental review whatsoever; and WHEREAS, although no environmental review has been done to date, the CAC has concerns that the proposed development could result in significant environmen- tal harm to the City of Ithaca; and WHEREAS, the CAC was unable to perform its duties as charged by Common Council because the BZA did not conduct any environmental review; now there- fore be it RESOLVED, that the CAC supports the petition against the City of Ithaca, Board of Zoning Appeals, under Article 78, brought by petitioners Betsy Darlington, Marty Blodgett, and Paul Glover. Date: January 11, 1993 Vote: 8 -0 in favor of resolution, one member absent CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL January 12, 1993 Mr. Steve Vetter DOT 333 E. Washington St. Syracuse, NY 13202 TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 Dear Mr. Vetter: At last night's Conservation Advisory Council meeting, it was reported that the route 96 project on the City's west end is now budgeted at $27.7 million. The CAC asked me to write to you and request an itemiza- tion of the costs, showing where the increases from the original budget projection have occurred. Members expressed, concern over the new budget, which is more than twice the original projection of $12.6 million.* Several members remembered that Plan B, which was rejected by Common Council, was budgeted at about $27 million, and I was asked to find out from you if the DOT is contemplating a different alignment of the road, or any other substantive changes, from the plan approved by Common Council (Plan A -1). We appreciate your taking the time to respond to our concerns. Thanks in advance! Sincerely, Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair * Costs given here are from: 1. FHWA -NY- EIS- 88 -01 -D, Section IV, Table 22. This projects costs for Plan A -1 at $12.6 million and Plan B -1 at $27.9 million. 2. Summary of Tompkins County DOT projects, handed out at the most recent meeting of the MPO. This said: $27.7 million for 5 -year TIP total, for NYSDOT PIN 304704. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Furman /Hess Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (McDonald, Shapiro, Darlington) Re: EAF for subdivision of 9-acre lot to create 3 house lots, west of Hector St., north and NW of Westfield Date: Jan. 14, 1993 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Comments: 1. Although several items weren't checked in Part 2, most were addressed in Part 3 anyway. 2. Since three houses are likely to be built, all three sites need to be looked at although specific details for two of them are unknown. 3. Driveway would be shared among the three homes. 4. Since this is a relatively steep site, erosion and sedimentation control measures (silt fences, hay bales, e.g.) will be needed during construction, particularly along the driveway. If mud is seen to be entering either of the intermittent streams, measures should be taken to prevent this. 5. Several hackberry trees are on the site just downslope from this one. While we didn't see any on this site, we didn't explore the whole 9 acres. If there are any, they should be protected, if at all possible. Part 1: Page 2, #16: R -lb? Page 3, B -1 -g: three typical families would probably make at least 3 times this many car trips per day. (Eventually, "typical" families may occupy the homes.) Page 4, #15 -c: county landfill Memo to: Jon Meigs From: Betsy Darlington Re: Benson's lagoon idea along Cayuga Inlet Flood Control Channel Date: Jan. 21, 1993 I thought I should put into writing what I said in our recent phone conversation on the above topic. The CAC hasn't discussed this since we haven't rec'd any plans to discuss, so these are just my own thoughts, such as they are without knowing more details. My biggest concern has to do with the potential for quantities of mud to wash from such a project into the Inlet and lake - -both during construction and forever after. Erosion and sedimentation are a major con- cern, affecting all sorts of invertebrate and vertebrate life. We have a major problem with this as it is (look at the south end of the lake after any heavy rainstorm!). The DEC has publications explaining various ways to prevent the problem, and every community should do its utmost to make sure projects are designed to minimize such damage. (DPW has at least some of this info, and maybe Thys does also.) One further concern has to do with destruction of the wetland there. While it may be too small for ACE to bother with, it is serving an impor- tant function islfiltering runoff from West Hill and slowing it down. I'm not sure who has jurisdiction over this sort of project. While the Army Corps of Engineers apparently washed its hands of the wetland in the area of concern, I don't think they were asked about this new proposal. I am almost certain they would have to issue a permit. The DEC probably would as well. Phyllis Radke in the Bldg. Dept. probably would know who to apply to since she's the City's administrator of the federal Flood Insur- ance Program. It's also possible that the DOT has jurisdiction; don't they control the flood channel in some way? Something I didn't mention on the phone: some months ago I mentioned at a CAC meeting that Mr. Benson was talking about putting in a lagoon of some sort, and there were groans and exclamations around the table. But since we didn't discuss it further, I can't say what was behind these "comments. " Please share this memo with the Planning Board and Mr. Benson, if you think it's appropriate. February 19, 1993 The Honorable Mario Cuomo Governor of the State of New York The Executive Chamber - State Capital Albany, New York 12224 Dear Governor Cuomo, Thank you for sponsoring comprehensive lead legislation during the last legislative session. The universal screening program and the Advisory Council on Lead Poisoning established by law this year are sure to contribute to better detection and prevention of this serious disease. As you are aware, a comprehensive lead poisoning prevention program is still critically necessary to reduce the astronomically high numbers of impacted children in New York State. During this Decade of the Child, we strongly urge you to sponsor a program bill that contains the following elements: 1. A full training and certification program for all workers who may be dealing with lead paint and other lead hazards; 2. Required abatement of lead hazards in all residential housing, daycare centers, preschools, kindergartens, other schools, and playgrounds; 3. Regulations regarding methods of abatement of all buildings and a formal mechanism for reviewing and recommending new technologies; 4. An aggressive public information campaign, providing educational materials and a 1 -800 lead information hotline should be established; 5. Lead hazard inspection and disclosure of results before residential housing transfers; 6. Lead - contaminated paint, soil, etc. must not be sent to garbage incinerators or landfills that bring the lead back into the environment; 7. Eliminate all new sources of lead in the environment to the fullest extent possible; and 8. Adequately fund and enforce lead programs and abatement to insure compliance with lead poisoning prevention laws and regulations. Thank you again for your efforts to prevent childhood lead poisoning. We look forward to hearing your response to this letter. Sincerely, Betsy Darlington Conservation Advisory Council BD /cjh cc: Robyn Rehak Environmental Planning Lobby 0; mK nor 07 40,111he Yo i.222-I D,:av z.,�ovm-rur Elate, 1993 fs I Thank you conqmph gray zAve lead leg islatim doring A" Am, versd screening yruglam and ished by law thia year are 3ute to cant AKI 1. to bete-, Zorio-,f, 5 -e e -r -prehens-ive lea�l poisming prevzntku proErm �z ivvari?, a (,,�) n nownsaiT to Mum --'hc -Ou'rizIL, Dl.aadv CIA; 4, p" nmonoy v prograra 10HII "'hat ContuiTi.6 ilia to!". 10k; Am) 10, � 011 trsinh-,j and WA pniar and other !ead la '.ead' '-Ii In'd ergs r! ons, whEr Am& aW Pico gy. A. 10W 'oil alai nc:w zar ;-.ad and dinaky v re if m0t; TOP ncz 'C": AM& Im taing th-, r_f]j 7-1". t1-,I aind A: Advqu.