Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental & Misc InfoOFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 Bob Bland Jan. 11, 1995 Facilities Engineering Cornell TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 Dear Bob: Thank you so much for coming to the CAC meeting Monday night with Liz Moran and Rob McCabe. We appreciated having the thorough update on the lake water cooling project. And, after hearing Liz's name for so many years, it was a pleasure to finally meet her. So far, I'm the only member of the CAC who has had a chance to read her report. I know you wanted comments from the CAC about the project, but it clearly is premature to give an opinion about the project, with so many questions yet to be answered. Judging from the report Monday night and from my reading of the study, things at this point look encouraging, however, and continuing with the recommended studies seems like a good idea. We're looking forward to hearing the results of the additional studies, including information about the terrestrial impacts. I hope the additional studies confirm the findings so far. We know that the alternative to the project has many significant impacts on the environment, and we must all bear that in mind when considering the lake water cooling system. Thanks again for the report. Best wishes, 1 Betsy Darlington, Chair "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" _2 C4� 1 Memo to: BZA and Building Commissioner Richard Cacciotti, applicant, 4120 Krums Corners Rd., T'burg, 14886 Copy to: Planning Board Common Council and Mayor BPW, DPW City Attorney From: Conservation Advisory Council's Environmental Review Subcommittee (Wildes, Shapiro, Darlington) Re: Conversion of Gus's Italian Grocery to a one- bedrni. apt., at 319 Second St. Date: Feb. 2/95 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant effect) Comments: Sad to lose a corner grocery store, but good to get some new housing. -�u Memo to: Planning Board Trowbridge and Wolf, Pete Zaharis Copy to: Common Council and Mayor BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney CAC From: Conservation Advisory Council's Environmental Review Subcommittee (Shapiro, Wildes, Darlington) Re: Relocation of Pete's to car wash site between Buffalo and Seneca Streets Date: Feb. 15, 1995 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant effect), provided potential serious traffic concerns (during rush hour) at the two entrances /exits can be resolved. Comments: 1. One solution might be signs for cars entering the site, saying "No Left Turn -- 7 -9 AM and 4 -6 PM ". These signs would face eastbound traffic on State St. and westbound traffic on Buffalo. For people leaving the site, signs would say, "Right Turn Only -- 7 -9 AM, 4 -6 PM. " Another possibility would be to have the entrance and /or exit from Taughannock Blvd., between the Unfinished Furniture Store and #202 - -if that right -of -way is usable for this property. 2. The site should be considerably more attractive than it is now. February 27th, 1995 To: City of Ithaca -- Planning Board From: City of Ithaca -- Conservation Advisory Council Re: Official Response to the Proposed Wal -Mart Store The Conservation Advisory Council has spent many hours analyzing the environmental impacts of the proposed Wal -Mart store on the immediate Meadow St. property, the Cayuga Inlet watershed, on the Southwest Park alienation process, on the City of Ithaca as a whole and on Tompkins county. In response to the Planning Board's request for public comment, the CAC has prepared this document as its official discussion paper. After considerable discussion and analysis, it is the considered opinion of the CAC that by almost any sensible standard, the environmental detriments to the City far outweigh any social or economic benefits, dubious at best, that may accrue to the City if the megastore is built. From an environmental standpoint, the development of an enormous 148 acre store in the floodplain south of the levee, is seen as inappropriate, and unnecessarily damaging to the surrounding neighborhoods, the biota of the local area and the natural water systems of Cayuga Inlet and its aquifers. The social and economic costs to the City will doubtless be considerable but are not addressed in this document. In Section I, the CAC highlights the issues which we believe need the greatest attention and which in aggregate suggest that the proposed Wal -Mart development should be turned down and other possible uses of the site explored. Each section is listed under its separate heading. Section II addresses many single point issues which we believe none of the three previously submitted DEISs addressed adequately and which remain of grave concern to the CAC. In aggregate, they remain a focused critique of the inadequate effort which Wal -Mart and its hired associates have brought to the DEIS process. Section I Wal -Mart and Buttermilk Falls State Park The DEIS claims that the proposed Wal -Mart will not visually affect Buttermilk Falls State Park because "Buttermilk Falls State Park is visually separated from the site at its base due to the large abandoned railroad bed located between the park and the site" (p.ES4). This assertion is erroneous in three ways: 1 t. 1) The base of the park even at road level will not be sheltered from the proposed 40ft. high lights in early morning or early evening. On p.14 it is stated, "It is planned that the Wal -Mart store will be open for business from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. Extended hours may be considered during specific sales, Holiday markets or to meet market response." 2) The DEIS states that the park is blocked off from the proposed site by "the large abandoned railroad bed located between the park and the site" (p.ES4). This statement is directly contradicted on p.36 where the report also says that the Elmira Road is to be "improved" with "removal of the railroad bridge abutments and road widening." 3) There is a possibility that an entrance to the Wal -Mart parking lot might be constructed closer to the entrance of Buttermilk Falls State Park. As the report explains, "The improvements to Elmira Rd. will include a four lane section that will continue out beyond the Buttermilk Falls State Park entrance. Once the project moves to site plan review ...the actual entrance location can be determined" (p.53). The DEIS asserts it is "the applicant's opinion that the proposed project will not diminish the intrinsic value of the park" (p.ES4). This assertion is justified in part by the statement that "no specific panoramic view stations overlooking the site are designated along these trails." Both of these statements have been repeated without change in all drafts of the DEIS in spite of public 'testimony that not only are there numerous fenced in and projecting overlooks along the trail, but that overlooks are in fact marked and identified on the park map handed to the visitor after the fee has been paid. The assertion that the Wal -Mart site would not be visible from the park trail because of the "heavy foliage that severely restricts views" is repeated in order to minimize the documented visual pollution that would inevitably accompany this proposed construction. The first quarter mile or so of the trail is wide open, providing little if any of the canopy referred to in the DEIS. The set of photographs provided in the report is meant to show that "no significant impact on the park's visual resources are anticipated." The report states, "It is notable that the above- noted group of photographs was shot on November 15, 1994 after deciduous foliage had fallen." This could at best be called an error because the photographs provided appear to be entirely focused on