Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental & Misc InfoMr. Andrew Nazella Finger Lakes Stete Park Road, Trumansburg, N.Y. Dear Mr. Nazella: 419 Tripahmmer Road Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 January 6, 1989 Park Comm. 14886 4g �L j At the suggestion of Betsy Darlington, I am writing you about the "Hog Hole" area at the southwest corner of Cayuga Lake. (See sketch map enclosed) When I was check- ing the area for birds last week I followed the new dirt road (e service road') east from the foot of the hill on Rte. 89 east across the ditch and east and northeast to the edge of the mowed area. This road goes close to the Woods, cut±inw through part of the "Hog Hole." Several years ago I attended a meeting on the future development for recreation and wildlife of the area north of the Hangar Theater and Treman Merina. The planners promised to leave the "Hog Hole" as a natural area, possibly develooinw a nature trail. Natural areas at the south end of Cayuga Lake have been nibbled away, leaving only the Bird Sanctuary at Sewart nark, the Cornell proper& along the road to the white light- house ,jetty, and a small bit of the original How Hole. The rest of the large cattail swamp, wet woods and marshy area has been filled in for Newyan Golf Course, the original Ithaca Girport( succeeded by recreational develooment) and the recent dredging spoil from Cayuga Ihlet. There has been freauent misunderstanding of the useful- ness of these natural areas. Birds nest and some winter there, but their �'�ior importance is as resting and feeding areas for migrant hinds following the Inlet Valley- Cayuga Lake flyway, especiai2,y in the spring. Nudflats used by shorebirds in spring and fall have been almost entirely lost. Theramainin; natural areas are used regularly by migrating land birds - wrens, thrushes, vireos, warblers, sparrows - which_ need not only the wet woods but also tall grass clumps, weedy patches and brushy - areas. To insure that the stow -over for migrant birds is perma- nently protected, the dirt road should be rerouted away from the edge of the w-+ woods to follow around the edge of the mowed area.- tTbe area marked x x x on the map, wet at sorinc high water, is an important part of the habitat neces sary for food, shelter and protection from human disturbance, I would like to meet you at the site to show you exactly what area should be off - limits for motorized vehicles and recreational development. Icy phone number is 257 -7265: Please call me to make an appointment. Try again if you do not reach me the first time - I may be checking birds.' Sincerely yours,' 3,,� M-11 Dorothy W. McIlroy W I' . -I �'- e L /4ICL As �resc �+d; ,.i- r-vaol T rcroc..77+,1 c '( d ,'rT ro act V ANNUAL REPORT for 1988 Conservation Advisory Council Prepared by Betsy Darlington, Chair January, 1989 Members: Steven Baker (until June, 1988) Gary Braun (Cornell student, "youth" member) Eric Broberg Betsy Darlington, Chair Cathy Emilian Roger Farrell Barbara Hotchkiss, Secretary Jill Tripp John Wertis Regular attender: Keith Waldron Common Council liaisons: Carolyn Peterson, Dick Booth P &D liaison: John Johnson BPW and P &D Bd. liaison: Joe Daley 1. Our largest projects of the year were the rt. 96 dEIS, Conservation Overlay Zones, Six -Mile Creek, the smoking ordinance, and an article on pesticides for the local papers and radio stations. Recommendations to Common Council came out of most of these. 2. Other resolutions to Common Council concerned park- and -ride facilities, a plastics ordinance, a neighborhood park at the old sewage treatment plant site, the proposed moratorium on large projects, and SW Park dumping. 3. Some other matters we have considered in varying degrees of depth (but less than the above): Alienation; Hogs Hole; Treman Marina; Cluster Housing; Site Plan Review; hydropower at Ithaca Falls; "conserva- tips" cartoon for Grapevine; letter to School Board and Superintendent of Schools re use oosty�oam trays and other plastics in school cafeterias, and possibility of lead in school drinking fountains; County baling station; Shade Tree Committees recommendations; Fuertes Sanctuary "s legal status; the Town of Ithaca's proposed 6 -Mile Creek bikeway. 4. We have taken field trips to enhance our understanding as we deliberated on various matters: around the Six -Mile Creek Watershed (Renzetti Place to Burns Rd. to Giles St.); to the City ,s new 6 -Mile Cr. acquisition; to several sites in the City while mapping for the Conservation Overlay Zone proposal; to the site of the proposed rt. 96; to SW Park. Common Council, City Hall personnel, other committees, and the public have been invited on several of these trips. Also, one or more members visited sites for large projects before reviewing the EAF s for these. 5. Most members serve as liaisons to other committees: e.g. Environmental Management Council, Hydropower Commission, Six -Mile Creek Committee, Recycling Task Force, and a new county body concerned with solid waste problems. Several members are also active in their local neighborhood associations. One member attends most meetings of Common Council, P &D Committee, P &D Board, and other Common Council committees as needed. Two members are involved with the establishment of a local land trust that s now forming. 6. Subcommittees: a. To deal effectively with the large number of EAF /e', reviews, we have established a subcommittee of three rotating members (the Chair plus two others). This setup enables us to address other issues in our regular meetings. One or more members attend dEIS scoping sessions. b. Large undertakings of our own choice have in most instances been handled first in subcommittee, to hammer out recommendations for the entire committees consideration. i. Memo to: "Frank Liguori, County Planning Dept. ,/ Tompkins County Board of Reps. ,/George E. Hascup, Architect r Cc: ✓ Thys Van Cort, City Planning Dept. ,/Planning and Development Board v Mayor Gutenberger <'Tj 9. a P c W Common Council members Conservation Advisory Council members From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair�s� Re: DEIS for Mental Health building Date: Jan. 3, 1989 I am sorry I was out -of -town when you held your scoping session for the Mental Health Building dEIS. I haven't yet had a chance to find out if a CAC member was there. I have a few comments, in addition to those I scribbled out for Stuart Stein during the P &D meeting of Dec. 21 * . Protection of Six -Mile Creek is of the utmost importance. The LEAF done in August, which I received a few days ago, does not address this concern. To protect the creek during construction, measures should be mandated in the dEIS and the construction contract. I suggest at least the following: 1. A high construction fence should be erected along the entire (on -site) length of the creeks retaining wall, to prevent "escape" of debris. 2. Muddy runoff should be kept on the site (e.g. with hay bales) so it will not drain directly into the creek nor enter the city storm sewers. 3. Dirt and debris should be piled as far from the creek wall as possible, and in any case at least 20 feet away. 4. The construction contract should include provision for clean -up of the creek by the contractor, in the event that debris falls into it. �5 n ___ S. If there is any danger that heavy equipment could damage or destabilize the retaining wall, such equipment must be kept at a safe distance from it. The appropriate distance should be stated in the construction contract. (I have no idea what this might be.) 6. During construction, county or city personnel should inspect the site daily to make sure that the above provisions are being adhered to and tt e creek being given full protection. Additional protective measures should be put in place, if site inspections indicate the need. This is a big project for such a cramped site; there will be little room for error by construction crews. We have all seen the despoilment of critical areas by careless crews and must not permit this to happen here. * The points made in my hastily written letter to Stuart Stein had to do, primarily, with the need for extensive and careful landscaping, so as to take advantage of the potentially beautiful stream -side site and to lessen the visual impact of this large structure; ability of the retaining wall to withstand a major flood; arrangement of parking on the east side of the bldg. (away from side near the creek); and on -going protection of the creek from trash left by users of the bldg. Memo to: Frank Liguori, County Planning Dept. V Tompkins County Board of Reps. George E. Hascup, Architect ✓ Cc: Thys Van Cort, City Planning Dept. �-�I �rL ��[,• �kg� Planning and Development Board ✓ Mayor Gutenberger ✓ Common Council members/ Conservation Advisory Council members From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Re: DEIS for Mental Health building Date: Jan. 3, 1989 I am sorry I was out -of -town when you held your scoping session for the Mental Health Building dEIS. I haven't yet had a chance to find out if a CAC member was there. I have a few comments, in addition to those I scribbled out for Stuart Stein during the P &D meeting of Dec. 21 * . Protection of Six -Mile Creek is of the utmost importance. The LEAF done in August, which I received a few days ago, does not address this concern. To protect the creek during construction, measures should be mandated in the dEIS and the construction contract. I suggest at least the following: 1. A high construction fence should be erected along the entire (on -site) length of the creeks retaining wall, to prevent "escape" of debris. 2. Muddy runoff should be kept on the site (e.g. with hay bales) so it will not drain directly into the creek nor enter the city storm sewers. 3. Dirt and debris should be piled as far from the creek wall as possible, and in any case at least 20 feet away. 4. The construction contract should include provision for clean -up of the creek by the contractor, in the event that debris falls into it. 5. If there is any danger that heavy equipment could damage or destabilize the retaining wall, such equipment must be kept at a safe distance from �y it. The appropriate distance should be stated in the construction contract. (I have no idea what this might be.) 6. During construction, county or city personnel should inspect the site daily to make sure that the above provisions are being adhered to and t Fe creek being given full protection. Additional protective measures should be put in place, if site inspections indicate the need. This is a big project for such a cramped site; there will be little room for error by construction crews. We have all seen the despoilment of critical areas by careless crews and must not permit this to happen here. * The points made in my hastily written letter to Stuart Stein had to do, primarily, with the need for extensive and careful landscaping, so as to take advantage of the potentially beautiful stream -side site and to lessen the visual impact of this large structure; ability of the retaining wall to withstand a major flood; arrangement of parking on the east side of the bldg. (away from side near the creek); and on -going protection of the creek from trash left by users of the bldg. -Dec - Dear CAC members, Judy, Keith, and�Council liaisons: It has been suggested to me that it might be useful for us to do an informal evaluation of the past year, and also set priorities for the coming year One possibility is to do this at the Jan. meeting. Another is to have an outing - -e.g. to our primitive hilltop cabin in Candor- -and combine such discussions with skiing (I have some extra skis and boots), skating, eating chocolate bars, and sitting in front of a fire. If you like the latter idea (which we could do in any event, even if you prefer to do the discussing at the Jan. meeting), how does Sat. Jan. 14 or Sun. Jan. 15 sound? (10 AM -ish ?) Please call me and let me -know what you think. (273 -0707) To get things started, I have a few topics I,d like to hear your opinions on (I'm sure you do, too): A. Opinions about, and suggestions for, how meetings are run B. Do you want to have a new chairperson? "New blood" has a lot of advantages. (This seems to be up to us - -our charter doesn't specify length of terms.) (Come on, be honest! Anonymous, if you prefer.) (I'll leave the room.) C. Are there topics that you feel we spent too much or too little time on? Are there things you feel we should be spending time on, but aren't? Below is a list of things we've covered in one way or another - -in many cases hardly at all. Some were merely reported on. A number resulted in resolutions to Council. Except for EAFs, which we have to do, we can pretty much decide how to spend our time. So - - -how should —we spend our time in '89 ?? * = a large project 1. * EAF's (subdivisions, city ordinances, misc. projects like Farmers Market, etc.) Is our current system of doing these in subcommittee- -even over the phone -- satisfactory? Any ideas for streamlining the process? 