�,'--,,Iy Rml -I�nd- Mme leu& 'Vith lead plynin: preventioz it. on- ToguNWIM ;r g orghfuzu0m.0 NO le- ANNUAL REPORT CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL, CITY OF ITHACA March 14, 1993 Members: Betsy Darlington (Chair), Cathy Emilian, Bara Hotchkiss, Judy Jones, Peter McDonald (as of April, 1992), Paul Salon, Rob Shapiro, Keith Waldron, John Wertis Liaisons: from Common Council - -Dan Hoffman; from BPW - -Guy Gerard; from Planning Board - -vacant (Betsy serves this purpose instead); to County Environmental Management Council - -Bara Hotchkiss; to Solid Waste Advisory Council - -Judy Jones; to Shade Tree Advisory Council - -Cathy Emilian; to Parks Commission- -vacant (but Guy serves this purpose); to Six -Mile Creek Committee- -John Wertis; Metropolitan Planning Organization- -Betsy Darlington and /or Guy Gerard (informally); Parking Garage committee - -Betsy Darlington Stream quality projects: Did projects with kids from Southside Community Center - -the first.week, stencilling storm drains, and the next week, testing water quality in Six -Mile Creek and Relief Channel behind Wegmans. Exterior lead paint: • Booklet (done by Lew Durland and the CAC) finally ready for printing by about August. Distribution of booklet (1500 copies) to painters, paint and building supply stores, Southside Community Center, etc. took place in early fall. An additional 3500 copies were printed in Jan., with Town of Ithaca providing $300 for 1200 copies, and County Health Dept. providing $25 for 100 copies, leaving 2200 copies for us to distribute. Half of these are now being taken to a number of locations, in time for the spring painting season. • Sent resolutions to Gov. Cuomo on proposed state legislation re lead paint remediation. • EMC passed a resolution, commending the CAC for the booklet. Festival lands /Treman Marina expansion: Reviewed State's plans and made recommendations to Common Council that plans be scaled back in numerous ways. EAF's: • Reviewed and commented on about 35 EAF's- -fewer than average, but 5 more than last year. Mostly for subdivisions but a few for City Code changes, parking lots, commercial construction, etc. • Our most time - consuming project of the year was the environmental review for the Weisburds' West Inlet subdivision which would put 27 houses on 5 acres of steep land, bisected by two intermittent streams. We identified, and elaborated on, several potentially significant impacts. (Planning Board issued a negative declaration which was subsequently overturned in the Court of Appeals - -suit brought by neighbors.) • Changed EAF subcommittee's meeting time and place, to comply with open- meetings law and new ADA. Recycling: 7 members manned ( "humaned ? ") the new bins at Ithaca Festival. Conservatips: This project, with cartoonist Jim Houghton, unfortunately came to an end with the folding of the Grapevine in mid -year. No substitute newspaper identified as yet. Cluster ordinance: Made a number of recommendations for changes,to Planning Board. Conrail spraying: Continued involvement with Conrail on its spraying practices along their r.o.w. through the City. They have suggested coming for another visit this spring. Darlington attended a several -day session at DuPont's (at latter's invitation) in Delaware, with Candace Cornell (Town of Ithaca) and five other citizens from around the country. MPO (I- TCTC): Just beginning to get involved with this new transportation planning organization. Hosted a meeting in Feb. of EMC and other CAC's, to hear from County planners (Hanson and Mengel) re the MPO. Neighborhood composting: As of this March, just beginning to explore ways to get more neighborhoods involved with composting, to further reduce the volume of waste being trucked out of the County. Ancient forests: Met with rep. Heather Collis from Sierra Club-- GreenCorps re campaign to protect the nation's last remaining old growth forests (mostly in Pacific Northwest), of which only 10% remains. We signed her petition and took post cards to send to Congressional delegation and Pres. Clinton. Beavers: Investigated reported beaver problem along Six -Mile Creek above Giles St. bridge; visited site on several occasions and with DEC's wildlife person, Roger Miner. Recommended that City take no action; damage minimal (confirmed by DEC expert). - -Betsy Darlington CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Memo to: Common Council Planning Board Re: M -1 zoning change proposals Date: ' April 13, 1993 From: Conservation Advisory Council We applaud the proposals to remove storage facilities from the list of permitted uses on Inlet Island (zoned M -1) and to lower the permitted building height from 70 feet. We urge you, however, to reduce the height so that no new structure could exceed the height of the highest nearby building (35- 40' ?). While a 50' height is better than 70', we feel that 50' also is too high for Inlet Island. absent. Note: this was the unanimous opinion of the CAC, with one member "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14650 April 13, 1993 DEC Regulatory Affairs Division 50 Wolf Rd. Albany, NY 12233 Dear Friends: The City CAC learned recently from a member of the Town CAC that the DEC is considering changes to SEQR regulations. We are con- cerned about the effect at least some of these changes could have on the environment, and have asked the County Planning Dept. to call a meeting of all the CAC's in the County and the EMC to discuss the proposed changes. We hope to come out of this meeting with a unified response. We wonder what your deadline is for comments. We also would like to know why EMC's and CAC's have not been notified about the proposal and solicited for comments. In the event that our joint meeting will take place too late for our response to have an effect, we would like to relay to you our opinion that if the Type II list is to be expanded, it should be accompanied by an expan- sion of the Type I list, and anything in the Type II list that falls within a Type I threshold would automatically become a Type I action. (E.g. any action on a steep slope or within a certain distance of a stream or other body of water - -two examples agreed by our CAC to be critically in need of greater protection.) In addition, the consensus at our City CAC meeting last night was that SEQR is already too weak, and should not be further weakened. Some of the proposed changes could have that effect. We did not discuss at our CAC meeting any issues beyond these, hoping for a more thorough discussion with all CAC's and the EMC. Sincerely, Betsy Darlington, Chair Cc: Mary Smith (County Planning Dept.) John Whitcomb and Candace Cornell (Town Board and Town CAC) An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program' TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Memo to: P &D CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 April 13, 1993 DPW Building Dept. Mayor and City Attorney Re: EAF subcommittee From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Our EAF subcommittee for the next three months will be Paul Salon, Rob Shapiro, and Betsy Darlington. Copies of EAF's for our review should be sent to each of us, if possible at least a week in advance of our meetings which will be held at 7:30 PM (3rd Floor Conference Room) on: Wed., May 12 Thur. , June 10 Thur. , July 15 Any maps, diagrams, or other materials that we will need in order to understand the proposed projects should be included with the EAF's. Thanks! "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 I. Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Cornell University: Laurene Gilbert, Facilities Dept. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (McDonald, Shapiro, Darlington) Re: EAF for site improvements on North Campus - -No. side of Mary Donlon Hall Date: April 14, 1993 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) I1. Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. William Zikakis, 401 Elmira Rd. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (McDonald, Shapiro, Darlington) Re: EAF 'for minor subdivision (change lot line in order to accommodate new building and associated 50 -car parking lot) Date: April 14, 1993 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Comments: 1. Drainage in this flood -prone area is our major concern. Where.will the displaced water go? Will it be directed away from adjacent properties and roadways? We recommend that the parking lot be surfaced with permeable materials (gravel, if possible) to reduce the loss of permeable surface area. 2. We recommend that traps for parking lot effluents be included in the plan, and that these be maintained. 