deciduous foliage alone and not on the proposed site. Noticeably, view points Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are a lush green and of clearly deciduous foliage. The statement, "The few views of the projected site and surrounding commercial uses do not significantly impact the visual opportunities of the park or take away from its intrinsic theme" (p.ES4), implies an equation between what is presently found across the road from the park and the planned development. This equation is misleading because at present there is no building larger than a fraction of the proposed Wal -Mart, there is no parking lot of any size on the proposed site, 2 and there is no cluster of 40ft. high light poles. What is quite visible from a substantial portion of the trail, however, is a wide open, agricultural field which would be the base of a substantial portion of the Wal -Mart site. The report states, "The visibility of the site increases in the winter months when foliage is sparse. Given that the park annually closes around November 10th, the opportunity to experience these views greatly diminishes." This calculation is false. The park opens at the beginning of May and does close in the middle of November. Hence, a visitor is not likely to find him or herself in a "natural canopy" for the entire months of May, October and November. Given the total number of months the park is open, these approximately two and a half months represent at least one third of that total time the park is open. On the bottom of p.ES4, yet another point is meant to reassure the planning board and public that the Wal -Mart building will indeed be invisible: "the applicant has proposed various buffering through landscaping berms, cluster landscaping and alternative building facades..." The document fails to explain how any amount of landscaping could mitigate what are basically aerial views of that site, of a vast parking area and of a basically unalterable roof expanse on a store which is likely to keep growing. With respect to- the latter point, the report suggests, "Expansion areas are considered to be responsible planning practices and maintain flexibility in meeting for future market demands or changes ... the timing of the expansion will depend- on various economic conditions" (p.15). The report also attempts to minimize the impact of traffic on the park. One statement on pp. 48 -49 says, "While typically 10 percent to 20 percent of the trips will be entirely new trips in the study area, 50 percent to 60 percent will be pass - by..." Another statement claims, "70 to 80 percent of the trips to Wal -Mart will not be new trips ... but are already traveling on the area roads." These varying assessments of "new" trips are not backed by evidence; determining the truth of these claims remains the city's responsibility. The report merely devotes endless pages to trying to convince the city that traffic on Elmira Rd. will be the same now as they might be with the construction of the single largest store in the city of Ithaca. Noise pollution effects on the park are also minimized. The report says (p. 61), "Stated simply, the sound energy produced by two idling cars will not be twice the sound energy produced by one car, but rather a small percentage increase over the noise of one car. The additional vehicular noise generated by the Wal -Mart store operation should not exceed the noise levels generated by existing traffic on Rt. 13." What is not stated is what that "small percentage" would be. Disregarded is the fact that an increase in noise, whatever the size, would in fact be greater than the sound of existing traffic and would increase noise in the park. In other words, the statement is self- contradictory and meant to say that with or without the proposed development all will stay the same. 9 Wal -Mart Project Impact on Substitute Parklands Background In the mid- 1980's, the City and Town of Ithaca designated certain properties in the southwest section of the City and across the City /Town line in the Town of Ithaca as "substitute parkland." The purpose of substitute parkland is to replace land that is removed from park status (i.e., "alienated ") with other land that has at least comparable recreational value. In this case, the City's intention was to alienate the existing Southwest Park, which has never been made available for recreational purposes, and to replace it with a park of comparable size just to the south, along both sides of the Cayuga Inlet. In 1985, the New York State legislature approved the City's proposed alienation and substitution. The substitute land consists of six full tax map parcels and parts of two others (including one now owned by Tompkins County). The boundaries of the property to be acquired for park purposes are specifically outlined in the 1985 law. The City subsequently purchased two of the designated parcels, with public funds. Neither the City nor the State has ever revoked the substitute parkland status. The proposed Wal -Mart site would occupy the two partially designated parcels, representing about 30% of the proposed park. (See Figure 14 from DEIS, copy attached.) Wal- Mart's preferred design would place about one -third of its filled area and approximately 40% of its building in the proposed park. Two sides of the remaining parkland would border the Wal -Mart site. Observations 1. The "substitute" Southwest Park represents a far more desirable recreational opportunity than the current Southwest Park. • It has waterfront (it is on both sides of Cayuga Inlet); the current "park" has none. • It includes the only stretch of Cayuga Inlet within the City that is unchannelized (i.e., "natural "). • It has a greater variety of habitats, including fields, wetlands and the old - growth Negundo Woods. 11 • It has potentially superior access, from both the east (City) side and west (Town) side. In addition, branches of the proposed Black Diamond recreational trail pass along two sides. • It is closer to Buttermilk State Park, with the potential for a direct pedestrian /bicycle connection. • Unlike the current "park," it has not been the site of years of dumping, by the Public Works Dept. and others. • It can serve both City and Town. 2. The genius of the substitute Southwest Park lies in its scale, which is roughly comparable to Stewart or Cass Parks. The experience available in a park of this size is dramatically different than what is possible in a significantly smaller park. Nowhere else in or near the City is an aggregation of undeveloped land on this scale possible. In other words, Southwest Park cannot be replicated in its entirety at any other single location in or adjacent to the City. Allowing Wal -Mart to compromise this planned park represents an irrevocable_ commitment of an increasingly scarce resource - namely, large tracts of undeveloped potential parkland near an urban area. 3. The substitute park is a component of a much larger "greenway" corridor of undeveloped land along The Inlet, stretching from Cayuga Lake to Robert Treman State Park, and incorporating Stewart Park and the Bird Sanctuary, Treman Marina, Cass Park, Inlet Island, the banks of the Flood Control Channel, Buttermilk Park, and Lick Brook. The Black Diamond Trail will be the connector for this corridor, and with vision and good planning the substitute Southwest Park would be the key middle element, complementing the State Parks at either end. Without foresight, this unique corridor traversing the entire City could be severed or greatly diminished, if a significant portion of the substitute Southwest Park is lost. 4. Approval of the Wal -Mart project will have numerous significant, negative impacts on the substitute parkland, most of which cannot be reasonably