2. * Rt. 96 (and field trip) 3. Park- and -ride resolution 4. Treman Marina, Hogs Hole Alienation 5. Cluster housing ordinance Site plan review ordinance 6. Hydropower 7. * 6 -Mile Creek - policy re acquisitions, mapping property owners, field trip around watershed and to new city acquisition, Towns bikeway proposal 8. * Conservation overlay zones (and field trip for) 9. Environmental hints cartoon for Grapevine 10. * Smoking ordinance 11. Northside neighborhoods request for park at old sewage plant site 12. Letter to school board re styro use and lead in drinking fountains. 13. Plastics ordinance resolution to Council (esp. Jill) 14. Baling station 15. * SW Park problems and field trip 16. * Pesticides article 16. Shade tree ordinance 17. Fuertes Sanctuary 18. (Helping EMC with unique areas mapping - -just Eric) 19. Monthly reports from P &D Bd., BPW, and other committees 20. (Things I,ve left out) - 7UA5 Memo to: Carolyn Peterson, Chair, and members of the Six -Mile Creek Committee Beth Mulholland, Chair, and members of Circle Greenway ` From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair 1 Re: Possible joint meeting on Six -Mile Creek policies Date. Jan. 5, 1989 This is an invitation to participate with the CAC in formulating recom- mendations to Common Council regarding Six -Mile Creek acquisitions. I would like to apologize to all of you for not bringing you in on the CAC s statement, sent to Council last fall. Without excusing myself for this, I would like to explain how this came about. First, last June the city acquired 44 acres between Coddington Rd. and the upper reservoir. Not long thereafter, Common Council voted to remove the Festival Lands in Cass Park from the "alienation" process and to use instead lands along Six -Mile Creek. To do this the City had to get permission from the NYS legislature. I was called down to City Hall on the spur of the moment - -they also tried to reach Carolyn and I believe Beth. They had to get the necessary information in the mail to Albany by the next day, stating exactly what lands along Six -Mile Creek should be used in this exchange. I took with me an aerial photograph, the map from the Six -Mile Creek Committee, showing what areas were most important to protect, and one John Johnson and I had made, showing all the tax parcels. I felt very uncom- fortable, having to make such a hasty decision without Carolyn or Beth there to help. Armed with the maps and prior- info from Carolyn about one particular parcel, we did the best we could and identified four parcels to name in the request to Albany (in addition to the one already purchased). It appeared that the City would very soon be condemning and taking land, yet without guidelines as to how to deal with them, either prior to condemnation or after acquisition. Hence, with a feeling on my part of a need for haste, the CAC came up with guidelines which we felt were appropriate, and not out -of -line with earlier recommendations made by the Six -Mile Creek Committee. (I "m enclosing a copy of the CACs statement for Circle Greenway members, in case you have not yet seen it.) If I had known that the legislature was not going to act for many months, we would not have rushed ahead without first getting together with your two committees. Since things are dragging on in Albany, it might be a good idea for us to have joint meetings to review the CAC s recommendations, and if possible, come up with a joint statement. What would you think of having a small group from each body get together and work on recommendations to take back to each committee for further comment -- followed, perhaps, by a meeting of all three full committees? If we could come up with one statement to Council, it would carry more weight than recommendations from just one of us. Furthermore, if we can identify parcels that are especially critical for the City to protect, we could make a joint recommendation on this, too. Common Council, by the way, has allocated $200,000 for Six -Mile Creek acquisitions for this year- -not much, but a start. When I see what is happening along both rt. 79 and Coddington Rd., I feel a sense of real urgency. Once this land is gone, its gone forever. And once land values have skyrocketed out -of- sight, the City will no longer be able to afford them. Again, I apologize for not getting together with you sooner. I,m new at this business and not much of a politician, I guess! The last thing I want is for anyone to feel that we are working at cross purposes or that I am stepping on anyone's toes. Its vital to the protection of Six -Mile Creek that we all work together toward that end. And now that the rt. 96 dEIS is behind us, we may all have a bit more time to do so. Please let me know what you think about a joint meeting. Thanks for your help! Sincerely yours,' Dorothy W. McIlroy M_ 419 Tripahmmer Road Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Mr. Andrew Mazella January 6, 1989 Finger Lakes St<nte Park Comm. Park Road, Trumansburg, N.Y. 14886 _ Dear Mr. Na zelle u ' At the suggestion of -Betsy Darlington, I am writing you about the "How Hole" area at the southwest corner of „e Cayuga Lake. (See sketch map enclosed) When I was check - ing the area for birds last week I followed the new dirt road (e service road ?) east from the foot of the hill on Rte. 89 east across the ditch and east and northeast to the edge of the mowed area. This road goes close to the w.6ods, cutting through part of the "'Hog Hole." Several years ago I attended a meeting on the future development for recreation and wildlife of the area north of the Hangar Theater and Tremar, Marina. The planners promised to leave the "Hog Hole" as a natural area, possibly developing a nature trail. Naturel areas at the south end of Cayuga Lake have been Z_ nibbled away, leaving only the Bird Sanctuary at S *ewart d nark, the Cornell properly along the road to the white light- house jetty, and a small bit of the original Hog Hole. s The rest of the large cattail swamp, wet woods and marshy J area has been filled in for New,-an Golf Course, the original Ithaca airport (succeeded by recreational develonT-ent)and the recent dredging spoil from Cayuga Ihlet. ` There has been freouent misunderstanding of the useful - ness of these natural areas. Birds nest and some winter o ` there, but their major importance is as resting and feeding areas for migrant birds following the Inlet Valley- Cayuga Lake flyway, especially in the spring. Mudflats used by shorebirds in spring and fall have been almost entirely lost. Theremaining natural areas are used regularly by migrating land birds - wrens, thrushes, vireos, warblers, sparrows - which need not only the wet woods but also tall grass clumps, weedy patches and brushy areas. r To insure that the stop -over for migrant birds is perms-- . nently protected, the dirt road should be rerouted away from the edge of the w,=+ woods to follow around the edge of the mowed area.- tTbe area marked x x x on the map, wet at _. spring high water, is an important part of the habitat neces- sary for food, shelter and protection from human disturbance, I would like to meet you at the site to show you exactly what area should be off - limits for motorized. vehicles and recreational development. 14y phone number is 257-7265: - Please call me to make an appointment. Try again if you do not reach me the first time - I may be checking birds.' Sincerely yours,' Dorothy W. McIlroy M_ Memo to: P &D Bd. and Dept. Martin - Fitness Center Cc: Common Council members CAC members From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Date: Jan. 9, 1989 Re: EAF for Fitness Center's parking lot expansion Our EAF subcommittee met this evening to review the EAF. Recommendation: Neg. Dec. (no significant impact) (Comment: But too bad to replace a lawn with a parking lot.) �U OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CITY OF ITHACA 1 O EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 Jan. 10, 1989 Richard Simberg, P.E. Regional Director NYS DOT, Region 3 333 East Washington St. Syracuse, NY 13202 Dear Mr. Simberg: re rt. 96 dEIS for Ithaca, NY Please attach this letter to the Conservation Advisory Councils statement on the rt. 96 dEIS. In the fEIS, please address: - All portions of the statement labeled request or question; and comments made under the following numbers: 2, page 1 5, page 3 6, page 3 7, page 3 9, page 4 10, page 5 2, page 5 3, page 6 4, page 6 In tonight ,s Ithaca Journal, a letter to the editor stated that the DOT will respond only to specific questions or to items prefaced with the words, "please respond." We did not understand this, and it is unfortunate that at no time was this made clear to the public. We were under the impression that any comments on the dEIS for which it was obvious a response was called for, would indeed be addressed in the fEIS. In any event, I trust this letter will make clear which of the CAC ,s comments we feel call for further comment in the fEIS. Thank you. Sincerely, Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" W' Memo to: ILPC P &D Dept. - Leslie Chatterton Jason Fane Cc: Mayor Gutenberger J Members of Common Council CAC members Re: EAF on proposed demolition of the "Electric Garage" Date: Jan. 15, 1989 The Conservation Advisory Council "s EAF subcommittee met today to consider this EAF. Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact on the environ- ment) UNLESS the substantial foundation would also be removed. In this event, problems could result from the steepness of the slope beneath and behind the foundation. Would the slope be too steep and too damaged to support vegetation needed for holding the soil? And if so, would the road be undercut by erosion of the bank? What would happen to land downhill from the site? What remediation measures would be undertaken to prevent problems? If the foundation is left, it would be unsightly - -both in itself and by becoming litter - strewn, like the parking area just to its north- -but this may be the lesser of the two evils. Comments: 1. We wonder why anyone would want to demolish this well- built, sturdy, attractive garage that boasts attention to detail seldom seen in modern houses, to say nothing of garages. 