3. Could the parking lots be completed in stages, as the need for spaces is demonstrated? We are struck by the vast expanses of paved parking lots all along Rt. 13. These exacerabate flooding problems, contribute to localized climatic changes (heat sink effect), and are just, plain ugly. Will heavy use of the facility mainly be at night, and if so could nearby lots be used for spillover? Also, could trees be planted in the middle of the lots? 4. We urge planting of lots of trees of large, water- tolerant species. Not only will these improve the aesthetics of the area, but they will also absorb some of the water. Some possibilities: cottonwood, willow, red maple, sycamore. Shade Tree committee or the City Forester should be able to give good advice on this. OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14BSO April 13, 1993 To the Ithaca Postmaster and the Postmaster General: The City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council deplores the loss of services at the downtown Ithaca Post Office. At a time when communi- ties throughout the nation are attempting to limit the use of automobiles in order to reduce air and water pollution, reliance on fossil fuels, and traffic congestion, the Post Office has gone in the exact opposite direction. The 29,000 residents of the City can no longer walk or take a quick bus trip or very short drive to a full service post office, but instead must drive all the way out to Lansing, thus adding to the above - listed problems as well as consuming inordinate amounts of time. The federal government's Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi- ciency Act (ISTEA) has placed the Congress firmly behind policies that encourage reducing the use of private automobiles. The Post Office is clearly out of touch with the times, and would appear to have no interest or concern with the environmental well -being of our community. We would like to ask how the Post Office reconciles the loss of service in Ithaca with the recent public relations circular sent to all resi- dents, touting the Post Office's improvement of, and commitment to, service for the public. Sincerely, Betsy Darlington, Chair On behalf of the CAC Note: The CAC (8 of the 9 members) met on April 12, discussed the above problem, and unanimously agreed to have me write to you, expressing the CAC's concerns. An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 �, -t 1. Memo to: Landmarks Preservation Commission Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Darlington, Shapiro, Salon) Re: Amendments to Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (timing of public hearing; appeals via Article 78 instead of Common Council) Date: May 13, 1993 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) 2. Memo to: Board of Zoning Appeals, Building Commissioner Cc: Harold A. Fish (Skytalk of Ithaca) Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Salon, Darlington, Shapiro) Re: Special variance for new 120 -foot Rohn tower Date: May 13, 1993 Recommendation: Negative declaration Comments: Although we don't feel a positive declaration would be warranted, this is not to say that there aren't adverse aesthetic impacts on the immediate neighborhood. We understand that there is opposition among nearby residents and businesses that look out on the tower (already in place). Apparently, they feel that this tower detracts from their lives and livelihoods. The tower does, indeed, have a somewhat industrial look to it that isn't in keeping with the view of Cayuga Lake and surrounding hills. One of our members was eating at Franco's recently and felt that the tower was an unfortunate intrusion on what would otherwise be a spectacular view. Our understanding of the procedure for deciding on variances is that the environmental review is just one of the factors you take into account. The extent of the neighborhood opposition is something you are in a better position to evaluate than we. Note to BZA: Normally, we need both Parts I and II of the EAF, but rec'd only Part I. In this instance, we made an exception and reviewed the EAF without having Part II because it appeared that the aesthetic impact was the only one evoking concern. If, in preparing Part II, you find that additional impacts could result as well, perhaps we should see Part II and take another look at the project. Memo to: Chairs of various Tompkins County CAC's, CB, and EMC From: Betsy Darlington, City CAC Date: May 18, 1993 Re: DEC's proposed changes to Part 617 (SEQR) Last night, the chairpersons of three CAC's /CB-- Barbara Page - T'burg, Candace Cornell - Town of Ithaca, Betsy Darlington - City of Ithaca, and two representatives of the EMC - -Lynn Leopold and Mary Smith (County Planning staff) met to discuss the DEC's proposed SEQR changes. Dooley Kiefer, from EMC couldn't attend but called in her comments beforehand. I also talked to her after the meeting and incorporated some additional ideas into the enclosed draft of our conclusions. Please solicit comments from your CAC /CB /EMC on this draft and call any changes in to me (273 - 0707), no later than June 25. If these differ from the enclosed, we may simply put in the various opinions on that item. The packet to the DEC could include as many dissenting or supplementary viewpoints as are submitted. We would like to have all CAC and EMC chairpersons sign the final letter to the DEC. If the enclosed draft is acceptable to your group, as is, you could sign it and return it to me. Since we never received a response from the DEC to the City CAC's letter, we have no idea what is happening with the proposal nor when their deadline is. We're proceeding on the assumption that things are moving slowly and we have time to get our comments to the DEC. Thanks for your help. Reminder to your members: The Type I list includes those actions which are presumed likely to have a significant impact on the environment. A full EAF must be completed for any project on this list. The Type II list names those actions presumed not to have an impact; no EAF must be completed. Anything not on either list is an "Unlisted Action." At least a short EAF must be completed for these, and a full EAF completed if the short form indicates a potential problem. Actions for which an agency has no discretion are called "ministerial acts " - -e.g. situations where the building commissionnnust issue a building permit and cannot require environmental review. He or she does not have the discretion to deny the permit. b� ,. ., ,,. . ,,, r , _ ,, . ,. ,,,: ,. ,. ,. �, , . g � . > >; . .. � , � , , .. _ {: I. Memo to: Ithaca Landmarks Pres. Commission Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Shapiro, Darlington) Re: Three EAF's for historic designation Date: June 15, 1993 a. City Hall Annex (Ithaca Gas and El. Bldg.) b. Masonic Temple C. Jamieson & McKinney Block (next to City Hall Annex) Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Wertis, U. Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. John and Kathryn Murray Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Darlington, Wertis, Shapiro) Re: EAF for minor subdivision at Aurora and Hillview (adjust lot line with neighbor) Date: June 15, 1993 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Memo to: Planning Dept. Building Dept. DPW Mayor City Clerk Cc: Judy Jones, John From: Betsy Darlington, Date: June 17,1993 Wertis, Cathy Emilian CAC Chair Re: EAF subcommittee The CAC's EAF Subcommittee from mid -June to mid -Sept. is: John Wertis Judy Jones Betsy Darlington Please send EAF's for our review to each member of the subcommittee.- In the event that one of us is unavailable, Cathy Emilian, will substitute for that person. Our meetings are timed to occur during the week preceding the Planning Board's Codes Committee, usually on Thursdays. We will be meeting on the following dates, subject to change: Wed., July 14 Thur., Aug. 12 sad Mon., Sept. 13, following the regular CAC meeting, or Tue., Sept. 14. Co" n\ ,9i- - - - - - -- DRAFT - - - - -- Please call or send comments to Betsy, 273 -0707 Memo to: Regulatory Affairs Division, DEC From: CAC's, CB (Trumansburg, Village of Lansing, City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca), Tompkins Co. EMC Re: Proposed changes to Part 617 (SEQR) Date: June 26, 1993 Our CAC, CB or EMC has considered and approved the following comments on the DEC's proposed SEQR changes. Additional comments from individual members are attached. Signatures of Chairpersons: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board: City of Ithaca CAC: Trumansburg CAC: Village of Lansing CAC: Tompkins County EMC: GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. The DEC should have enforcement power in any municipality that has not established procedures for environmental reviews. In addition to the lead agency, there should be a designated body in each community to review EAF's and make recommendations to the lead agency. CAC's, CB's, and EEC's are well suited to this, and function in this way in Tompkins County. Our sense is that, in many communities, SEQR is either ignored entirely, misused, or abused. A serious problem has to do with citizen redress in cases of SEQR abuse by the lead agency. Article 78 proceedings are expensive, and out of reach of most members of the public. 