mitigated: • As much as 30% of the acreage of the proposed park will be lost. • The best opportunity for motor vehicle access from the City (Elmira Road) side will be lost. (Without building a bridge and disturbing the Negundo Woods, there is no way to drive on to the City side - across the Inlet - from the Town side.) 5 • The park and its recreational opportunities will be "hidden" from the only adjacent roadway - and potential users - by the Wal -Mart development. • The opportunity for restoring and /or re- establishing wetlands - or allowing reforestation, to expand the Negundo Woods - on parcels SW2 and SW3 will be lost. • An opportunity for establishing playing fields will be lost. Wal- Mart's filling operation and 155,000 square foot building, both of which will extend into the designated parkland, will have a great visual impact on adjacent remaining parkland. (Unfortunately, none of the "viewpoints" presented in the DEIS are from ground level in the areas of the substitute park closest to the proposed fill /building.) Obviously, park users standing in the narrow Negundo Woods or in adjacent fields (e.g., on Parcel SW4) will see the bank of the fill, the building and its HVAC equipment on the roof, lighting poles and cars and /or tractor trailers on the pavement. • Park users will be exposed to more and higher levels of noise, from vehicles in the parking lot and making deliveries, as well as from the HVAC equipment for the large building and any speaker system audible from the outside. This noise will interfere with appreciation of the more subtle natural sounds of the park, particularly the numerous bird species and the now of the Cayuga Inlet. • Runoff (and an unknown proportion of the pollutants) from Wal- Mart's paved areas and building will end up in the park. • Fumes from automobiles and especially from diesel tractor trailers might be noticeable in the areas of the park adjacent to the Wal -Mart site. • Litter from the parking lot or as a result of items escaping from the store's trash disposal procedures can be expected to end up in the adjacent parkland. • Lighting from the parking lot and the headlights of vehicles using the site will be visible from adjacent parkland. • Allowing a wedge of intensive commercial development to extend deep into the park will obviously alter the actual recreational experience of those who use the park. At present, the area is relatively natural and quiet, and, despite its proximity to the City, feels like a refuge distinctly removed from the typical sights and sounds of the urban area. Common sense dictates that this experience will be significantly diminished if the ON County's largest retail establishment is constructed next door to the park (or, more precisely, in its midst). 5. Approving the Wal -Mart project is contrary to the established, comprehensive landuse planning for this area by the City and Town of Ithaca over the past 30 years. This planning, which has never been repudiated by either government, not only reserves an identified portion of the area for park use; it also clearly prohibits construction of buildings, because of the unique flood protection needs and uses of the area. Traffic Impacts With a parking lot for 890 cars, Wal –Mart clearly is expecting a high volume of business. The store would have a major negative impact on traffic, already very heavy during peak hours. Using the information that we could find in the DEIS, especially Appendix F— Figures 4 & 5 (not labeled), we have arrived at the following conclusions: 1. In 1995, after construction, the Wal –Mart intersection during the Saturday peak hour would have 2680 vehicles (going N, S, E, or W), while without Wal –Mart the figure would be 1700 vehicles at that spot. 2. In 1995, during the Saturday peak hour, the intersection of Rt. 13 and the Wal —Mart entrance would have a 58% increase in traffic above the "background" volume. (2680/1700) 3. A total of 1186 vehicles would be entering and leaving the site (593 each way) during the peak Sat. hour. 4. The traffic going in and out of the Wal —Mart driveway (nearly 1200) will be almost as great as the background traffic on Rt. 13 (about 1500). (Again, during the peak Sat. hour.) 5. During the peak weekday hour in late afternoon, 878 vehicles will enter and leave the site, and another 1973 will pass by, a bit more than twice the number going in and out of Wal —Mart. The intersection would thus have 2851 vehicles going through it, an increase of 45 %. 6. It is only with some major roadway changes, including five new roads and signalization at numerous intersections, that the DEIS concludes (page 29, Appendix F) that service at the various intersections will be acceptable in the year 2005. Wal —Mart would be responsible for only one of the many mitigating measures proposed in the DEIS, namely providing a 36— foot —wide entrance driveway. The rest would be at taxpayer expense, and range from modestly priced re— striping of the roads at the Meadow St.— Elmira Rd. intersection to building five entirely new roads. 7. The analysis of conditions in the year 2005, assuming all the proposed mitigations are acted upon, does not appear to factor in the 7 well —known observation that new roads, designed to alleviate traffic, in reality generate still more traffic. 8. Traffic on Spencer Rd.: The DEIS (p. 53) predicts that traffic will not increase on Spencer Rd. because, it says, it's actually slightly faster to travel on Rt. 13. The conclusion drawn in the DEIS doesn't take into account human behavior and motivation. People already use Spencer Rd. (going north) as a bypass — perhaps because Rt. 13 is so unpleasant and Spencer Rd. provides some relief. Saving a small amount of time is not the only thing that determines motorists' behavior. 9. Traffic along Floral Ave. (Rt. 13A), a residential street, is not discussed at all in the DEIS, although it was raised during the hearings on completeness of the DEIS. This road is already being used as a detour around Rt. 13. Even more people will use Floral Ave. if Wal —Mart is built, since that would be a simpler way of getting to Wal —Mart from the NW than having to struggle through the hassles of Meadow St. Floral Ave. has two lanes and no shoulders or sidewalks. Demands to enlarge it are almost certain to surface once Wal— Mart — generated traffic reaches an intolerable level. The residential neighborhood will be adversely affected by the increased traffic. 10. Buttermilk Falls Rd. intersection: Visitors to Buttermilk Falls State Park will have a much more difficult time entering or exiting Buttermilk Falls Rd. A resident of West Buttermilk Falls Rd. says that during morning rush hour, it is not uncommon to wait six minutes before being able to turn left onto Rt. 13. Delays of 40 seconds are considered in the DEIS to be unsatisfactory, yet the DEIS claims this intersection is currently satisfactory —and it probably is, for travelers on Rt. 13. Conclusion: The substantial additional traffic generated by Wal —Mart is likely to hurt: • tourism - -from the general deterioration in the natural quality of that area, and especially from the impact on Buttermilk; • the residential neighborhoods along Floral Ave., Spencer Rd., and Buttermilk Falls Rd.; • air and water quality - -from the loss of permeable surfaces and from the pollution that would accompany the increase in traffic; • the general quality of life for all who travel in that area. The mitigations proposed by Wal —Mart would involve large expenditures of public money, and would pal address traffic flow problems. Based solely on traffic impacts, the project should be rejected, yet the project would have many additional impacts as well. 3 Drainage and Flooding: There was a reported near 