2. In the SEAF, the question re controversy should have been answered "yes," to be consistent with the final question on the LEAF. 3. On the LEAF, ( "project information" section), page 2, #6, re % slope, 1115% or greater" should be checked (question is not answered) \/ Memo to CAC from Betsy Jan. 15, 1989 I. The CAC is going to have a joint meeting with the Six -Mile Creek Committee to discuss the "Guidelines." It will be at 7:30 on Monday, Feb. 6, somewhere in City Hall (probably the 2nd f1r. conference room- -but check the bulletin board in the front hall). I hope many of us can get to it! g�c•y, 2. We were all sorry Jill and John W., and Council liaisons, couldn "t make it today. We had a great time and agreed such expeditions were something ` we should have more of. Here's a summary of our major conclusions: a. Areas to get involved in this year: * Water quality in the streams through the city - -esp. nonpoint- source water pollution * Six-Mile Creek stuff * West Hill Master Plan Further work on COZ s, as needed Updating our local SEQR ordinance with C&O Intergovernmental coordination with Town, County, etc. (how do we tackle this ?) ' (Site plan and cluster housing ordinances, if there's still time) Shade Tree ordinance and parks commission - at least find out what "s happening with these Hydropower, maybe (well see what "s going to happen with this) b. When possible, have someone come talk to us about particular problems we're working on or want information about (e.g. dealing with stream pollution, West Hill master plan). Also have people with opposite - -or different -- perspectives come tell us their views. c. Keep statements to Common Council to one page - -with attachments as Cn needed, for those who might be willing to read them. Summarize first, then expand, then add further material in the attachments. d. Do most of the work on statements on big topics in subcommittee so less time at meetings of the whole is spent on minor details. C - ski J 1e-L�,, -lo c",-, c,,,— 0 ) a.,. �w.� -�*ti- �i.c � f o�.i�� � •lt What have I left out ?? J .r r s C, ke r Dear Members of Common Council and Mayor Gutenberger: Jan. 15, 1989 Over the past year the Conservation Advisory Council has bombarded you with advise of one sort or another. Now we would like to turn the tables and get some advise from you -- either in writing or orally, anonymously or otherwise. Are our recommendations presented in a form that is useful to you? If not, how could we improve? Are there problems you would like us to address? What would you like us to do differently? Any other comments that might help us in our work? Thanks for your help! Sincerely, _('_L� Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair ./ C C . C f=1 C-�� Memo to: Common Council and Mayor Gutenberger P &D Dept. P &D Board Cc: CAC members From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair �ISy Re: EAF on Site Development Plan Review ordinance Date: Jan. 18, 1989 Our EAF subcommittee (Farrell, Tripp, Darlington) reviewed the ordinance and EAF s. Because of the short amount of time we had for this, we were unable to meet together. Farrell 's comments were given over the phone to Darlington. Darlington got Tripp's comments in a brief meeting. This is an attempt to address each member's concerns: Recommendation: Negative declaration. Our feeling was that environmental protection would be enhanced by this ordinance. Comments: (from one member or another) 1. We found this a difficult EAF to review (and undoubtedly was even harder to prepare!) Even doing an EAF at all seemed at least to one of us as inappropriate, though it may be required. Might one approach have been to address each question as compared with the null alternative - -i.e. with not having the ordinance? 2. Why was the states form used instead of the city's form? 3. Page 3, Part 1, #11 (threatened, endang. sp.): Farrell is our rep. to the EMC. He said their response applied only to the sites in the city identified as "unique areas." The EMC s response for even this is question- able, however. Steven Sibley at the Lab. of O. reports that bald eagles and peregrine falcons migrate through the city (on fed. endangered list); northern harrier and osprey, also sometimes found in the city, are on states threatened list; and there could be others. Ed Cope at the Bailey Hortorium (Cornell) says there probably are endangered or threatened plants in the City. Farrell pointed out that a rare plant was found in Cascadilla Gorge at the original Theory Center site. The likelihood of there being rare species in the City simply reinforces the need for this ordinance. 3. Page 5, Part I, #11: (Demand for additional community services) Yes, since ordinance calls for additional review processes? 4. Page 6, Part II, #2: (Unique or unusual landforms): Yes (but ord. would provide more protection than the null alternative). 5. Page 6, Part II, # 1: (Impact on Land) Three items on the city "s form (not the state's) ask about parking for 50 or more veh., removal of veg. from more than 1/2 acre, removal of topsoil from more than 112 acre. These should be answered yes (col. 1 ?). (But ordinance would provide more protection than null alt.) 6. Page 7, Part II, #3: (Water) Possible impact on Fuertes Sanctuary and the Biological Field Station (wetlands). (Same comment.) Lb7 SAc m tl 3- 7. Page 7, #5: (Surface or groundwater) a. City's threshold is 500 gal. per min., not 20,000. b. Why is the siltation question checked "yes "? (inconsistent with comment under 'other impacts "). c. Almost anything can affect surface or groundwater, but again impact should be less than with null alt. 8. Page 7 -8: (alter drainage flow or patterns) Same comment. 9. Page 8: (Air quality) City thresholds are 500 veh. trips in 8 hours, and incineration of 2.5 tons in 24 hours. Same comment. 10. Page 8: (Plants and animals) See #3, above. Same comment. 11. Page 9: (Historic, archeo.) Fossil beds and maybe Indian ruins should be checked (but same comment). 12. Page 10: (Transportation) Impact would depend on the project. (But same comment.) 13. Page. 10, #16: (Noise and odor) Blasting is answered yes on page 4. (But same old comment!) 14. Page 10, #17: (Public health) City form asks about use of de- icers, pesticides, etc. on 30,000 sq. ft. or more. (Same comment.) 15. Page 11, #18: (Several questions on city form but not state, but same comment would apply.) Note: The Annapolis City Council recently passed an ordinance requiring developers to plant the same number of trees they remove, with large trees equalling several small, new trees (they have a formula). Why not include this in the site plan ordinance? A Memo to: Mayor Gutenberger Members of Common Council P &D Dept. and Board From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Cc: CAC members Re: EAF for Cluster housing ordinance Date: Jan. 18, 1989 Our EAF subcommittee (Farrell, Tripp, Darlington) reviewed the ordinance and EAF s. Because of the short amount of time we had for this, we were unable to meet together. Farrell "s comments were given over the phone to Darlington. Darlington got Tripp's comments in a brief meeting. This is an attempt to address each members concerns: Recommendation: Negative declaration, but with some cautions. Might one approach be to address each question as compared with the null alternative - -i.e. with not having the ordinance? Comments: 1. For preserving natural areas this ordinance should be a useful tool. 2. There is some feeling on the committee that cluster housing's usefulness is somewhat questionable in areas that are already essentially barren; in any given instance of this, permission to cluster should give considerable weight to the feelings of the neighborhood. In such an area, what would be gained by having the houses squeezed together, with a larger communal open area, as compared with the more common layout? Energy savings were orginally given as one reason for clustering, but as the ordinance is now written (with separate structures for single or double houses), these savings may not be realized (except for certain infrastructures). Energy costs could in fact be higher since space between buildings would not allow room for large trees. Also, lack of trees around each building would have a negative aesthetic impact which might not be compensated for by planting an equivalent number of trees in the reserved open space- - though this would help, and should be mandated in the ordinance. 3. The committee has some uneasiness about clustering, based on the way it is being used in the Town of Ithaca.* We think our ordinance protects us from these conspicuous problems, but are not sure enough safeguards are written into the ordinance itself, although many appear as possible mitigating measures in Part III of the EAF. How does this work? If mitigating measures are spelled out in the EAF and the EAF is accepted, do these measures automatically become part of the ordinance? Or is it assumed that the environmental review process for each project would assure these? Would it be safer to have them written into the ordinance? For example, we do not see in the ordinance itself a requirement that mitigating measures be taken re noise or protection of natural areas or of surface and groundwater (all the many drainage and runoff questions). (These things should also be in the subdiv. regs. perhaps.) * Of course, any subdivision, clustered or not, is only as good as the developer and the review board make it. 4. Clustering would be permitted only in residential areas, but it is in just these areas where people are likely to object to it. 5. In currently barren sites, what would be gained? Would housing actually be more affordable? How could the city assure this? 6. SEAF, #2 (landforms) and #6 (plants, wildlife) perhaps should be "yes." If applied as intended, the ordinance would provide greater protection than we now have, however. (So impact would be a positive one.) 7. SEAF, #4 (groundwater): Nearly everything affects groundwater.(TS�-- sah,f. to M`- +e..+- O.0 0.50ve•) 8. Would a Cornell student housing complex be considered cluster housing, and therefore be subject to city review? 9. LEAF, Part I: Were not sure why Part I is inapplicable. It would seem to call for the same treatment as the Site Plan EAF. (However, how to do this EAF is by no means obvious!) [For example, p. 2, #8 (threatened, endang. sp.): Farrell is our rep. to the EMC. He said their response (see the Site Plan Ord. EAF) applied only to the sites in the city identified as "unique areas." The EMC "s response for even this is questionable, however. Steven Sibley at the Lab. of O. says that bald eagles and peregrine falcons migrate through the city (on fed. endangered list); northern harrier and osprey, also sometimes found in the city, are on states threatened list; and there could be others. Ed Cope at the Bailey Hortorium (Cornell) says there probably are endangered or threatened plants in the City. Farrell pointed out that a rare plant was found in Cascadilla Gorge at the original Theory Center site.] But again, this ordinance should provide greater protection than the null alternative. 