2. More training is needed in many municipalities. At the very least, the SEQR Handbook should be sent automatically to the chairs of planning boards and departments, town supervisors, and others responsible for overseeing environmental review. 3. "Ministerial acts" provide huge loopholes in many municipalities. We recommend changing Part 617 to state that any action that meets or exceeds a Type I threshold may not be treated as a ministerial act. [Note: some in our working group thought that only actions on the Type II list should be treated as ministerial acts. In writing this, and in talking to Dooley, I have changed this back to excluding Unlisted actions- -i.e., these could be treated as ministerial acts in the municipal codes.] 4. As currently interpreted by the DEC, SEQR is only triggered when a permit is applied for. Developers - -and others- -can thus inflict significant harm on the environment. For example, steep forested hillsides can be stripped of all vegetation with no environmental review, if no permit has been applied for. SEQR should be revised to include all actions with potential for environmental damage, not just those for which a permit has been applied. For example, any activity that meets a Type I threshold should be subject to SEQR, whether or not a permit is involved. 5. EAF forms should be revised. For example, the applicant's intentions should be addressed: e.g. why does he or she want to subdivide the land? We would rank this with an A -- high priority. 6. Thresholds in the Type I list should be lowered according to some formula based on the size of the community. The state thresholds are appropriate only for the largest cities. While municipalities are free to establish their own thresholds, most are reluctant to create their own EQR ordinance. Many towns don't even have zoning, and it is unrealistic to expect them to enact EQR ordinances. Actions in any wetlands, not just DEC - designated ones, should be Type I actions. 7. SEQR needs more teeth, and is widely abused or ignored. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DEC's SURVEY: 1. Expand Type II list: C (low priority). It would be fine to leave as is. However, we would find it acceptable to expand the Type II list IF the Type I list is expanded at the same time, to include, for example, actions on steep slopes N and near wetlands and other waterways (according to some formula). list: A We agree that "adoption of a moratorium on construction by the local legislative body" should be added to the We would not oppose including in the Type II list: Individual area variances and construction or expansion of a single or two family dwelling, PROVIDED these actions would not be in environmentally sensitive areas, as defined in an expanded Type I list (or elsewhere in Part 617): C Docks and floating docks: ok on Type II list except in public waters. Catwalks ok provided they aren't in an environmentally sensitive area. Signs up to 5' x 3' ok on Type II list. All other appurtenances listed -- decks, solar collectors, satellite dishes, cabanas, tennis courts, storage sheds - -we would find acceptable to add to the Type II list. C Municipalities must be free to remove items from the Type II list. A We are opposed to adding to the Type II list: office, school or commercial structure under 4000 s.f. in foot print; subdivision into 4 or fewer lots; adoption of capital budgets and agency requests for appropriations; remedial actions conducted according to a plan approved by an administrative agency; interpretation of an existing code, rule or regulation. 2. Reorganize EIS format: B Yes, but differently from DEC's proposal: In the proposed reorganized format, we recommend organizing the "impacts" section in three parts, as follows: a. Group together: "unavoidable adverse impacts," and "irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources;" b. Treat separately: "growth inducing aspects of the proposed action;" c. Group together: "effects on the use and conservation of energy," "impacts on coastal resources," "effects on solid waste management," "effects on special groundwater protection areas." (Of course, only those applicable to the action would be included in an EIS.) 3. Require scoping for all EIS's and make it binding: C (F!) We are strongly opposed to this proposal. It would significantly weaken SEQR by preventing new information from being considered in the DEIS, as presented at the public hearing on the DEIS. If scoping were to be binding, there would have to be much better publicity beforehand, both of the proposal and of the public scoping meeting. The public is unlikely to be fully informed about a proposed action at this early stage in the process. Also, see second paragraph under 114, below. 4. Restrict EIS's to only significant impacts: C (F!) We are strongly opposed. By briefly discussing in the EIS various impacts laid out in the scoping session, but which were found not to be significant afterall, the public has the assurance that these items were considered. If, during scoping it is clear that certain impacts are not applicable, they are not included in the EIS to begin with. For example, if a proposed office complex would take place on a block devoid of migrant birds, the DEIS would not discuss that potential impact. But if migratory birds were a concern and the DEIS had to consider this possible impact, the public should know that it has been looked at, even if the conclusion was that there would be no significant impact. In addition, mitigations for one impact may lead to significant impacts themselves. E.g. if a highway were moved to avoid a wetland, the new location might be in an area with an endangered species or an old growth forest. The EIS should discuss such potential impacts of the proposed mitigations. 5. Streamline notice procedures: B The ENB is fine for this, as is, but we would like to see additional notice in local papers and on the radio, in the form of public service announcements. The general public is unaware of the existence of the ENB. We are unclear exactly what the DEC is proposing by way of "streamlining." 6. Eliminate Critical Environmental Areas: C (F!) We are strongly opposed to this, and to the proposal that a generic EIS be prepared for CEA's. Why prepare an EIS for something that provides a small measure of protection for 3 the environment? Also, a generic EIS does not make sense since a CEA is for a specific area. If there is a perceived problem with CEA's, requiring a statement justifying the CEA would be reasonable, however. Communities should have the ability to designate CEA's wherever they see fit. All a CEA does is trigger environmental review; it doesn't stop development. Permission was given for a subdivision in the only CEA we know of in Tompkins County, but the environmental review for the project was important for protecting at least some of the features for which the area was designated as a CEA. Re the final sentence of this section: What was the original goal, and how are communities diverging from this? 7. Eliminate Unlisted category: C (F!) The Unlisted category provides flexibility to developers, agencies, and others. To require a full EAF for all projects would be needlessly time- consuming and a waste of paper; a short EAF is sufficient for numerous projects. If a question on this is answered "yes," then the full EAF must be filled out; a mechanism is in place for proper review of Unlisted actions. Essentially, if the Unlisted category were eliminated, there would have to be just a Type II list. Anything not on the Type II list would have to have a full EAF prepared for it. This seems excessive. If there is confusion regarding the three categories (Type I, II and Unlisted), this could be solved by better training and by changing the names of the categories. If each category had a name that was self - explanatory, much of the current confusion could be eliminated. 