100% increase in surface runoff from 19.74 cfs to 39.23 cfs for a 10 year frequency storm event. This condition was included in the HEC -2 analysis for proposed conditions and was included to calculate increases in flooding height at the proposed project site. Regardless of the computer program, this increase in runoff will have an effect during the type of flood conditions which were encountered in 1993 when the parking lots of Wegmans, Tops, K -Mart and other stores were flooded. The conditions which led to this flooding would not be predicted by the computer program. Nevertheless, the increase in surface runoff from this site would increase flooding in those areas. Damage to Wetlands Appendix H of the DEIS states that the site's "piping system [that "will collect runoff from the pavement, roof tops and lawn areas "] will maintain the existing drainage patterns," yet, on the contrary, both the text and the drainage map show that: Nearly all of the site drainage will go into one drainage swale. Thus, the volume of water in this swale will significantly increase, as will the level of pollution. Because this swale empties into the backwater very near its exit to Cayuga Inlet, the upper stretches of the backwater will receive significantly less water than currently. The DEIS does not address what impact this might have on wildlife or the vegetation of Negundo Woods. The 24" pipe from route 13 which currently empties into that same swale near the highway, will be extended under the site, all the way to the swale near the point at which site drainage will discharge. Thus, pollutants from route 13 will have virtually no opportunity to be filtered out prior to reaching Cayuga Inlet. The large wetland next to the levee will receive water from only a small portion of the paved area, and this water is likely to have a heavy load of pollutants. How does the volume of water it now receives compare with the volume after construction? How will this wetland change in character? No site drainage will go to the large wetland and a much smaller one farther west of the swale that will be receiving the site drainage. These two wetlands are likely to dry up or at least be dramatically altered by the change in hydrology. The value of these wetlands for holding floodwaters, filtering out pollutants, and as a resting place for ducks and geese would be significantly decreased or eliminated. (Large numbers of ducks and geese use the larger of the two wetlands during periods of heavy rain.) we In addition, this loss of wetlands would be just one more impact of the project on the quality of the proposed substitute parkland. While the DEIS states that only .8 acres of wetland will be affected by the project, in fact all of the wetlands on the property will be adversely affected, and two of them may dry up. Did the Army Corps of Engineers realize this when they issued their permit for filling .8 acres of wetland? Filling is just one way to destroy a wetland; another is to divert the water. Ground water It was reported in the study that a significant groundwater resource exists below the valley floor where the project site is located. The proposed project will establish 14.8 acres of building area and parking lots. These impervious areas will curtail infiltration in the developed portion of the site. The aerial extent of surface impacts within the valley aquifer resulting from this project represent a small percentage of the total area but a significantly larger area of the remaining undisturbed area of the valley aquifer. This significant groundwater resource should be preserved from this and other future projects. As populated areas in other parts of the country run out of water, good quality groundwater will be an asset to this community. The utilization of vacuum sweeping to remove pollutants prior to storm events sounds good on paper but is not a reliable way of preventing contamination of this significant ground water resource. We think there should be some verifiable statistics to show how this system is being implemented in other Wal -mart stores around the country where this system has been proposed. Alternative Sites Finally, the DEIS inadequately addresses the willingness by Wal -Mart to find alternative sites in the City. They seem entirely unwilling to downsize their store significantly, or to find suitable properties elsewhere in the City, notably in existing buildings. Placing the buildings in a variety of configurations on the same plot as is done in the DEIS is no solution, and offers no "alternative ". Other possible sites which have far fewer environmental problems associated with them include: 1. Property north of Wegman's on West Clinton 2. Motel property across from Wegman's on Rte. 13. 3. Purchase Woolworth's or K -Mart and add several floors. 10 Section II Single Point Issues • Current congested traffic on Rt. 13, Floral Ave., and Spencer Rd will worsen; • Residential neighborhoods along Buttermilk Falls Rd. will be negatively impacted by increased Rt. 13 traffic, flooding, noise, lights, and general neighborhood deterioration; • Inevitable loss of floodwater holding capacity and consequent increase in flooding of at least nearby properties and, in some types of floods, more distant ones as well; • Tourism may well be negatively affected; • Buttermilk Falls State Park, the proposed bikeways, proposed substitute parkland, and the existing pedestrian /bikeway along the flood control levee will be marred by the development of an adjacent megastore; • The aesthetic qualities at the entrance to the City will be further eroded; • There will be a measurable increase in air pollution; • Also, there will be a measurable increase in water pollution, including groundwater aquifers and Cayuga Inlet. Unanswered Criticisms of the Third DEIS: 1) The current DEIS remains vague on what impact noise levels will have on iuASV Uu e Southwest Park lands. Arriving, departing and idling trucks in the freight area and other noises associated with running a large enterprise should have been addressed and weren't. And even if addressed, seem in any case to pose an undue burden upon possible acquisition of suitable parkland, which will be spoiled by the noise of an enormous store in its midst. 2) Vacuum sweeping remains problematic. Do they mean vacuuming 80% of the debris and effluent on their site only while vacuuming, or 80% total at all times? If the former, as seems to be implied, this clearly means that when not vacuuming, 100% of deleterious effluent will reach the Inlet. Given the concerns of the Scope Notes in this area, and of SEQR guidelines, this description is deemed incomplete. There is also still no adequate discussion of deicing salt and its possible environmental impacts. 3) Furthermore, the CAC is deeply concerned -that the 800+ parked cars will likely generate extensive toxic effluent. We assume that the effluent from 800 plus cars, as well as deicing salts, will be directed by the one swale directly into the Cayuga Inlet. This may cause possible hazardous wastes to enter Cayuga Lake unfiltered and without mitigation. Figures in the DEIS show Typical Detention Basins with Stone 11 Filters, but offer no data whether these systems will necessarily work or how many will be implemented. 