10. Part II, #1, 2, 3, 4, 3rd threshold of 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 perhaps should all be answered yes, although in most cases, the ordinance would have a desirable impact as compared with the null alt. 11. Part II, p. 8, #17 (emergency vehicles, under 'other impacts "): Since current city regulations would prevent such problems, this should not be a concern. 12. Part III, p. 5, #6: (Buffer zone) If buffer zones are not defined in the ordinance, they should be. (Lack of time prevented a careful search.) Note: The Annapolis City Council recently passed an ordinance requiring developers to plant the same number of trees they remove, with large trees equalling several small, new trees (they have a formula). Why not include this in the cluster or subdivision regulations? Memo to: P &D Board P &D Dept. - Jon Meigs Jeffrey Jordan Cc: Common Council and Mayor `' From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair �s� Re: EAF for minor lot line adjustment between 126 and 130 Chestnut St. Date.: Jan. 19, 1989 Recommendation of CAC subcommittee (Darlington, Hotchkiss): Negative declaration (no significant impact) a X C Memo to: ILPC Members P &D - Leslie Chatterton Gary Wilson Cc: Common Council members Mayor Gutenberger From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair `15r Re: EAF for 404 N. Cayuga St. 1 Date: Jan. 22, 1989 Recommendation of the CAC s EAF subcommittee (Broberg, Darlington, Tripp): negative declaration (no significant impact) Memo to:Common Council and Mayor Gutenberger P &D Dept. and Board DPW and BPW Community Recreation Center, 200 East Buffalo St. Planning/ Environmental Research Consultants, 310 W. State Youth Bureau Cc: CAC members Re: EAF for proposed skating rink at Cass Park. (Pre - engineered metal building with shell -unit construction, 115 x 220) From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Date: Feb. 5, 1989 The CAC subcommittee for EAF s (Hotchkiss, Jones, Darlington) met with consultants Barbara Blanchard and Tom Niederkorn today to review the EAF for the proposed ice rink. Recommendation: Our subcommittee- -and the consultants -- agreed that the most serious potential impact of the project would be aesthetic. If a number of mitigating measures are not included in the project design, or if it would be impossible for these measures to satisfactorily mitigate the visual impact, the subcommittee feels that this project should not be approved. As the EAF acknowledges, the buildings design would be incompatible with the current rink. In fact, it would look more like an industrial warehouse than a public building in a public park. The City has taken pains to see that most of its park buildings are attractive (e.g. GIAC and the current ice rink). On the plus side, the siting seems good: it would not eliminate any ballfields or significant open spaces, and would take out only about 8 parking spaces. Also, the building incorporates a number of important energy- saving elements, and would not use a freon -based refrigeration system. (Freon destroys stratospheric ozone.) Finally, there seems to be a demand for more rink space. Comments: I. SERF: #15 - public controversy - we felt should be answered yes since the States form asks if "there is likely to be" controversy. Given the design of the building, controversy does seem likely. At this point, lack of controversy may simply reflect ignorance of the project. H. LEAF: 1. Part I: Page 4, #14: We thought the site might be in the 100 -year flood plain. (Mr. Niederkorn will check this out again.) 2. Part II: Page 6, #11: "...elimination or major screening of scenic views..." We felt column 1 should be checked - -the pleasant view to the north from the swimming area would be obscured. Could be made less bothersome by use of plantings and /or trellis with vines covering the south wall. 3. Page 7, #14, under "other impacts:" Traffic after major events. Could be mitigated by coordinating scheduling with other big events at the park. 4. Page 10, #19: (Public controversy) See I, above. Further Mitigating measures: The EAF acknowledges the great aesthetic difficulties posed by the particular design of the structure. We asked the consultants to spell out more exactly what landscaping would be feasible for the project and what sort of graphics might be used on the exteriors of the building. They agreed to do some "visuals" of the project, showing how it would look from various directions, both near 'and far away. The need for extensive plantings, including as many large trees as possible, was recognized by all five of us. The west side of the north end of the building could not have any large trees close to it; however, large trees (willow? cottonwood? red maple? sycamore? evergreens ?) just northwest of the current rink would help hide the new struc- tures. There might be other sites a little distance from the building that could also accommodate large trees, and would help hide it. Another problem area is the north end of the building. There would not be enough space between the building and the road for substantial trees. Would there be room across the road, however? Two possibilities for the buildings north end: trellis with vines, or something right against the building itself for ivy to climb up. (E.g. English ivy or some other evergreen. Also perhaps some deciduous vines, such as ones with flowers attractive to hummingbirds.) The consultants are going to see what might be possible. It might be desirable to so equip all sides of the building. Since most vines would not adhere to the metal sides, something would have to be provided for them to climb. Finally, the problem with the roof line needs a solution. Its incompat- ibility with the present rink, and other aesthetic problems, must be dealt with somehow. Possibly a nearly flat roof would be better, but our subcom- mittee felt inadequate to evaluate this. Again, accurate visuals might help. Some body with more expertise in architectural design than the CAC should review this project: P &D Board or the Design Review Board, for example. P.S. As I write this I wonder if the building would turn out to be too hot in summer to be usable for other activities? I J .� -- I TeNh,s 6wsl;�� _JI Cau��s �odt More or less `�k�. — lA.ase Feb. 17, 1989 Dear Pals: Dick Booth and I have a nasty job for you -- proofreading this copy of our local SEQR ordinance! (Ugh!!) Dick and I are working to bring our local ordinance into compliance with the States 1987 revisions. As part of this effort, I typed our ordinance into my computer. Well then insert the needed changes (keeping the original text intact so Council members can see what we've changed), and print it up again. The alternative was to have you try to type it up from our very scribbled -up copies. We decided that would be nearly impossible - -and certainly asking too much of you! Before we start inserting changes onto the computer, we want to be sure we have corrected all the typos in this copy - -and that ,s why wed like to ask you to proof -read it R us. Please mark any corrections directly onto the copy. Thanks a lot! - Betsy\ L� L� Commissioner Andrew Mazzella Finger Lakes State Parks Trumansburg, NY C6 R.C&-VV Aj i� �v� Co w_ j Feb. 21, 1989 Qr 2 oy Fc you ►4vp� �cq Dear Andy: This letter is to record the contents of our conversation this morning re the Hogs Hole. If you disagree about any point, please write to me. I was concerned because I had heard reports from your meeting with members of the EMC that the road could not be moved eastward because the land there had to be reserved for soccer fields for "the City." This directly contradicted what you had told me on several occasions: namely, that it was very important for the City to turn over the Festival Lands to the State because if the City kept it, they would probably put in ball fields, whereas the State would not do so; the Hogs Hole and the area to its east would be safer in State hands, and would be kept entirely for passive recreation. When I asked you today about this discrepancy, you told me that, a) the state would not put in soccer fields, b) the road could not be moved because the space had to be reserved for soccer fields (% c) your engineers were going to go down there and delineate the Hogs Hole, and the road would not be within the boundary, d) Dorothy McIlroy [one of this areas leading bird authorities and a woman who has been intimately familiar with the Hogs Hole for over 60 years] would not help them in this; they are professionals who know what they are doing and do not need any outside help, and e) members of the EMC would help the engineers mark it out. (I was relieved to hear this, in any case.) Since I knew Common Council had never voted to ask for soccer fields in that area, I asked whom you meant by "the City." Your eventual response was the Planning Dept. and, I think, sports groups. You also said something about the request being made 2 or 3 years ago. I did not get straight if there had been any recent requests of this nature. On the one hand you said the road could not be moved, but on the other hand, that it would not fall within the boundaries of the Hogs Hole. Does this mean that you have already determined the boundaries? I am sorry that you do not intend to include Mrs. McIlroy in the marking operation. She has an encyclopedic knowledge of the local bird scene and probably knows more about the Hogs Hole than anyone else in Ithaca. I also regret that you perceive me as a solitary voice expressing my own narrow interest and no one else's. I realize that you have to weigh different interests in the community, but as far as the Hogs Hole - -and in fact the huge marsh that used to be at the end of Cayuga Lake and of which it is but a tiny remnant- reconcerned, t4�ey have already been sacrificed to the active sports interests (golf, tennis, soccer, softball, boating, etc.). I am far from being a lone voice on behalf of wetlands! In fact, there are a great many people who are distressed at our State Park system for whittling away at the Hogs' Hole. The federal and state governments now recognize that wetlands are disappearing at an alarming rate and more must be done to protect them. I am glad that you are going to work with the EMC on adding a shallow pond to the Hogs Hole, and I hope that this indicates the beginnings of a similar commitment from your office. Cc: Mayor & Common Council EMC and CAC Planning Dept and Board Sincerely, _11� . Betsy Darlington) C q C C1' a', e rat L Memo to: Mayor Gutenberger Members of Common Council Cc: CAC members � ?J P _14V4 • 7PW -J- -, 'Pw From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair 7�1� Re: Town's proposed bikeway along rr ROW above Six -Mile Creek Date: Feb. 26, 1989 I learned today that the Town of Ithaca has done an EAF for the proposed bikeway. I have not yet seen it, but I think it recommends a negative declaration. SEQR requires coordinated review with other agencies, when these are involved. Common Council certainly is involved, since one spur of the bikeway would start inside the City, and the main path would cross City land out near Burns Road. Has anyone in the City been contacted about the environmental review for the project? Is a scoping session planned? A number of environmental issues must be addressed, but as far as I know, they have not been. (E.g., things having to do with sewer line, future road, etc.) A -T-) t 15 s c(-&,, (I c� 114 -a"-, Also, I talked to Ms. Bonnie McLaud, the NYSEG negotiator on this. She said: a. Although the ROW is 66 feet wide, NYSEG does not have to give up that much width. They could give up 8 or 10 feet, or any other width. (One Town planner told the CAC that they had to get 66 feet.) b. Negotiations have only just started with the Town. C. Although she was not sure of this, she thought that any granting of an easement to the Town would not give them the right to cross City -owned land. Memo to: Jon Meigs, Planning Dept. Cc: Susan Blumenthal, P &D Board From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Re: A. EAF for Pivirotto Subdivision on Taylor Pl. B. LoPinto subdivision EAF Date: Feb. 26, 1989 A. Yesterday I received the EAF for the Pivirotto subdivision. Once again, for some reason the States form was used instead of the City's. Could you please use the City's form and send me three copies (for our subcommittee)? We will then review it. Since Common Council has made the decision that City forms must be used, I don't think we are at liberty to use the States form. Also, it is very time consuming to go through the State's form each time, comparing it with the City's, to be sure nothing has been left out (time I don't have). Two questions that come to mind that are on the States form, and not the City's (but should be - -and eventually will be) are: 1. Is there likely to be controversy? 