8. Cumulative impacts: A We feel that better definition and explanation of "cumulative impacts" is badly needed, and that the EAF forms should include questions that address cumulative impacts. We hope the DEC solves the problem soon. 9. Adjust SEQR fees: B We feel that if changes are made it should be to make them tougher. Rather than being excessive, our sense is that the fees often do not reflect a municipality's actual costs. Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Applicant: Jagat Sharma Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Shapiro, Emilian, Darlington) Re: EAF for retail plaza at 301 -309 S. Meadow St. (Rt. 13). (So. side of Cleveland Ave., near Clinton - Meadow intersection) Date: August 10, 1993 Recommendation: Positive declaration unless parking will be provided on the site or adjacent to it. We are very concerned that parking two blocks away could be a significant problem for the residential neighborhood along Cleveland Ave. The type of retail center that this would be could affect how much need there is for adequate adjacent parking, but it seems unrealistic to expect that people would walk along Meadow St. from the spots provided, two blocks away. Most shoppers are unwilling to walk even short distances to stores, but in any event Rt. 13 is unusually unpleasant to walk along. Cleveland Ave. would therefore become the parking lot for the facility. In addition, this would be a wonderful opportunity to take steps to improve the appearance of Rt. 13. An attractive building and good landscaping plan could provide other developers with a model to live up to, and could even help attract additional customers. The drawings show a rather unattractive concrete block building with light green metal strips and roofing here and there. While these would probably not be notably worse than many other structures along Rt. 13, how wonderful it would be to do something more interesting, and to provide room for real landscaping, including trees! Could the building be two stories, thus reducing its footprint and providing more room for attractive landscaping? What is the intended use of the space? If one of the uses is for a restaurant, a small, landscaped plaza could perhaps be included in the site plan (presumably not on the west side!). An attractive development could be a real asset to the neighboring community and the City - -or it could be just another lost opportunity. We hope the Planning Board /Dept. will work with the developer to provide the former. We also recommend that energy - efficient materials be used in the building and that drainage be such that neither Rt. 13 nor the adjoining properties be inundated during heavy rains. Comments: Our only comments on the EAF are: Part I, B -2, page 3: Where will the excavation materials be disposed of? Part II, #7, page 4: Possibly "yes" (changes in drainage patterns), depending on how site drainage will be handled. #18„ page 9: Should be checked "yes" (impact on character of neighborhood) -- erosion of neighborhood character from traffic /parking problems resulting from the lack of on -site parking. Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Applicant: Wm. Zikakis Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Emilian, Shapiro, Darlington) Re: EAF for Fingerlakes Gymnastics Center and commercial building Date: August 10, 1993 Recommendation: Negative declaration, provided: a) the measures given in Part 3 of the EAF are incorporated into the site plan; b) hydraulic studies indicate that the existing drainage Swale and the flood relief channel would not be overwhelmed by the additional runoff from the site; and c) the use proposed for the new commercial building is one that would not harm the environment. What is proposed for this building? Also, items in the EAF marked by the Planning Dept. need to be dealt with. In addition, #16 in Part 2 (objectionable noise, etc. during construction) we feel should be checked yes- - probably in column 1 since the area already is fairly noisy. Comments: 1. Please diversify the plantings, both for aesthetic reasons and to reduce the likelihood of losing all the plantings, in the event disease should attack any of the three species. We suggest including additional "thirsty" species and species well adapted to wet conditions, such as cottonwood, sycamore, ash, red maple. How about consulting the City Forester or Shade Tree Advisory Council on species? Also, is Taxus cuspidata tolerant of occasionally wet feet? In any event, many shrubs are, and including them would add interest to the landscaping. Please put some large trees in the parking lot. Plenty of large trees of species that use a lot of water should do much to mitigate the effect of the development on drainage from the site, but studies are needed to confirm if this would be sufficient. 2. Our understanding several months ago was that the parking lot would be covered with crushed stone, not pavement, and we hope this is still the plan. We also would recommend that the lot be reduced in size. 3. We do not know what either building would look like, not having received drawings. We urge the Planning Board to require that they look attractive, so as not to add further to the visual blight of the Rt. 13 corridor. 4. We urge the developer to use energy - efficient building materials. Comments on the DRAFT M4S7ER PLAN AND DEIS FOR ThE TREMAN MARINE PARK, from the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council 1. In its recognition and protection of the significant natural resources of the park, the plan is a vast improvement over earlier plans. We are thankful to FLSP for listening to, and acting upon, the concerns expressed by the public and Common Council regarding the natural areas. 2. The document makes a convincing case for the need for a master plan in order to ensure long -term protection and oversight of the natural areas. Moreover, the proposals for protection appear to be well thought out and sound. 3. Regardless of what happens with the rest of the master plan, we recommend that the tall grass, rough grass, managed floodplain forest, and wetland elements be implemented soon - -this summer, if possible. Those aspects that fall within City-owned land could be negotiated with the City immediately. 4. The path west of the marina that runs between the tall grass and managed floodplain forest areas may be superfluous. The path would be only about 200 feet from the walkway that runs along the western edge of the marina. In any event, if the path is put in, we urge that it be narrow and as simple as possible - -grass or wood chips, for example, as proposed in the plan. 5. The case that's made for changes to the paved areas of the park we found weak and unconvincing, and the effect undesirable. We have several concerns regarding these elements of the plan: • High cost. The money for these elements would be better spent at existing State park facilities that need refurbishing. • Substantial increase in the amount of pavement (about 2 acres, according to the document) • Lack of trees in the boat- launch parking lot • Small number of trees in the marina lot • The wastefulness of losing about 120 trees and about 54 mature shrubs • Proximity of the new road to the City ball field • Adequacy of existing parking. Even on busy holidays, it's been observed that both parking lots are not full. Here are some suggestions, some of which could cut costs as well as reduce the amount of pavement: a) In the boat - launch parking lot, have some sections designated for short car - trailer set -ups and some for long ones. The same could be done in the dry-slip storage area. Alternatively, the dry slip area could be in the marina lot which, since it has surplus space, could probably accommodate this with no changes in the size or shape of the lot. In addition, rare overflow from the boat launch lot could park in the marina lot where there is ample space. b) Leave the marina parking lot as is, both in configuration of the lot and in orientation of the rows. Since much of the foot traffic is E -W rather than N -S, a case could be made that the current orientation of the rows makes as much sense as orienting them for pedestrian flows to and from the boat piers. In any event, the