Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental & Misc InfoConservation Advisory Council City of Ithaca Memo to: Planning Board & Dept. Applicant(s), 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, Gerard, Violette) Subject: EAF Review(s) Date: May 12, 1997 1. SDPR - City Health Club Comments: Although this plan generally repesents an improvement to this location, the particulars of the plan raise several questions. 1. Use of black locust rather than treated wood for bumper guards would be desirable. 2. Given the potential runoff problems, consideration of alternate drainage schemes should be given atten- tion. it appears from remarks about the relatively small difference between developed and undeveloped surface permeability, alternative surfacing (i.e., gravel) is not likely of benefit, but it should be evaluated as an option. Recommendation: Negative declaration. 2. Benderson Development - 710-25 South Meadow Street Comments: The present plan contains a number of improvements to the plan we reveiwed before for this site, specifically, the elimination of the second entrance drive, and a more esthetically pleasing building grouping. However, we don't see why a reduction in retail area whould be accompanied by an increase in parking spaces. It appears that there is a chance here to increase the size of the islands in hte parking area, and thus provide area for large species (the ones specified in the landscaping plan are very small and will affor little relief, in any sense, to the expanse of asphalt shown in the plan. Amendments to the plan which were made since our review appear to address most of our concerns about the parking area, with perhaps the exception of the choice of plantings. Recommendation: Negative declaration. 3. Rider subdivision review Comments None. Recommendation Negative declaration July 15, 1997 To: Mayor and Members of Common Council, City of Ithaca From: Conservation Advisory Council Re: "Adoption of Tompkins County Waterfront Plan [TCWP]" Resolution The Planning and Economic Development Committee has on its agenda for the July 16th meeting 114. Waterfront Plan. Discussion of proposed resolution and referral to the Planning and Development Board, CAC, Board of Public Works, and Parks Commission. Resolution enclosed." After reviewing the proposed resolution we would like to make several comments. We are con- cerned first of all that the wording of the resolution's title, "Adoption of... Plan" appears to give premature weight and impetus to what is essentially only a preliminary report. We prefer the County resolution's wording, "Acceptance of... Report", which in our view more exactly reflects the status of the effort. Given all the qualifications contained in the proposed City resolution, including references to the need for appropriate environmental reviews of projects which are part of the proposed plan, the note that community consensus on all recommendations has not been reached, and that further public debate will be necessary before any actions can be taken, it does not seem appropriate to then call for an adoption of "those parts of the TCWP which deal with areas within the City limits ". We note that some items listed, such as the proposed Alan H. Treman Marina expansion proposal and transfer of the "Festival Lands ", are the subjects of ongoing debate in City government. "Acceptance" of the TCWP as written would imply incor- rectly that these debates were already resolved. Conservation Advisory Council City of Ithaca Memo to: BZA and Building Department Applicants as noted below Copy to: Common Council and Mayor Planning Board & Dept. City Attorney CAC From: Conservation Advisory Council's Environmental Review Subcommittee (Darlington, Gerard, Keil, Violette) Subject: EAF Review(s) Date: August 19, 1997 1. Appeal #2341, 216 West Spencer Street Comments: None Recommendation: Negative declaration, providing no objections from neighbors. 2. Appeal #2344 Comments: We see no compelling reason for the BZA to lift the condition referred to in the appeal. There are apparently no changes other than commercial opportunity which would warrant this. Recommendation: Positive declaration 3. Appeal #2345, 909 -917 West State Street Comments: Rather than granting a new variance to allow encroachment on the 20' setback requirement, this provides an opportunity to correct a previously non - conforming use by designing the addition to avoid this encroachment. Recommendation: Positive declaration Conservation Advisory Council City of Ithaca Memo to: Planning Board & Dept. Applicant(s), 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, Gerard, Keil, Violette) Subject: EAF Review(s) Date: August 19, 1997 1. SDPR Paramount - Cellular One Comments: This appears to be a project with no appreciable environmental impacts which would cause us to recommend a positive declaration. However, the sketch presented is so completely lacking in detail it is impossible for us to comment. At the least, information on site drainage, plantings, and signage should be provided. Recommendation: None at this time August 20, 1997 To: Planning and Economic Development Committee Mayor and Members of Common Council, City of Ithaca From: Conservation Advisory Council Re: "Tompkins County Waterfront Plan [TCWP]" The Conservation Advisory Council was requested in a memorandum from by H. Matthys Van Cort, Director of Planning and Development, dated July 29, 1997, "to make a recommendation to the Common Council on its [the "Tompkins County Waterfront Plan"] adoption, acceptance or receipt ". In response to this request we would first like to note our comments of July 15, addressed to the Mayor and Common Council: " .. We are concerned first of all that the wording of the resolution's title, "Adoption of... Plan" appears to give premature weight and impetus to what is essentially only a preliminary report. We prefer the County resolution's wording, "Acceptance of... Report", which in our view more exactly reflects the status of the effort. Given all the qualifications contained in the proposed City resolution, including references to the need for appropriate environmental reviews of projects which are part of the proposed plan, the note that community consensus on all recommendations has not been reached, and that further public debate will be necessary before any actions can be taken, it does not seem appropriate to then call for an adoption of "those parts of the TCWP which deal with areas within the City limits "..." To these comments we would like to add that we would consider it reasonable and proper to "re- ceive" this initial document (which itself calls for creation of an actual plan), or to call it a "report" and accept it as such. We are not opposed in principal to many of the report's prelimi- nary ideas. The difficulty we have with accepting or implying endorsement of the document as a "plan" is that it is not so much a plan, but a whole collection of projects and ideas, and accepting it would seem to imply accepting all of its parts. The TCWP could represent a good beginning of the process to develop a Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, but in our view it should be emphasized by careful wording, both in its title (i.e. "report" rather than "plan") and in any action taken in regards to its use, that it is just that: a first step. To: JoAnn Cornish. City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council City of Ithaca Memo to: Planning Board & Dept. Applicant(s), 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, Gerard, Keil, Violette) Subject: EAF Review(s) Date: 10/8/97 1. City of Ithaca Roller Sports Park Comments: There do not appear to be major environmental issues connected with this project, but certain comments in the LEAF Part III raise concerns: a. It appears that the greatest effect this project will have on the surrounding area is an increase in noise levels. Although it is claimed in Notes, 16, that this noise "is not incompatible with other noise produced in an urban park of this nature" it would be reassuring to know that this assessment is based on data from other sources (if it exists), rather than a more intuitive basis. (it seems probable that sound level measurements have been taken at other such sites.) b. In comments on 19, public controversy, it is noted that there exists a potential for controversy over the use of City funds for such a project In evaluating the three alternate plans, it is Important that this potential eco- nomic issue been fully addressed, taking into account the benefits that such a site will provide for Ithaca's youth. Recommendation: Negative declaration 2. Cascadilla Boat Club Comments: The most important issue connected with this proposal is the outlined in LEAF Part III, 18 and 19. Although by itself the project presents no major environmental concerns, and represents a probable benefit to the community, it is questionable whether City park land is a suitable site for this building (and sub- sequent structures proposed by other groups which will certainly follow). The letter from the City Attorney raises questions that must be answered before this project should be allowed to proceed. Additionally, a more complete site plan, including elevations of the proposed structure, will be necessary to fully evaluate the proposal. Recommendation: Negative declaration, if the concerns noted above are resolved. 3. 612 E. Buffalo Street Subdivision Comments: Removal of greenery in this location will strongly affect the visual character of this section of East Buffalo. Further uglification of this neighborhood by clearing and paving is not desirable. The owner should be encouraged to replace the maple volunteers with other plantings, given that the site will not neces- sarily allow similar trees. The Shade Tree Advisory Committee (which is happily referred to in the application) could be very helpful with this. Recommendation: Negative declaration, with the condition that replacement plantings be made. Conservation Advisory Council City of Ithaca Memo to: Planning Board & Dept. Applicant(s), 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, Gerard, Keil, Violette) Subject: EAF Review(s) Date: November 11, 1997 1. Hess Gas Station expansion: Comments: Although we have no objections to this project, some comments on the EAF are called for, however: In Part II, any threshold that would be reached or surpassed MUST be checked in the second column. In this case, a Part III was prepared, and the items were treated as though in Col. 2, so it doesn't make a huge difference. But it's important to fill out the form properly so casual readers' attention will be drawn to those items. Specifically, #1, depth to water table (0 -7 feet) must be checked in col. 2. Same with # 8 (more than 500 vehicles per 8 -hour period per day). #17 (risk of explosion, handling of hazardous materials, storage for 500 or more gallons of fuel) should be checked in col. 2. In Part III, #1, it says that proposed landscaping will mitigate the loss of vegetation. In fact, there will be only about half as much landscaping after as there is now (see Part I, A. Also- -while they may be "aware" of mitigating techniques for the high water table, will these, in fact, be used? Part III #14. According to the application, the curb cuts will be reduced from 3 to 2, not 2 to 1. One major suggestion: landscaping needs to include some large species of trees. This will do more to mitigate the aesthetic impact of the project and the fumes from the pumps and cars, than would the small species that are proposed. Recommendation: Negative declaration January 25, 1998 The Editor The Ithaca Journal Ithaca, New York ithjoumal @clarityconnect.com Although the permit phase of Cornell University's Lake Source Cooling Project (LSCP) has begun, and the project has been approved by the Cornell trustees, the Conservation Advisory Council of the City of Ithaca still has serious reservations about the project's proposed implementation. The LSCP doubtless would have some environmentally beneficial effects, hence our reluctance to take a stand against it. However, the EIS makes clear that, because the lake is a complex system, all possible impacts cannot possibly be pre- dicted. Most disturbing is Cornell's response to the CAC's question, "Is there sufficient backup so that there is no economic disincentive to cease operations if unforeseen environmental impacts occur ?" After stating that there will not be sufficient backup, Cornell goes on to state that it "would not propose the project if it or any of its scientific advisors felt that there was a real risk of an unforeseen environmental impact that could not be reasonably mitigated." (Page 59 of the DEIS's "Responses to comments made during the public review... ") In other words, they do not foresee the unforeseen! Although it is probably unrealistic to require the kind of system redundancy that would provide for a complete backup, it does not seem unreal- istic to require that Cornell develop a plan and budget to provide for replacement of the LSCP should it be required. Other questions that need to be addresses include: who will decide when and if a backup plan needs to be implemented; what information would be required to make such a decision; who collects such information and how; and how would such collection be funded. It is also important that the monitoring systems and limits for environmental impacts be both open to public scrutiny and discussion, and in place, before the LSCP is implemented. Given that. there is insufficient backup, and that unforeseen impacts could occur which could only be miti- gated by shutting down the system, the CAC believes that it is not realistic to expect that the DEC would actually require that the system be shut down. The pressure from Cornell would be overwhelming, and we find it hard to imagine the DEC ruling against it. Even now, Cornell has applied for modifications to existing air pollution control permits for six steam boilers and one diesel generator in the university's cen- tral heating plant (application ID 7 -5007- 00005/00004) to permit operation of one boiler at greater NOx RACT emission levels, based on the claim that existing limits are "not economically feasible ". We urge that Cornell put its efforts into investigating other energy- saving alternatives which would spare the lake and air quality. Martin Violette Conservation Advisory Council cc: Mayor and Common Council, City of Ithaca Michael Barylski, DEC The Ithaca Times