4) In short, as will be noted more fully elsewhere, drainage problems from the store remain a serious concern of the CAC. The DEIS statements about the integrity of the "buffer area" serving to protect Negundo Woods and the Inlet, stand in question if the proposed store is expanded as is described in the DEIS. Importantly, what is the extent of the soil fill? Will it cover the expansion area before this area is built? How will it be covered, e.g. secured to prevent run -off? Unless clear safeguards are guaranteed, considerable run -off can occur. Nor does the DEIS indicate whether the fill will be placed all at once under the proposed expansion at the time of store construction, or at a later date. 5) The CAC is also concerned that soil temperatures beneath the asphalt may increase substantially, and therefore may have a negative impact on the water temperature quality of the Cayuga Inlet stream. Since the anadromous rainbow trout of the Inlet, which the NYS DEC have maintained at considerable expense, cannot tolerate water temperatures much in excess of 73+ degrees Fahrenheit, we are led to the obvious assertion that further conclusive data are warranted. 6) To paraphrase the Planning Board itself, the DEIS does not adequately discuss the visual impact of the proposed Wal -Mart on three proposed bicycle /pedestrian trails. It should be stated that the Ithaca Common Council came to an agreement with the NYS DOT to expand the corridor of MeadowSt /Rte. 13 southward past the proposed site. There is every possibility that as this road building is undertaken, that the existing railroad embankment may well be removed. It is highly questionable whether this embankment will serve as a buffer as the DEIS flatly states between the store and Buttermilk Falls State Park, or anywhere else for that matter. 7) Although the CAC cautiously applauded the developers statements in its January 12th criticism of the third DEIS that "another possibility would be to transfer a portion or all remaining land in FW -1 on the subject property to the City of Ithaca," it is still concerned about the proposed development's proximity to existing and possible parklands. The DEIS failed to follow SEQR guidelines and Planning Board directives that it adequately analyze the impact of any development on substitute parkland, whether it is partially donated back to the city or not. Furthermore, a store of this size is likely to diminish, if not detract altogether, from any contiguous parklands, including Buttermilk Falls State Park. Therefore Wal- Mart's generous mitigation in this instance offers no appreciable benefit to the city. 8) Also, the possible negative impact of the proposed Wal- Mart's compatibility with the corridor of green space and parklands that begins, to the north, at Allan Treman State Marine Park, then continues southwest along the Flood Control Channel all the way to Robert Treman State Park in the south is of serious concern. The few mitigations described by Wal -Mart are half- hearted and inadequate. 12 9) The DEIS still claims that the proposal is consistent with the site's zoning. This is untrue. • The line drawn on the site plans showing the boundary of the City's Floodway Zone is not drawn in the same place as on the City's zoning map. Common Council alone can change the zoning map, so the line shown on it should be the correct one, by definition. Using the line on the official zoning map, about 40% of the building would be in the Floodway Zone. 10) The threat of increased flooding caused by 14.4 acres of added asphalt due to Wal -Mart development remains acute. Despite statements made at the BZA hearing in 1992, we understand that the Wal—Mart site was filled with water during the 1972 flood. Water rushed through the pedestrian underpass next to the Kadars' home (at that time occupied by the Reunings) and into the fields. Rt. 13 also was badly flooded. If Wal —Mart and its 60,000 cubic yards of fill sit in those fields, in a similar flood, the water displaced by the project is likely to back up to the residential properties (as well as the adjoining businesses). Rt. 13 likewise will be in even worse shape than it was in 1972. The DEIS says (p. 17), "One aspect of floodplain management involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain development against increase in flood hazard." Given ample evidence of negative economic effects on the community, how could this project be justified? Respectfully submitted: Peter McDonald Interim Wal -Mart Chair On Behalf of the City of Ithaca CAC 13 Al s w4 SW 3 w5 A2 sw7 York k J A 1 and A 2 denote substitute lands as identified in Chapter 757 of New York State Laws of 1985 proposed site of Wal Mart Southwest Area Land Use Study t450wh -est Area Land Use Committee and �Oeparrment of Planning and Development City of Ithaca. 1993 N 200' 0' 400' 800' FIGURE 14 ANNUAL REPORT CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL March 30, 1994 to March 14, 1995 Members (as of March, 1995): Maria Iannacome Coles Betsy Darlington (Chair) Dan Hoffman Judy Jones Peter McDonald Paul Salon Rob Shapiro Cisela Wildes Common Council Liaison: Rick Gray BPW Liaison: Jill Tripp Staff support (none) During 1994, membership fluctuated from 7 to 6 (when newly appointed Bart Guetti moved away early last year) and back to 7 in September, with an eighth (Maria Coles) being appointed this February. Having so few to share the work has affected our ability to do much beyond reacting to proposed projects (esp. Wal -Mart). We still have one slot to fill. 1. Much of our time and energy over the past year has gone into reviewing Wal -Mart's proposal for a 155,000 s.f. store, occupying (with parking lot) 14.8 acres of land. Each preliminary draft of the DEIS was reviewed and comments on completeness given to the Planning Board. The finished DEIS likewise was analyzed and extensive comments made to the Board. 2. Reviewed Stearns and Wheler's studies for Cornell of the proposed lake water cooling project, and met twice with Cornell officials to discuss the various issues. 3. Reviewed Cornell's plans for Mann Library's expansion and made comments at the public hearing on the DEIS. 4. Reviewed and commented on about 30 additional environmental reviews. 5. Met with David Boyd, Metropolitan Planning Organization Planner, regarding the MPO process and the plan the MPO was preparing. 6. Looked into the problems of lead shot waste and tree cutting on the Ithaca Gun and Cornell properties near Fall Creek, and reported these to the owners, and the DEC re lead). 7. Reviewed and commented on the Southwest Area Land Use Study draft. 8. Kept stores supplied with our lead paint removal brochure, and have supplied the County with copies for some mailings, at the County's request. 9. Studied the DEC's plans for changes in SEQR and made numerous comments. 10. Had an informational table at the annual plant sale at IHS. Still in the works: 1. Looking into chlorine -free paper for possible use in City Hall. 2. Starting work on delineating more carefully the various Unique Natural Areas in the City, with the goal being to have Common Council declare them Critical Environmental Areas. D ra � Park Proposal from the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council March 14, 1995 Common Council has designated for future parkland an area south and west of the flood control levee. It has already purchased some of the land. Wal -Mart proposes to build on some of the remainder. The CAC proposes that the City, Town, and County acquire the entire site, all the way to route 13, for a major new park. The County already owns a portion of the site, so possibly that could be its contribution. The Town master plan shows future park land on the west side of the Inlet just across from the Wal -Mart site. This proposal would add only about 10 acres to the area already designated for acquisition by the City for SW Park substitute park land. The total acreage would probably be about 60 -70. The US Fish and Wildlife Service will restore wetlands of the sort found on the site at no charge. They simply remove the field tiling and /or block up the drainage swales. The park could have many features, for example, fishing along Cayuga Inlet; flood