2. According to whom are there, or are there not, rare species? There may be others as well, but I,d have to go back and check. There are several questions on the City's, but not the States form. I cant remember how the State handles Part III, but the City asks a number of questions for each possible impact. (I think the State does, too.) By the way, Dick Booth and I are working on revising the local ordinance to incorporate all the changes the State made in 1987 (a mammoth undertaking!). Then we will tackle the forms, to be sure that ours is at least as strict as the States. B. I noticed that environmental review for the LoPinto subdivision is on P &D's agenda for Tuesday. I have not yet received the EAF for this. If it was mailed, the Post Office must have goofed things up! Thanks! DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 MEMO J , . L TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 To: Betsy Darlington, Chair, CAC From: H. M. Van Cort, Director of Planning and Development Date: March 1, 1989 Re: Transmittal of EAF Received Please find attached a copy of an EAF received for the sale of the Floral Avenue land by the City of Ithaca. This is being transmitted to you in accordance with the city's Environmental Quality Review procedures. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR TO: FROM: DATE: RE: CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 MrUnD A Mn TTM Common Council H.M. Van Cort, Director of Planning and Development /• i March 1, 1989 Environmental Review For Sale Of Floral Ave. Property Please find attached a copy of the completed environmental review for the sale of the city's Floral Avenue property to INHS. Part 1 of the review was prepared by Trowbridge and Associates for INHS; Parts 2 and 3 were prepared by Paul Mazzarella of the city's Planning Department. In accordance with the provisions of the city's Environmental Quality Review ordinance, a lead agency must be established to review this EAF. The Urban Renewal Agency is requesting that it be lead agency for this environmental review. A copy of the EAF is being sent to Common Council because it is a second involved agency in this matter. This is to notify Common Council that under the City's Environmental Laws, unless written objection by Common Council is made to the Urban Renewal Agency within fifteen days of the date this is sent, the Urban Renewal Agency will automatically be designated as the lead agency. Copies of the EAF have also been sent to the Chairperson'of the Conservation Advisory Council. cc: Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Members O— a— EAFFLOR.PM "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" LEAF LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 1 Project Information by Applicant NOTICE: This document is designed td assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verifications and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete PARTS 2 and 3. NAME AND LOCATION OF PROJECT: SA i A of Par-e-al 77 2 6 by— __City to Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Floral Avenue, City of Ithaca NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Dennis Will /Ithaca Neighborhood Housing dame)_ 520 West Green Street TStreet T P.O. State (Zip) BUSINESS PHONE: 277 -4500 NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different C Name 108 East Green Street Street P.O. State Zip 272 -1713 BUSINESS PHONE: TYPE OF PROJECT: Sale of Land (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - indicate N.A. if not applicable) A. SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas) 1. Character of the land: Generally uniform slope Generally uneven and rolling or irregular_. 2. Present land use: Urban , Industrial , Commercial Public ForestXX', Agricultural , Other , 3. Total area of project: 1.05 acres, or square feet. After Approximate Area: Presently Completion Meadow or Brushland _acres /sq. ft. -acres /sq. ft. Wooded 1.05 acres /sq. ft. ,_acres /sq. ft. Agricultural 0 acres /sq. ft. 0 acres /sq. ft. Wetland (as per article 24 of E.C.L.) 0 acres /sq. ft. 0 acres /sq. ft. Public ,Q_acres /sq. ft. /sq. ft. Water Surface Area 0 acres /sq. ft. _acres 0 acres /sq. ft. Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) o acres /sq. ft. o _acres/sq. ft. Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 0 acres /sq. ft. •20acres /sq. ft. Other (indicate type) Lawn 0 acres /sq. ft. *•55acres /sq. ft. -2- 4. (a) What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? e.g., HdB, silty loam, etc. bedrock &'miscellaneous soils (b) Percentage wall drained moderately well drained poorly drained soil drainage information unavailable 5. (a) Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Yes No. (b) What is depth of bedrock? 0 -6 (in feet). (c) What is depth to the water table? feet. information unavailable 6. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0 -10% %; 10 -15% 10 %; 15% or greater 90 %. 7. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes x No. 8. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? Yes x No; Identify each species 9. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, .gorges, other geological formations)? Yes x No. Describe 10. Is project within or contiguous to a site designated a unique natural area or critical environmental area by a local or state agency? Yes x No; Describe 11. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? Yes X No. 12. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes x No. 13. Is project contiguous to, or does it contain a building or site listed on or' eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places? Yes X No; if Yes, explain ; or designated a local landmark or in a local landmark district? Yes _No. 14. Streams within or contiguous to project site: un -named stream along SW property line a. Names of. stream or name of river to which it is tributarycayug a Inlet 15. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project site: a. Name 'I-B. Size (in acres) 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project? (e.g. single family residential, R -la or R -lb) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story) multi - family, p -3a, R — ?a. scale of develop.is single family, two family two -story residential, - and 3 -story apartment buildingsand 2 -story apartment buildings 17. Has the site been used for land disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Yes X. No; If Yes, describe ISE B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor acres or square feet.1.05A owned by City; INHS owns approx b. Project acreage developed:. - 6 cor���,�r `� t�tacrles 75 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped .30 d. Length of project in miles NA (if appropriate) or feet e. If project is an expansion or demolition of existing building or use, indicate percent of change proposed: building square footage NA ; developed acreage f. Number of, off- street �arking spaces existing 0 proposed 2$ r n _ fo etire Phase ) g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per day 24_o�and per hour 24 (upon completion of project).(f or entire Phase I and Phase II) h. If residential: Number and type of housing units (not structures): One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial 14 Ultimate 24 Orientation - check one Neighborhood City Regional If: Commercial If: Industrial Estimated Employment i. Total height of tallest proposed structure: 30 feet. 2. Specify what type of natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the site none or added to the site 3. Specify what type of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover) and how much will be removed from site - .75 acres. 4. Will any mature trees or other locally- important vegetation be removed by this project? X Yes No. 5. Are there any plans for re- vegetation to replace that removed during construction? _X Yes No. -4- 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction NA months (including demolition). 7. If multi - phased project: a. Total number of phases anticipated 2 b. Anticipated date of commencement phase one Sept. month 1989 year (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date final phase Sept. month 1992 year. d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes x No. 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes X No; if yes, explain 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 10 after project is completed 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 Explain 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes X No. If yes, explain 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? X Yes No b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) Sewage c. If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged? 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes X No. 14. a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to the 100 year flood plain? Yes X No. b. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or .partially within or contiguous to: Cayuga Inlet, Fall Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Cayuga Lake, Six Mile Creek, Silver Creek? c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to wetlands as described in Article 24 of the ECL? Yes d. If yes for a, b, or c, explain 15. .a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? X Yes No. b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? X Yes No. c. If yes, give name Tompkins Co. Land f- 4cation to be determined d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Yes X No. If yes, explain E. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? Yes X No. If yes, explain 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes X No. If yes, specify 17. Will project affect a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places? Or designated a local landmark or in a landmark district? Yes X No. If yes, explain 18. -5- Will project produce odors? Yes __X No. If yes, describe 19. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise level during construction? Yes x No; After construction? Yes X No. 20. W ill project result in an increase in energy use? x Yes No; if yes, indicate type(s) electric and gas 21. Total anticipated water usage per day48 ,00 4jals /day. Source of water City of Ithaca 22. Zoning: a. What is dominant zoning classification of site? P,-3a muli - family b. Current specific, zoning classification of site? R -3a c. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Yes d. If no, indicate desired zoning 23. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes x No. Specify b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? _Yes No. Specify Acquisition funded by Community Ai nr1-, rra.nt. C. C 0,s an 1� g1f0�t �pep6 0vy15�ombo . of State & Commun . Block Grant . Approval Submittal Approval (Yes -No) Required(type) (Date) (Date) Council Yes Sale of Land 3/ 1/89 7/5/89 BZA No P &D Board Yes Sale of Land 2/15/8 3/29/89 Landmarks No BPW No Fire Dept. NO Police Dept. No IURA Yes Lead AGency 2/21/89 3/20/89 Building Commissioner No C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS A- ttach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid them. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: TITLE P r i n r J = A 1 , TrnT• *hLi��e S�nr atAc REPRESENTING : Ithaca Neighborhood Housing DATE : 2/27/89 EA F ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART 2 PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE by reviewer General Information (Read Carefully) - - In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. - Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an effect in Column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. - The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the City and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and /or lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. - Each project, on each site, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. - The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there . wi l l be any effect. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the im the impact as potentially large, complete Part more fully in Part 3. e. If a potentially-large impact or effect can be in the project to a less than large magnitude, Column 3. A No response indicates that such a possible. pact, then consider 2, then describe reduced by a change place a Yes in reduction is not -2- IMPACT ON LAND NO YES 1. WILL THERE BEAN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL �( CHANGE TO PROJECT SITE? 0 Examples that would apply to Column 2 __Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slope in the project exceeds 10 %. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of parking facility /area for 50 or more vehicles. __Construction on land where bedrock'is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 Ions of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year. __Construction of any new sanitary land- fill. _Clearcutting or removal of vegetation other than agricultural crops from more than one -half acre. Construction in a designated floodway. _Permanent removal of topsoil from more than one -half acre. Other impacts NO YES 2. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT @ C ON ANY UNIQUE LAND FORMS FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.) Specific land forms: NO YES 3. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT 0 ON ANY SITE DESIGNATED X AS A UNIQUE NATURAL AREA OR A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA BY A LOCAL OR STATE AGENCY? - 1. 2. 3. -3- IMPACT ON WATER - NO YES 4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER BODY X DESIGNATED AS PROTECTED? (Under Article 15 or 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.) Examples that would apply to Column 2 Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Construction in a designated freshwater wetland. Other impacts: 5. WILL PROJECT AFFECT NO YES ANY NON- PROTECTED EXISTING OR NEW BODY OF WATER? 00 Examples that would apply to Column 2 A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10,000 sq. ft. increase or decrease. Construction, alteration, or conversion _ of a body of water that exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Fall Creek, 6 Mile Creek, Cascadilla _ Creek, Silver Creek, Cayuga Lake or the Cayuga Inlet ?' Other impacts: 6. WILL PROJECT AFFECT NO YES SURFACE OR GROUND- WATER QUALITY? - Examples that would apply to Column 2 Project will require a discharge I permit. 1. 2. 3. -4- Project requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Project will adversely affect ground- water. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Other impacts: DRAINAGE 7. WILL PROJECT ALTER NO YES DRAINAGE FLOW, DRAINAGE PATTERNS OR SURFACE WATER RUNOFF? Examples that would apply to Column 2 Project would impede flood water flows. Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Other impacts;�r�C� s�L —lam_ � J � Sao ��S " A N 8.� WILL PROJECT AFFECT NO YES AIR QUALITY? X Examples that would apply to Column 2 Project will induce 500 or more vehicle) trips in any 8 hour period per day- 1. 2. 1 3. -5- - Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of refuse per 24 hour day. Project emission rate of all contami- nants will exceed 5 lbs per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 9. WILL PROJECT AFFECT NO YES ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? 0 E 0� xamples that would apply to Column 2 Reduction of any species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, found over, on, or near site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. App.lication of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: 10. WILL PROJECT SUB- NO YES STANTIALLY AFFECT NON- THREATENED OR NON- ENDANGERED SPECIES? 0 Examples that would apply to Column 2 ,Project would substantially interfere _ with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Project requires the removal of more than 112 acre of mature woods or other locally important vegetation. 1. 2. 3. S.2 IMPACT ON VISUAL RESOURCE NO YES 11. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT VIEWS, VISTAS OR THE VISUAL CHARACTER 0 OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY? Examples that would apply to Column 2 An incompatible visual effect caused by the introduction of new materials, colors and /or forms in contrast to the surrounding landscape. A project easily visible, not easily screened, that is obviously different from others around it. __Project will result in the elimination or major screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. __Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES 12. WILL PROJECT IMPACT NO YES ANY -SITE OR STRUCTURE �( OF HISTORIC, PRE- / \ HISTORIC OR PALEON- TOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE? Examples that would apply to Column 2 Project occurring wholly or partially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places. __Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. __Project occurring wholly or partially within or contiguous to any site designated as a local landmark or in a landmark district. Other impacts: 1. 2. 3. -7- IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION NO YES 13. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE QUANTITY X OR QUALITY OF EXISTING 0 OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES? Examples that would apply to Column 2 __The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. _ A major reduction of an open space important to the community. __Other impacts: p� PR- tUf�TE �vJ�yc..1�C,- �t� L -Pcr�l tN�ktc.� tS �}tz- P�NTy' IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION ND PcA3L.tC,L`� 14. WILL THERE BE AN YES EFFECT TO EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS? 0 Examples that would apply to Column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and /or goods. Project will result in traffic problems. Project will result in [dual wheel] truck traffic (three axle or more) of more than 10 vehicles per eight - hour period per day. Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY NO YES 15. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE �( COMMUNITY'S SOURCES OF FUEL OR ENERGY SUPPLY? Examples that would apply to Column 2 1. 2. 3. __Project causing greater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. __Project requiring the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences. Other impacts: IMPACT ON QUALITY OF DAILY LIFE NO YES 16. WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, �/ NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION /� OR ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE 0 DURING CONSTRUCTION OF OR AFTER COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT? Examples that would apply to Column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. __Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Project will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HEALTH AND HAZARDS NO YES 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND OX SAFETY? 0 Examples. that would apply to Column 2 P- roject- wil -1 -- cause -a- risk - =of. explosion . or release of hazardous substances (i.e. o-il, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be a chronic low-level discharge -.or emission. 1. 2. 3. ME Project will result in the handling or disposal of hazardous wastes (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi- solid, liquid or contain gases). __Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. __Use of any chemical for de- icing, soil stabilization or the control of vegetation, insects or animal life on the premises of any residential, commercial or industrial property in excess of 30,000 square feet. Other impacts: IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD NO YES 18. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHARACTER OF THE X EXISTING COMMUNITY? 0 Examples that would apply to Column 2 _The population of the City in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. - -The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more.than 5% per year as a result of this project. The project will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will induce an influx of a _ particular age group with special needs. Project will set an important precedent for future projects. Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one.or more businesses. Other impacts 1�Ra5cT WlLlr1_ TEIF- _ SOPL`i (Of�- 14j -�02D S F_ 40 JS ( to 6-. 1. 2. 3. -10- SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE NO YES 19. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT? 0 Examples that would apply to Column 2 __Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed opposition or rejected the project or have not been contacted. __Objections to the project from within the community. IF ANY ACTION IN PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3 PORTIONS OF LEAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT: PART 1 / PART 2 Z PART 3 ✓ DETERMINATION Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, 2, and 3) and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: A. The project will.result in no major impacts and, therefore, is one which may not cause significant damage to the environment. B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environ- ment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been included as part of the proposed project. C. The project will result in one or more major impacts that cannot be reduced and may cause significant damage to -the environment. PREPARE -A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARE A POSITIVE DECLARATION PROCEED WITH EIS C -11- Da to Signature of Pr rer (if different from-responsible officer) Title /Position Signature of Responsible Official in Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Official in Lead Agency Lead Agency's Name EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART 3 EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS INFORMATION - Part 3 is prepared if one or more impact or effect is considered to be potentially large. - The amount of writing necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the question: in briefly completing the instructions below have I placed in this record sufficient information to indicate the reasonableness of my decisions? INSTRUCTIONS Complete the following for each impact or effect identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than large impact by a project change. 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important to the City. To answer the question of importance, consider: - The probability of the impact or effect occurring - The duration of the impact or effect . - Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources or values Whether the impact or effect can be controlled - The re.gional consequence of the impact or effect - Its potential divergence from local needs and goals - Whether known objectives to the project apply to this impact or effect DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE An action is considered to be significant if: One (or more) impact is determined to be both large and its'(their) consequence, based on the review above, is important. PART III STATEMENTS: (Continue on Attachments, as needed) SALE OF FLORAL AVENUE PROPERTY TO INHS PART 3 LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Description of The Proposed Action The proposed action involves the sale by the City of Ithaca of a 1.05 acre parcel of land on Floral Avenue to Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INNS). It is understood that INNS will combine this property with adjacent land it already owns and use the combined parcel for the development of its proposed mutual housing project. The sale of this land by the City of Ithaca is contingent upon the development of the property for housing that is available to low and moderate income households. However, it is not contingent upon the development of either the mutual housing concept or the development on the site of housing in the form and density currently being proposed by INHS. Since the sale of this property to INHS is closely linked to the development of the mutual housing project, this environmental assessment makes the assumption that the property sale will likely lead directly to the development of the mutual housing project. Therefore, an effort has been made to describe the impacts of that project and the ways that those impacts might be mitigated. It should be noted that further, more detailed environmental review of the mutual housing project will likely be required through either the city's Site Development Plan Review Ordinance or the Subdivision Regulations. Project Impacts And Mitigation Measures 1. Effects As A Result of Physical Changes To The Project Site Development of the site would result in several small to moderate impacts that are the result of construction activities on undeveloped land. These include construction on slopes which exceed 10 %, construction on land where the bedrock is exposed or close to the surface and the removal of more than one -half acre of existing vegetation. The vegetation that would be removed does not appear to have any unique or valuable characteristics, so the negative aspects of each of these impacts relate mainly to stormwater runoff and soil erosion and the cost and method of construction. Unless proper mitigation measures are employed in the design and construction of the project, there is a potential for a more and faster runoff to be concentrated on certain parts of the site, which could cause soil erosion and sedimentation of existing nearby waterways. These effects can be mitigated through techniques that retain and meter the flow of stormwater. Bedrock which is close to the surface could result in the need for blasting during construction and would raise the cost of foundations and underground utilities. Impacts of these types are typical of the effects of construction throughout the Ithaca area, and are not significant problems. 2. Alteration of Drainage Flow, Drainage Patterns Or Surface Water Runoff Development on this site will result in a significant increase in the amount of impermeable surfaces such as roofs, streets and sidewalks. Since the site has slopes that generally exceed 10 %, surface water runoff will be concentrated into specific drainage patterns which will be characterized by higher volumes and faster flow rates than what exists on the undeveloped land. If not slowed, this runoff could result in soil erosion, sedimentation and flooding of nearby waterways. These impacts are small to moderate in severity, and can be mitigated through readily available design and construction techniques. . 3. Effects On The Visual Character Of The Neighborhood Much of the land around the project site is currently undeveloped or developed as detached single family homes. The project site itself is also currently undeveloped. The development of the mutual housing project will ultimately result in the construction of twenty -four two - family buildings on the entire INNS site, which represents a large change to the character of the immediate neighborhood. However, the site is zoned R -3a, which permits multiple unit apartment buildings at a density of approximately forty -five units per acre. The proposed mutual housing project attempts to mitigate the effects of development on the site through the design of building which look similar to detached single family homes and by keeping the overall development density much lower than what is allowed under the zoning regulations. 4. Effects On The Availability Of Open Space The development of this currently undeveloped land would decrease the amount of open space that is avail- able in the neighborhood. However, this land is not currently designated as park land, conservation land or land that is intended for use by the general public. Its value as open space is restricted to value as wildlife habitat and in its contribution to the general feeling of low density development that is prevalent in the neighborhood. The visual effects of development can be mitigated through the use of creative landscaping and design techniques, the retention of as much existing vegetation as possible and the development on the site of open space or recreational amenities. INNS has discussed with the city the possiblity of dedicating some of the land on the project site as public park space. If done, this would enhance the recreational opportunities available to neighborhood residents. The effects of the loss of open space through the development of this site are local in nature, with no regional consequences. 5. Impacts On The Character Of The Existing Community The sale of the Floral Avenue property is expected to provide an opportunity for INHS to build affordable housing on the project site that will augment the community's dwindling supply of affordable housing. The development of additional affordable housing will support a goal that has been articulated in a number of plans and policy statements adopted by the City of Ithaca. The city's Urban Renewal Plan and Strategic Housing and Neighborhoods Plan both call for the development of additional affordable housing as a cornerstone to making Ithaca a place where families of all income levels can afford to live. The City of Ithaca has also provided continual support to the activities of INHS through its Community Development Block Grant program and through contributions from the city's General Fund. The Floral Avenue site is the first location for INHS's proposed mutual housing program, which could be a model for the development of affordable housing that is available on a long -term basis. . This is a positive impact for the community beacuse is will take some housing units Out of the speculative market, thus holding costs down for at least a small segment of the community. If successful, this model could result in wider, more long -term impacts on the cost of housing in Ithaca. Memo to: P &D Board Members P& D Dept. Mayor and Common Council Conservation Advisory Council Members Michael Lo Pinto, Jr. (531 Elm St.) From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Re: Subdivision at 358 -426 Floral Ave. (Proposal for two buildings, each with 8 units, plus option of additional apartment below each unit; units to be sold; homeowners' association to own common lands.) Date: March 5, 1989 The CAC ,s EAF subcommittee reviewed the EAF for the above project. (Darling- ton, Farrell, Hotchkiss) Farrell called in his comments; Hotchkiss and Darlington met with Micky Lo Pinto -- visited the site, and discussed the EAF with him. Recommendation: None at this time. There are still too many unknowns to be able to make a recommendation: e.g. the project may become 4 buildings, each with 4 units; some of the lower apartments may instead be garages or extra space for the units above; the units may be rented until interest rates come down; the project may be phased in gradually; the driveway may be narrowed to allow for landscaping in front of the buildings; the placement of the buildings (whether four or two) is still unknown; soil types, depth of bedrock, measures to control runoff are still unknown; proximity of the southern -most building to the ravine on the next property is still unknown; even minimal provisions of a homeowners' association contract -- restrictions on land use in particular- -have not yet been determined. This last item is especially important in terms of environmental impact of the project. Drainage, the provisions of the homeowners' association document, and Octopus traffic are three areas to especially keep an eye on. Comment: This has the potential of being a good project. The building design is attractive; the plant life that must be removed is mainly box elder, multi -flora rose, and privet (with just a scattering of better stuff like black cherry, walnut, red osier dogwood, purple - flowering raspberry) - -in other words, not a top quality wood lot; the project should provide some much- needed moderately affordable housing; clustering will save open space and limit the amount of cutting into the hillside; use of natural gas for heat and for the upstairs stoves is preferable 2 to use of electricity (air pollution and greenhouse - effect considerations); energy use should be low because the units would be attached; the intent is to leave most of the undeveloped area as it is (young woods) (to ensure this, it would have to be in the deeds or homeowners' association document). Also, the intent is to do considerable landscaping - esp. trees. This should be spelled out in the final plans (species, locations). We appreciated all the maps, diagrams, drawings that came with the EAF (even though they are now partly obsolete). Specific comments on the EAF: Since this is a Type I action, a Short EAF did not need to be filled out, and we concentrated on the Long EAF. We had the following suggestions: 1. Re -work the numbers under Site Description (Part I, A, #3, so things add up properly. 