lot seems very safe as now laid out. C) Retain all trees in the marina lot, and add more, if possible. Curiously, the proposed lot appears to be larger than the current one, yet has 28 fewer spaces and many fewer trees. Is this because of the reorientation of the rows? d) Provide bicycle racks at all parking lots. e) Provide more trees in both parking lots. This will make the lots more attractive and more comfortable, and will reduce the heat -sink phenomenon. People park on the grass, even when plenty of space is available in the lots, in order to be in the shade. This would indicate a need for more trees, not more pavement. f) Plant trees along the northern edge of the boat - launch parking lot. Although these will not provide much shade for the lot, they will help cool that area through evapo - transpiration. Resolution The Conservation Advisory Council of the City of Ithaca believes that under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot issue a use variance before the completion of environmental review. A use variance may be either a Type I Action or an Unlisted Action, depending on the particular case, but in either event, environmental review is required under SEQRA. In situations where the action is one for which a different agency, for example the Planning Board, will be the lead agency, the BZA must wait to decide on a variance until the lead agency has completed the review process. [See §617.3 (a), (f), 0), (k), 0); §617.5 (b), (c); §617.13 (d) (2). (The latter lists those variances that are Type II actions, and not subject to environmental review.) ] [Note: Unlisted Actions are simply those that are not listed in the Type I or Type II list.] Approved by a vote of 7 - 0 on July 12, 1993 Cc: BZA members Building Commissioner, Rick Eckstrom Mayor Nichols Assistant City Attorney, Pat Kennedy Memo to: BPW Members From: Betsy Darlington, Date: Aug. 10, 1993 Re: Therm cleanup Conservation Advisory Council Chair The CAC is wondering what the status is of the Therm cleanup: when will restoration of the area begin, who will be monitoring it, who will be in charge of it; what chemicals are still being found in the water or soil; what are the plans for the area? Could BPW or the DEC issue an update in the press so everyone, not just the CAC, will know where things stand? Thanks! MEMORANDUM To: John Schroeder, Thys VanCort From: B. Blanchard Re: CAC Discussion of Southwest Area Land Use Study Date: September 14, 1993 I attended the CAC meeting last evening at Thys's request to answer questions and hear CAC comments regarding the Southwest Area Study. CAC members present included B. Darlington, J. Jones, P. McDonald, R. Shapiro and P. Salon. C. Emilian arrived later. D. Hoffman present as Council Liaison. Most of those present had seen the report. Questions /comments summarized as follows: 1. The CAC generally questions why we feel that the area should be developed. Language of the report implies that needs were known (ie. need for the SW Connector road, need for additional affordable housing) and accepted. Mc- Donald led this part of the discussion stating that he does not think the document supports these conclusions. Further, that the justification for considering only development alternatives related to housing /commercial uses is not supported. Why is development is this area considered to be a good idea? 2. Many general questions about roads. Is the SW connector a good idea or just a remnant from old plans? (I discussed the history of that road as well as the recommendations of the West Hill Master Plan as they related to the connec- tor. I also pointed out that the City Administration considered the road important enough to include funding for it in our agreement with the County vis a vis the CPF permitting process. My reading is that there is not likely to be support for any new roads from the CAC. 3. Some confusion about the views of the Focus Group on housing. I explained the 3 conclusio%related to price range, infrastructure needs and hassle -free development process. The bigger question asked was: "Can we document the need for more affordable housing." This was asked in the context of the current real estate market and availability of moderately priced homes in the downtown area. If infrastructure to support housing development is needed, why not just extend Nate's Floral Estates? (Mobile homes are more acceptable to the CAC than to the Study Committee!) I specifically asked about concerns with past dumping on the area that would lend itself to expansion of the mobile home park. General opinion seemed to be that if there had been no problems at Nate's up to now, wasn't that good enough? 4. General conclusions was that the future land use plan lacks imagination and vision. I asked for clarification on this. Answer: There was no consideration Memo to: John Schroeder, Thys Van Cort, Mayor Nichols Cc: Barbara Blanchard, CAC members From: Betsy Darlington Date: Oct. 3, 1993 Today Barbara kindly dropped off a copy of her memo (9/14) re the CAC discussion of the SW Area Land Use Study. I think her summary is mostly accurate, but I would like to clarify a few points: I don't think anyone questioned the need for affordable housing in the City. What members did suggest were possible alternatives to those suggested in the study. In particular, with all the houses currently on the market, why not spend public funds on fixing these up and making them affordable rather than on building new housing? (Just what INHS does, only more of it.) The definition of "affordable housing," as explained by Barbara, also raised questions on the CAC regarding just how affordable this really is. The cost of the supposedly affordable houses that might be built in SW Park struck us as fairly high. Our major concern was that it appeared that the problem was approached thus: "How should we develop this area of the City," rather than: "What would be the best use of this land? Should we develop it? What alternatives to development should be considered and studied further ?" Especially in light of the major problems with surface and ground water in the SW area, creative solutions to these problems did not appear to have been considered. As Barbara pointed out, the CAC felt that the proposals could have the effect of exacerbating the many problems already in that area (water, traffic congestion, visual blight, pollution, etc.). Re extending Nate's Floral Estates southward, we questioned whether it made sense to simply rule that out, at this stage. The former dump might or might not be a problem. CAC members felt that mobile homes have much to recommend them in terms of affordable housing, and Nate's apparently has a long waiting list. Finally, while the CAC certainly raised a lot of questions and concerns about the suggestions made in the study, I don't think we rejected any of them, at this stage, including more roads. We just felt that much more thought should be given to other ideas for the area, and to what would be the best use of the area. Barbara may be right, however, that we are unlikely to be supportive of putting in more roads, at least not based on the little that was given by way of rationale for them. I appreciate Barbara's coming to the meeting to hear our comments and answer any questions, as well as her summary of members' reactions to the study. Two CAC members are working on a draft of our comments, for circulation to the rest of us. I'll send our statement to you as soon as we have adopted it. PRESS RELEASE The City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council has voted unanimously to award its 1992 -1993 commendation to Doria Higgins, President of Citizens to Save Our Parks, for her significant contributions to the continued high quality and vitality of waterfront parks in the City of Ithaca. By drawing public attention to various proposals for changes to the parks, and by being an advocate for sensible park management, her tireless efforts over many years have benefitted all park users and helped ensure the long -term protection of each park's unique character. Contact: Betsy Darlington, 273 -0707 Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Applicant: Jagat Sharma, Bill Lower Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Jones, Emilian, Darlington) Re: EAF for retail plaza at 301 -309 S. Meadow St. (Rt. 13). (So. side of Cleveland Ave., near Clinton - Meadow intersection) Date: Oct. 14, 1993 Recommendation: Negative declaration Comments: The concerns we raised in our August review of the earlier site plan appear largely to have been addressed. Having the entrance to the parking lot be from Meadow St. seems unsafe, however. Could the entrance be from Cleveland Ave. via the adjoining property to the east, combined with use of the 10' vacant space on the east side of the building? Or could the locations of the parking lot and building be reversed, putting the lot on the Cleveland Ave. end of the building? We also suggest that tree species be selected that can withstand the tough site conditions. City forester, John Friedeborn, or the Shade Tree Advisory Council could probably give good advice on this. Perhaps roof drains could be directed to the trees to alleviate the dry site conditions (as well as to lessen the amount of water leaving the site during storms). Again, we recommend that energy - efficient materials be used in the building and that drainage be such that neither Rt. 13 nor the adjoining properties be inundated during heavy rains. W Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Noel Desch Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Jones, Emilian, Darlington) From: Re: EAF for minor subdivision at 316/408 Hector St. (lot line change) Date: Sept. 13, 1993 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Memo to: Common Council and Mayor Planning Board and Dept. CAC members BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee (Jones, Emilian, Darlington) Re: EAF's for several zoning changes: a) Rezone 1.5 ac. Franklin St. property from P -1 to B -2a b) 1.5 ac. of Landmark Sq. property from R -3a to B -2a c) Add redemption centers to zoning ordinance (but see comment on wording .0 d) Exemption of minimum building height rule for projects under 1000 s.f. e) Lawn maintenance along public r.o.w. Date: Sept. 13, 1993 Recommendation: Negative declaration Comment: As the redemption center ordinance change is worded, the definition of a "redemption center" appears to preclude such a center from collecting non - mandated materials such as cardboard and paper. We recommend that such a center be permitted to collect any materials which are recyclable, mandated or otherwise. MRA FT MM" CAC Response to SOUTHWEST AREA LAND USE STUDY Ithaca, NY 1993 The members of the Conservation Advisory Council of the City of Ithaca have read the report of the Southwest Area Land Use Committee and hereby submit our comments. There is consensus among CAC that the Southwest Area Land Use Study (SALUS) as written almost entirely recommends development possibilities without adequately summarizing why development is needed in the first place. This is not to suggest that there should be no development. Rather it is the feeling of CAC that the charge of the committee by Common Council (see P. 4 of the Study) was clearly to identify what the best use of the land should be. This being the charge, a more balanced study would have given equal attention to the possibility of using the Southwest Area Land for a number of purposes, including residential, commercial, municipal and natural habitat needs. Common Council emphasized in its charge that residential possibilities should be explored. Chapter 1 of the SALUS, in defining the area and giving its history, fails to adequately address several items deemed important by CAC. These include: a) GROUND -WATER & FLOODING: As the flood of 93 clearly showed, there is a terrible flood -plain problem in this whole region of the city. In the estimation of the CAC this entire problem is not adequately addressed by the SALUS. Questions which should have been addressed but weren't, include: How can the SALUS offer creative ideas for solving the flooding problem? How will more development impact the mess we already have vis -a -vis spring runoff and drainage? Simply stating the obvious, as the SALUS does ( "Ground water levels are very high..." p. 8 and elsewhere) seems unhelpful and self - defeating. The real issues of ground water and run -off from any future development in the area should have been fully aired and answered. This was not done. c) PRO - DEVELOPMENT BIAS? Why are "Development Opportunities and Constraints" given such prominence in this first section when the charge by Common Council clearly gives equal weight to municipal and natural area uses? The SALUS evinces an unequivocal prior assumption that this area should be developed, as it were, to the exclusion of other low- impact possibilities. CAC believes this is short - sighted especially since exploring natural use possibilities, such as creating man -made wetlands, may have very tangible results in eleviating future flooding problems in existing areas behind K -Mart, Tops and Wegmans. Chapter 2 does not give adequate reasons or explain fully why a Southwest connector is necessary. Using previous studies from the 1950s - 1970s as a basis for 1990s planning seems short - sighted in view of the fact that the changes in how urban planning is done today are so different from the development standards of yester -year. Basing the connector on these studies can only build upon out -dated assumptions. The SALUS offers no real analysis or criticism of these previous studies while at the same time willingly paraphrasing from those portions of the reports in question which fit a road - building agenda. Furthermore, several key points concerning a connector are inadequately raised. These include: a) AUTOMOTIVE TRAFFIC. The current automotive traffic problems along Elmyra Rd /Rte 13 are inadequately addressed. In light of its development focus, the SALUS should have asked and analyzed: What are the current traffic problems? What are the causes of the severe congestion during rush -hour? What can be done to make Rte 13, which is one of the highest accident -prone routes in the state, more safe? How would any future development (either with a Walmart coming or in the Southwest Land Area) exacerbate existing traffic problems? Studies have conclusively shown that more roads inevitably create more traffic problems, not less. How can more roads therefore be justified? If so, by what solid data or criteria? b) OCTOPUS: The SALUS does not integrate its discussion of a southwest connector to the improvements, clearly in the development stage, already being carried out throughout the Octopus bridge area. SALUS should have asked: With the planned expansion of the flood channel bridge at the Octopus, is the southwest connector needed? And if so, by what solid data or criteria? c) IMPACT ON COY GLEN & CAYUGA INLET WATER QUALITY: Nowhere in Chapter 2 are the possible negative environmental effects of a connector on Coy Glen or Cayuga Inlet given anything but a cursory word or two. in the estimation of CAC, the possible impacts on sensitive environmental areas by a connector should have been more clearly identified. Nor are the connectors impacts on the flooding problem adequately explored. In all cases, given the limits on staff and time of those writing the SALUS, a full expose of these potential problems may not have been possible, but the issues should certainly have been more forcefully raised in a public document such as this. d) DISADVANTAGES: The section on "Disadvantages" on p. 32 is wholly inadequate and should be reviewed and expanded with the assistance of knowledgeable people on questions pertinent to environmental impacts. These might include scientists from Cornell, or members of the CAC. Some of the questions, though by no means all, are listed in a) - c) above. e) ALTERNATIVE ROUTES: Until the questions raised in a) - d) above are answered no decision should be made on any of the proposed alternative routes. The first order of business for any future SALUS revision is: Given the obvious disadvantages, what solid data or rationales support the need for a connector? A priori assumptions about "needs" are simply that, assumptions, and are not convincing to dispassionate parties without firm data to back them up. Chapter 3 should more fully explore alternative and creative "development" scenarios, and should be more forthright in evaluating the disadvantages of simply developing the area for residential or commercial or industrial uses. The CAC fully supports any honest effort by the City of Ithaca to provide low cost housing. Given the constraints of building on the land -fill area south of Nate's Floral Estates (and elsewhere in the Southwest Area) temporary