plain forest (Negundo Woods), which could continue its expansion into the former agricultural fields; restored wetlands; ballfields near the road end of the park; a booth for tourists entering the City from the south, with info about tourist attractions and educational materials about flood plains, wetlands, and wetland restoration. Wetlands, once scorned, are now a great attraction, especially to bird watchers. The flood protection functions of the existing wetlands would continue to function, and indeed be enhanced. The park would be a wonderful complement to Buttermilk Park, the new Black Diamond trail which will go right past the site, and the existing trail on the levee. The landowners trying to sell their property would still be able to do so, and merchants on route 13 would have more potential customers. With all the interest that has been shown in preventing Wal -Mart from coming to the site, it may be possible to raise some of the necessary funds from the many people who have advocated protecting that space. Memo to: BZA and Building Dept. "RIBS" & Paul Sayvetz Copy to: Planning Board Common Council and Mayor BPW, DPW City Attorney CAC From: Conservation Advisory Council's Environmental Review Subcommittee (Shapiro, Coles, Darlington) Re: Use variance for "RIBS" (bicycle recycling program's relocation to S. Corn Street Date: March 22, 1995 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant effect) Comments: Great project. RIBS performs a valuable community service. Cp, Memo to: BZA and Building Commissioner Copy to: Planning Board Common Council and Mayor BPW, DPW City Attorney CAC From: Conservation Advisory Council's Environmental Review Subcommittee (Coles, Shapiro, Darlington) Date: April 16, 1995 APPEAL #2259: Area variance at 202 E. Court /403 N. Tioga Send copy to: Sovocool, Pfann, and Tyler (with HOLT Architects as Agent) Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant effect) APPEAL #2258: Variance for renovations in Baker Lab to improve health and safety Send copy to: Robert Stundtner, 116 Humpreys Service Bldg., Cornell Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant effect) Comments: Re parking, we found Cornell's statement convincing. (CAC COMMENTS, P.2) APPEAL #2257. Variance at 815 So. Aurora, to permit increasing the height of the existing cellular radio tower from 120 feet to 180 feet, and constructing a 10'x 20' block building, surrounded by a chain link fence topped with strands of barbed wire. South of Southside Fuel, downslope of apartment buildings and houses, and near Rogan's Corners, Franco's Restaurant, and Coddington Restaurant Send copy to: RSA #4 Cellular Partnership Recommendation: Positive declaration: potential large impact on views from nearby homes and businesses; potential for spurring further development and proliferation of such towers throughout the area; potential for impacts on migrating birds (esp. on foggy nights) Comments on the LEAF. Note: We did not receive Part II of the LEAF. (This would normally be filled out by the Bldg. Dept. or lead agency, not the applicant.) Without it, our review may not be complete. 1. Views: The LEAF (Part 1, A -12) answers "no " - -no views of significance -- whereas the view from many nearby vantage points is of Cayuga Lake, West Hill and East Hill- -far from insignificant. Had the person who filled out Part I been to the site? Views from nearby residences and businesses (including two restaurants) are of special concern. Neighbors along Coddington Rd. should have been notified even though they are outside the 200' limit, as their view will undoubtedly be affected. The applicant asserts (Exhibit E, p. 2) that the tower extension will not unnecessarily obstruct the view from neighboring properties. (Does this mean it will obstruct the view, but it is necessary to do so ?) We feel that a decision on granting this variance should be based primarily on the impact it would have on the neighbors, and on their perception of the impact. The block building and its fence are not shown in the simulations, and should be. A high chain link fence topped with barbed wire does not make a pretty sight - -though shrubs and trees could help hide it. Where would the building be in relation to the tower? Would the existing building at the tower's base be replaced with the new structure? The LEAF must address this concern, and provide photos which do not deliberately minimize the effect of the project on nearby views (see, e.g., photo #1, "before" and "after "). 2. Future proliferation of such towers: From the document supplied by the applicant, it appears that, if this project is approved, it will undoubtedly be followed by a steady stream of towers as they try to supply each large cell and then smaller and smaller cells. It would not take long for the landscape to become quite littered with them. This needs to be addressed in the EAF, first by checking column two in Part II, after the question on impact on views and then by discussing the issue further in Part III. 3. Impact on migrating birds: What measures will be taken to keep birds away from the tower? Collisions during migration can be a major problem, esp. in the fog. Data from similar towers would be useful. 4. Need for the facility: We found the discussion of the supposed need for the facility unconvincing and (CAC COMMENTS, P.3) manipulative. Always discussing first the use of cellular phones by emergency services (police /ambulance) suggests that these are the major users. (See: cover letter, first I; Exhibit B, page two of zoning appeal, description section; Exhibit D, page 1 and page 5.) Are people really at risk because we do not have this tower? What proportion of cell phone usage is really emergency? If lives are indeed being saved by these facilities, how many more are being lost due to accidents resulting from inattentive drivers talking on their phones? We feel that cellular phones fall primarily into the category of luxury or convenience goods, not necessities. The document leads the reader to think: a) that the applicant has a responsibility to provide cell service. (See cover letter, first 1: "It is responsible for providing cellular telephone service.... ") Since Cellular One already provides this service, how can the need be so urgent? b) that there is not currently cell service in Ithaca. (See cover letter, second 1: "In order to provide cellular telephone service in the Ithaca Cell, the Telephone Company needs to.... ") Not until Exhibit D, page 3 is it mentioned that there already is cell service in Ithaca: (italics are ours) "To provide or improve cellular telephone coverage to specific areas. The present coverage in the City of Ithaca and surrounding area is insufficient to provide reliable service. [According to whom? They should elaborate on and attribute this statement.] At present, the Telephone Company has no coverage service in the Ithaca cell. " (Finally, a relevant fact: While there have been several references to the need for cell phones by emergency services, this is the first mention that "the Telephone Company" simply wants to sell their product here.) Since we already have cellular service in Ithaca, it appears that the "need" has more to do with the company getting in on the act than with saving lives. Finally, Exhibit H, p. 1, last two I talk of the "essential nature" of the service, and warn against causing an "impairment of an essential service." Again, they don't acknowledge that CellOne already offers the service. Calling the business "The Telephone Co." appears deliberately misleading. "The Cellular Co. would have been just as convenient but would not have led those skimming the document (and who miss the explanation for the term) to think this actually was the phone co. (The "telephone co." may be an outdated concept, but if there is one around here, it is NYNEX.) 5. Part I of EAF, A -16: Does not list the land uses within 1/4 mile, as is required. 6. B -3 & 5 are inconsistent with each other. One says there will be no vegetation removal, the other says veg. removed will be replaced. What's the story here? 7. The LEAF has a number of questions marked N/A when there is no good reason not to answer them. a Memo to: BZA and Building Dept. Applicants -- Building Dept.: Please send copy of this memo to each applicant Copy to: Planning Board Common Council and Mayor BPW, DPW City Attorney CAC From: Conservation Advisory Council's Environmental Review Subcommittee (Shapiro, Darlington) Date: May 12, 1995 Re: EAF's for the following use variances: #2260: Cornell -- Phillips Hall #2261: Demjanec Assoc. re 214 Stewart Ave. #2262:* Serviente at 201 -205 Tompkins St. # ; Parking for McGraw House at 120 W. Clinton # : Cornell - -Baker and Olin Labs. (revised EAF) Recommendation for the above variance requests: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Comments: * Re the application from Serviente: we assume any lead waste will be disposed of appropriately. How is this handled? Memo to: Planning Board Cornell - -c /o Scott Whitham, Humphries Service Building Copy to: Common Council and Mayor BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney CAC From: Conservation Advisory Council's Environmental Review Subcommittee (Shapiro, Jone, Darlington) Re: EAF for Cornell parking lot expansion on Maple Ave. Date: June 13, 1995 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant effect). Vote was 2 in favor, one opposed. Comments: Although this project did not seem to warrant a positive dec. because of its scale, considerable concern was expressed (especially by the dissenter) over two aspects of the project: a) Removal of the densely vegetated bank which currently serves as an attractive visual screen of the ugly NYSEG transmission facility to the east; and b) Adding additional parking to an area already badly congested with traffic. It was pointed out that Maple Ave. is well served by buses, that the campus parking garage and the East Hill Plaza lot (owned by Cornell) are nearby, that a shuttle could go to the building from various lots, and that this project is contrary to Cornell's whole new philosophy of getting people out of their cars and into public transportation. Scott Whitham, representing Cornell, told us that CIT will be moving into the building at the site, and there will be various service vehicles that will be going in and out all day. The need for parking for these was obvious. But the need for parking for regular on -site employees was not. On the plus side, the appearance of the front of the lot, and the lot itself, should be greatly improved by the project. A number of large trees would be planted in the lot. The improvements to the drainage and pavement also look good. The dissenter suggested that a compromise could be to remove just the very back portion of the vegetated slope, and retain the rest. This would still permit a considerable increase in the number of available spots while keeping the visual buffer. But that would leave the problem of added congestion unresolved. It should be noted that at the time the parking lot was being planned, Cornell and the City were still at loggerheads over the zoning issue, and one of us was told by Cornell's rep. that the word had come down from the administration that all new projects should try to provide as much extra parking as possible. The zoning issue is now moot. We urge Cornell to rescind the orders for more parking. Cornell is on the right track with its demand - reduction transportation system and should not back - track. We do not need or want a proliferation of new or expanded parking lots. These will do little or nothing to increase parking availability on City streets, but everything to increase traffic congestion. Memo to: All departments and Mayor Date: June 13, 1995 From: Conservation Advisory Council Chair, Betsy Darlington The environmental review subcommittee from now until mid -Dec. will be: Rob Shapiro Betsy Darlington Martin Violette (new CAC member: 145 Cascadilla Park) Meetings will be at 7 pm, prior to the regular CAC meetings, the second Monday of each month: July 10 Aug. 14 Sept. 11 Oct. 12 Nov. 13 Dec. 11 Please have all materials to each of us at least one week prior to our meeting. Applicants who wish to attend the meeting should contact Betsy Darlington (273 -0707) to be sure the meeting date has not been changed. Thanks! First Draft--6/13/95 RESOLUTION TO COMMON COUNCIL FROM THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Whereas, the Linn St. Woods, the hillside above Floral Ave., and the hillside between Cliff St. and Cass Park are currently zoned R -3a; and Whereas, the above - mentioned areas are steep, wooded slopes; and Whereas Floral Ave., Linn St., and Cliff St. are not designed for heavy traffic; Whereas, the West Hill Master Plan recommends reducing the density of the zoning to the west of Floral Ave. and below Cliff St.; and Whereas, intense development on steep, wooded slopes can have adverse impacts on the environment, including erosion, siltation and other pollution of waterways, degradation of views from surrounding and distant areas, loss of neighborhood character, and loss of the air cleansing and cooling functions of forests; and Whereas, the City has few remaining forested areas; and Whereas, the Linn St. Woods have been designated by Tompkins County's Board of Representatives as a Unique Natural Area; and Whereas, the land between Floral Ave. and the Flood Control Channel is currently zoned R- 3a; and Whereas, it is in the City's interest to limit development of waterfront land along the Flood Control Channel in order to protect water quality, the integrity of the bank, and the aesthetic, recreational, and natural qualities of the waterway; now therefore, Be it Resolved, that the City Conservation Advisory Council recommends that Common Council make the following zoning changes: 1) Road -front lots along the west side of Floral Ave. and the east side of Cliff St., rezone the land to R -2; behind these road -front lots, rezone the land to R -1; 2) Between Floral Ave. and the Flood Control Channel: change road -front lots to R -2; change the land behind these lots to R -1; 3) Road -front lots along University Ave. and Lake St.: no change; behind these lots, rezone the land to R -la. Approved by the CAC on RESOLUTION TO COMMON COUNCIL FROM THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Whereas, the Linn St. Woods, the hillside above Floral Ave., and the hillside between Cliff St. and Cass Park are currently zoned R -3a; and Whereas, the above - mentioned areas are steep, wooded slopes; and Whereas Floral Ave., Linn St., and Cliff St. are not designed for heavy traffic; Whereas, the West Hill Master Plan recommends reducing the density of the zoning to the west of Floral Ave. and below Cliff St.; and Whereas, intense development on steep, wooded slopes can have adverse impacts on the environment, including erosion, siltation and other pollution of waterways, degradation of views from surrounding and distant areas, loss of neighborhood character, and loss of the air cleansing and cooling functions of forests; and Whereas, the City has few remaining forested areas; and Whereas, the Linn St. Woods have been designated by Tompkins County's Board of Representatives as a Unique Natural Area; and Whereas, the land between Floral Ave. and the Flood Control Channel is currently zoned R- 3a; and Whereas, it is in the City's interest to limit development of waterfront land along the Flood Control Channel in order to protect water quality, the integrity of the bank, and the aesthetic, recreational, and natural qualities of the waterway; now therefore, Be it Resolved, that the City Conservation Advisory Council recommends that Common Council make the following zoning changes: 1) Road frontage to a distance of 100 -150' from the west side of Floral Ave. and the east side of Cliff St., rezone the land to R -2; behind these road frontages, rezone the land to R -1; 2) Between Floral Ave. and the Flood Control Channel: change road frontage (to a depth of 100 -150' from the road) to R -2; change the land behind these road frontages to R -1; 3) Road -front lots along University Ave., Lake St., and Linn St.: no change; behind these lots, rezone the land to R -la. Approved unanimously by the CAC on July 10, 1995. Memo to: Common Countil and Mayor BPW Planning Board Date: July 10, 1995 From: Betsy Darlington, out -going Chair, in- coming Vice - Chair 1. On July 10, 1995, the City Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to endorse the Six -Mile Creek Committee's resolution recommending formation of a Natural Areas Committee. 