housing such as a trailer park is not altogether undesirable and may afford a possible avenue for residential development. Since trailers are easily removable, if future problems with the area arise, trailers can more easily be moved to new locations. However, the SALUS should more fully explore other, less costly and less environmentally risky possibilities, in its thinking of how to supply low - cost housing to Ithaca. These may include, but not be limited to: Expending public funds to upgrade and renovate existing empty and run -down housing within the city limits. This is what INNS does, but expand the program. The CAC is also perplexed why only developers and realtors were invited to participate in the "focus group" on land use alternatives (p. 42 and again in Appendix Q. Why were no advocates for the environment, the poor, alternative transportation systems or creative urban planners sought out and asked to join the focus group? There is an obvious appearance of conflict of interest when only those who might monetarily benefit from any future development are asked for input on the SALUS development proposals. Obviously there would be "an apparent consensus that it would be possible to develop Southwest Park and its surroundings for residential uses" when only developers are asked for comment, and the suggestion (p. 43) "that the regulatory risk would have to be essentially removed" for development to occur, has the similar appearance of soft -shoed coercion by the focus group. Finally, what constitutes "affordable housing" as defined by the focus group (and later by Barbara Blanchard at the 9/14/93 CAC meeting) seems to the CAC as fairly high Furthermore, why under the "Non - residential development" section (p. 44) are no alternatives to development, such as nature areas, given? Why are creative non - development ideas so thoroughly excluded? Finally, if as is stated on p. 45 "reduced dependency on the automobile should be encouraged and facilitated ", why then the determined push in Chapter 2 to build a new roadway connector? The CAC was confused by this contradiction and believes that better public transportation should be explored as an alternative. In the estimation of CAC, Chapter 4 was the most straight forward section of the report and the least controversial. The City of Ithaca should be commended for hiring botanist Robert Wisely, and the SALUS should be commended for the spirit of its compliance with federal law, when it stated (p. 47): "Any areas which are wetlands should be evaluated to determine whether they should be set aside and preserved. Additional land should be set aside to protect any wetlands so identified." The CAC recommends that any environmental review during the Phase I audit be carried out with the input and expertise of the CAC. CAC also believes that full public hearings are needed and much further study and justification are necessary for CAC to recommend any additional roadway infrastructure in the Southwest Land Use Area. In concept, CAC is in agreement with the "Planned Unit Development" (PUD) concept adumbrated in Appendix B. CAC's caveat is that this sort of planning will only work if there is full public debate and all parties to the debate are given an equal hearing. Obviously, given its complexity, PUD will only work in an atmosphere of creative urban planning where environmentally sound long -term ideas are openly discussed and environmental safeguards are kept in the forefront throughout planning and implementation stages. Appendix E: CAC's reservations about the make -up of the focus group have already been discussed. CAC believes that future focus groups should have wider representation from other voices and groups in the community. Respectfully submitted, Conservation Advisory Council, City of Ithaca J Memo to: Members of the Board of Public Works From: Conservation Advisory Council Date: Nov. 9, 1993 Re: Therm spill site rehabilitation /restoration Oolc�x _ Cc: City Attorney ____ -- - --j CAC members �e Six-Mile Creek Committee At our CAC meeting last night, members expressed their concern over the condition of the above area, and in particular the need to move quickly- -that from Pearsall Place, down to the is, before winter - -to stabilize the roadway tributary stream. Currently, water is running down the right -of -way and forming gullies. If measures aren't taken this fall to divert the water into the woods at several points, there is likely to be a significant problem with erosion and sedimentation next spring. It will be more costly to repair the damage than to prevent it in the first place. It does not look like a big task, but should certainly be overseen by someone with some sensitivity to the natural area through which the road- 46 GAL way passes, and an understanding of what needs to be done - -e.g. Philip Snyder who already has done some advising on solutions to the unsightly situation left by the spill cleanup. We request that the BPW move quickly to obtain the necessary approvals from Bolton Pt. (it's their right -of -way) and to take remedial measures before winter. Therm would presumably reimburse the City for the work. Thank you. W.-S QMADISe� Ul..v�0.t1�w.VwS�� Ist� 4k. c-L'i 4 J--F n.cO� WhSevvo- �ckvf..tNt� lJCaw+4.i pv Scrr 13� x°193• ` — Tompkins_ County ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone (607) 274 -5560 * * * * * * *DRAFT * * * * * FAX (607) 274 -5578 EMC Reso. No. 6 -93 Supporting an Application for ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Funds to be Used to Execute the Cayut=a Inlet Trail Project WHEREAS, the completion of a multi-use trail project to connect the four major recreational facilities under the control of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation within Tompkins County is a long - standing priority project; and WHEREAS, the Cayuga Inlet Trail has been identified in three phases to connect Alan H. Treman State Park to Buttermilk Falls State Park parallel to the Cayuga Inlet (Phase I), to connect Buttermilk Falls State Park to Robert H. Treman State Park parallel to Cayuga Inlet Creek South (Phase II), and to connect Taughannock Falls State Park to Alan H. Treman State Park along the old Lehigh Valley Railroad corridor; and WHEREAS , the proposed Cayuga Inlet Trail would traverse an area of diverse, scenic, natural, and cultural features, and would provide access to existing and proposed local and regional trails and to several neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the proposed Cayuga Inlet Trail would provide the citizens and residents of the Town of Ithaca, Town of Ulysses, City of Ithaca, and Tompkins County with additional recreational and transportation opportunities in a safe and enjoyable environment; and WHEREAS, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation - Finger Lakes Region intends to file a grant application for funds available under the Transportation Enhancement Program of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) as administered by the New York State Department of Transportation in order to fund necessary planning, acquisition, and construction of the Cayuga Inlet Trail; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (EMC) does hereby support the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation - Finger Lakes Region's application for funds available under the Transportation Enhancement Program of the ISTEA as administered by the New York State Department of Transportation; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the EMC considers the completion of the Cayuga Inlet Trail to be a priority recreation and transportation project serving the residents and citizens of Tompkins County and the State of New York. Date: August 24, 1993 Motion Made By: , Seconded By: Resolution Passed: In Favor, Opposed, Abstained is f1016 Recwled paper PRESS RELEASE The City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory. Council has voted unanimously to award its 1992 -1993 commendation to Doria Higgins, President of Citizens to Save Our Parks, for her significant contributions to the continued high quality and vitality of waterfront parks in the City of Ithaca. By drawing public attention to various proposals for changes to the parks, and by being an advocate for sensible park management, her tireless efforts over many years have benefitted all park users and helped ensure the long -term protection of each park's unique character.