2. At this evening's meeting, I was finally able to pass on the Chairmanship of the CAC. I agreed to be Vice - Chair, with certain responsibilities (listed in a job description), including, of course, helping the new Chair as he learns the job. The CAC unanimously approved the nomination of Martin Violette to be the new Chair, effective immediately. I think he will be a superb Chair, and I thank the Mayor and Common Council for appointing him to the CAC recently. A-t.& -Ao 4c,., 3 Memo to: Planning Board Jeffrey Uotila, 35 W. Shore Dr., Spencer 14883 Jagat Shanna, 312 E. Seneca St. Copy to: c Common Council and Mayor BPW, DPW Building Dept. City Attorney CAC From: Conservation Advisory Council's Environmental Review Subcommittee (Shapiro, Darlington, Violette) Re: EAF for "Our Town Mall" at site of former VIP Motel on Meadow St. Date: July 11, 1995 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact). Comments: We are not opposed to developing this site since it already is developed. However, the following potential problems need to be addressed: 2. Traffic: The EAF does not appear to calculate traffic generation for the entire project. Since occupancy of most of the project is still unknown, it is impossible to estimate how many cars and trucks will be using the site. The motel that was on the site, for example, presumably generated much less traffic than would, say, a discount store or a video store or a McDonalds. 3. Appearance:. Trees are needed along the north edge of the project site to help screen the site from the park and road. The Blockbuster building could be designed considerably more attractively, starting with toning down the signage. No one would argue that Meadow St. is an attractive road to travel. With each new project, the City has an opportunity to begin to change that. While it will never be beautiful, perhaps the Planning Board can do something to make the strip less of a blight on the landscape. NOTE TO PLANNING BOARD: Often reasonably attractive projects are approved and built, only to have their windows plastered with the ugliest, most garish paper signs. (Does anyone actually read these signs ?) Any slight architectural merit is thus compromised. Can anything be done about this? Conservation Advisory Council, EAF Committee City of Ithaca Memo to: Board of Zoning Appeals and Building Dept. Applicant, as noted below Copy to: Common Council and Mayor Planning Board & Dept. City Attorney CAC From: Conservation Advisory Council's Environmental Review Subcommittee (Darlington, Shapiro, Violette) Date: November 13, 1995 1. Appeal #2280. 102 Adams Street (Ithaca Calendar Clock Building) Item #1 Use variance for four proposed tenants. Negative Declaration Comments: As stated in the appeal, all four tenants are acceptable - none are engaged in operations which would affect the neighborhood or the environment in any significant manner. Item #2 "A special single zoning use or agreement for the entire building with respect to current and past acceptable use variances." Positive Declaration Comments: This appears to be, in essence, a, request for a zoning change, and probably needs to be addressed as such. We are not opposed in principal to a change of this type, given adequate standards in such a new zoning use. Under present regulations, however, it is clearly necessary to review each application. That one applicant was denied a.use variance for this location is not evidence that review is unecessary, but that it is indeed necessary, and riot "just a formality ". Application for a use variance is not usually an extraordinarily onerous process, and the review of such an application should not be considered a deterrent to doing business. Memo to: Planning Board & Dept. Applicant, as noted below Copy to: Common Council and Mayor BZA and Building Dept. City Attorney CAC From: Conservation Advisory Council's Environmental Review Subcommittee (Darlington, Shapiro, Violette) Date: November 27, 1995 1. Perfect Screen Printers and Moro Design Recommendation: Negative Declaration Comments: The only comment we have is that the Shade Tree Advisory Committee should be consulted about plantings appropriate to this site. Resolution in Support of the Public Access Southwest Natural Area Proposal Whereas, the entire FW -1 zone in the southwest corner of the City of Ithaca constitutes a crucial, highly diverse centerpiece in the extensive green corridor that extends up Cayuga Inlet Valley to Cayuga Lake; and Whereas, its loss would constitute a significant break in this exceptional corridor, with adverse effects on migrating birds and other wildlife; and Whereas, this is the last remaining large, open, undeveloped space in or adjacent to the City that would be suitable as a new intermunicipal public- access natural area; and Whereas, the proposed Black Diamond Trail and the existing trail on the levee abut the site, and these trails would be enhanced by such a natural area, as well as being an enhancement of the area; and Whereas, the area already is used for recreation, especially along Cayuga Inlet, and would afford significant new opportunities for biking, canoeing, hiking, bird watching, fishing, and picnicking; and Whereas, this area would be a fine complement to Buttermilk Falls State Park, providing a diversity of interesting and attractive habitats not found at Buttermilk, including Cayuga Inlet, wetlands, and Negundo Woods (a significant flood -plain forest and a Unique Natural Area, so designated by the Tompkins County Board of Representatives) -- habitats of value in their own right as well as being of great appeal to tourists; and Whereas, keeping the area natural would protect the view -shed from Buttermilk Falls State Park Park; and Whereas, the area would be easily accessible to City and Town residents on public transportation or by foot or bicycle, provided a right -of -way from Route 13 is acquired; and Whereas, if set aside as parkland or natural area, would enhance the wetlands watershed of Cayuga Inlet and remediate flooding problems long associated with this area; and Whereas, Gary Esolen, the consultant recently hired by the County to give advice on increasing tourism in the County, recommended making the most of what we've got: outstanding natural and educational resources; and Whereas, the natural area would be of significant value to the City, Town, and County even without spending anything beyond the cost of acquisition; now therefore be it Resolved, that the supports the permanent protection of this natural area and encourages the acquisition of the area by the City, Town and County.