2. Part I, page 2, #4: find out the soil types (shale being rock), and drainage percentages. 3. X65 (b), (c): find out depth of bedrock and water table. 4. #6: get more accurate slope percentages (some is clearly 0 -10 %, for example). 5. #14: cross off "within," (leaving "contiguous to "), and under (a), write in, "nameless stream in small ravine, drains into Cayuga Inlet." (This stream is next to the parcel, on the south side.) 6. Page 3, B,#1 (h): (number of housing units, etc.) - still needs to be decided. 7. #2: write in where any soil that must be removed from the site will go. (He told us he'd take it to someone needing clean fill.) g. #3: (type of veg. to be removed): add "mostly" before "boxelder," and "brush" or "shrubs." 9. Page 4, #6 and 7: this probably has changed to multi - phased. Plans are unsettled. Also, include discussion of homeowners' association in the phasing, since this would be an integral part of the whole project (even if not immediately). 10. #8: (blasting): write in "unknown at this time" (and try to find out) 11. #9: (jobs): whether rental properties or jointly held land, some jobs presumably would be generated. 3 12. # 14: remove X from contiguous to Cayuga Inlet, but retain statement under (d) ( "across 13A from Cayuga Inlet "). (Maybe 200 feet of wetland also separate them.) 13. #15 (c): (landfill): change to "Tompkins Co. landfill" 14. #16: (pesticides): change to yes (quite likely, after develop- ment) 15. Page 5, #19: (noise during construction): change to yes 16. #21: (water usage): calculate gallons (100 /day /person ?) 't1° 2 17. Part 2:,get answers for the various unknowns on the page (slope, water table, bedrock, length of time) 18. Page 3, #5: (effect on bodies of water): yes, on Cayuga Inlet, if sufficient erosion, sedimentation, drainage controls are not used. 19. Page 3 -4, #6, last example (siltation of a body of water): same as #5, but for stream next to property. 20. Page 7, #13: (effect on open space): Yes. But clustering will help mitigate this. 21. #14: (transportation): could be traffic problems at the Octopus (less if we get Plan A, more with B or C). Octopus problems during construction should be considered. (Timing will be important.) Memo to: Supervisor Noel Desch Members of Ithaca Town Board Town Planners, Susan Beeners and George Frantz From: Town Attorney John Barney Betsy Darlin ton g , Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) Chair Re: Six -Mile Creek Recreation Trail EAF Date: March 6, 1989 I understand the Town Board will be discussing, and maybe voting n the bikeway EAF on March 13. I urge g ' I. I only learned a little over a week ago that danaEAF had this project. If the City is an involved agency,,, ad been done for it should be included in the SEQR process. I have three bits of information concerning this: A. Bonnie McLaud, the NYSEG negotiator, said she thought--but was not sure- -that the City would have to give its approval for the bikeway to cross the new City parcel. Susan Beeners asked Attorney Barney this and he felt City approval would not be needed. Someone about document) at NYSEG should be able to clarify (or some B. Susan Beeners said that Mr. Barney this. y felt that the City would have to give its approval for use of the Wildflower Preserve Trail, in from Renzetti Pl. - -if that is, in fact, an official trail. C. Ralph Nash told me that if City approval is needed for any part of the project, then the City will conduct its own environmental review when the time comes, if it is not included now. This would delay the project- - Possibly at an awkward time for you. 1 I would like to suggest that the City be included and a vote on the EAF be delayed until this has happened. This will give people in the Cit an opportunity to state any concerns, and also avoid later delays. y H. In the event that you decide to go ahead without comments from the City, I would like to make a few now, although I have not yet had time to study the document carefully. 1. Trail width: Few people seem to favor a width of 8 feet. There are narrow maintenance vehicles designed for use on narrow trails, and access for trucks is the only reason I've heard for having the trail so wide. (For removing fallen trees from the trail, the ecologically soundest r would be to simply leave the trees in P ocedure the woods.) A number of users of the Honness Lane trail feel that is it far wider than necessary or desirable. Along Six -Mile Creek, which is so m a place, the extra width would destroy uch wilder t isolated trail through the woods. If the trail is narrow--on a remote, er -4 or 5 feet z maybe ? - -at least some of the opposition to it will disappear. 2. Sewer line, etc.: There is always a problem of knowing what to address in doing an EAF. One of the City planners and I were told by John Lockrow, Sr. Analyst at the DEC in Albany, (regarding the City ,s Alienation process) that an environmental assessment must address a "worst case" scenario; other things that could follow as a result of the project must be addressed. In this instance, there are five major things that could happen, once the project is approved, and these should be addressed in the EAF: a. Extension of the sewer line out along the right -of -way, b. Intense development below Coddington Rd. as a result of (a); c. Construction of a road where the trail now is (some of this is in fact already planned); d. Deterioration of the valuable natural area below the rr bed because of (b); e. Degradation of the water supply because of (b), (c), and (d). One could argue that leaky septic systems along Coddington Rd. pose a greater risk. (If so, why isn't the County correcting the problem ?) First, sewer lines also can leak (and the one west of Northfield may be doing just that!). Also, a new study shows that with development comes greatly increased pollution of groundwater (which, of course, along Coddington Rd., ends up in Six -Mile Creek). This pollution is from many different substances - pesticides, solvents, salt, gasoline, etc. Of course, there is also greater runoff and more pollution of surface water with development. 3. Mitigating measures: If we wish to protect the water supply and the outstanding and unique natural area that extends upward for a considerable distance from it, measures must be taken before the bikeway is approved. Here are some possibilities: a. Be sure that the easements from NYSEG and Therm allow for only the bikeway and not a sewer line or future road; b. Be sure that there are not other conditions in the easement that could stimulate intense development below Coddington Rd.; c. Go for an easement, and not purchase, of the right -of -way. (Otherwise some future board could overturn any protections you put in place.) d. Ask for an easement of, say, 20' rather than 66'. * A determination of significance cannot be made until terms of the easement are known. 4. Cost of project: Many people are concerned about the cost of the project. Couldn't a good bike trail be made at far less expense by simply smoothing S out the bumps, putting bark chips or cinders in especially muddy places, and trimming brush where it is threatening to overrun the trail? I believe that many people would support the trail if 1) the trail were narrower and less manicured or "suburban" in character; 2) if a commitment were made -- ensured in part with the easement conditions - -not to ever extend the sewer line along it, and not to ever put in a road; and 3) if the cost were reduced. I think many people like the idea of having the trail maintained and monitored to some degree. They just don't like the extent of the proposed changes nor of the future impacts that such things as a sewer line would have. Trails can be beautiful, and this one already is. Let ,s not do so much to it that we ruin it! If it's done right, I think the project will enjoy widespread support. Thanks for your attention! CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL March 6, 1989 Mr. Richard J. Cook CNG Transmission Corp. 445 W. Main St. Clarksburg, W. VA 26302 -2450 Dear Mr . Cook: I read in the legal notices on February 28th that your company is planning to construct a natural gas pipeline across Six -Mile Creek just east of the Ithaca Reservoir. As I understand the notice, much of the pipeline will run along the current NYS EG powerline. Are you aware that this powerline crosses City land, near Coddington Rd. as far as the old railroad bed, and again in the City watershed holdings? In addition to concerns with siltation and other pollution of the water supply, the Six -Mile Creek area is designated by the County Environmental Management Council as a "unique natural area" because of its many rare or scarce plants, animals, and ecological communities, its spectacular scenery, and its interesting geological features. The area is characterized by deep gorges with highly erodible banks, leading down to the main creek. What measures will your company be taking to: a. Minimize disturbance to the plants and wildlife; b. Minimize problems of runoff, erosion, and sedimentation during construction; c. Minimize construction damage; d. Minimize pollution (including trash) by your construction crews and their machinery? Also, what will you be doing to involve the City in review and oversight of the project? Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Cc: NYS DEC Public Service Commission NYSEG Mayor Gutenliet&OJN"(5fRyM6ryit06t9 Jtive Action Program" TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 Memo to: Paul Mazzarella, P &D Cc: P &D Board Common Council and Mayor CAC Mon Cochran From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Re: Natural corridors between wooded areas Date: March 8, 1989 As part of the planning for West Hill, you asked me recently if I had any information about natural corridors between wooded areas - how wide they should be, etc. I asked Charles Smith at the Lab of Ornithology, and John Confer, biology professor (at IC) whose specialties are ornithology and limnology, but who is also a good all- around naturalist. Here's what I,ve learned: 1. No one knows how wide such travel lanes must be, although a lot of research (e.g. by Chandler Robbins) indicates their importance to birds and other wildlife. If wooded areas become isolated, they lose much of their value for wildlife. 2. The greater the distance between wooded areas, the wider the corridors should be. 3. Corridors along wet areas (such as the many streams on West Hill) are especially valuable for wildlife. 4. The brushier such lanes are kept, the better. In other words, they should be left alone to "do their own thing," not kept trimmed and tidy. 5. John and Charlie seemed to have about the same idea as to minimum width requirements, although no one knows for sure. John said that if 30 feet were kept natural on each side of a stream (in other words, maybe 60 -70 feet of total width, for a small stream), that would probably be enough. Charlie said they should be at least as wide as a brushy hedgerow; these tend to be about 30 -50 feet or so. (He was talking about dry areas, not along streams.) Of course, the wider the better! 6. Retaining such corridors will have many advantages for both the developer and the future residents, as well as the wildlife. For example: They serve as important windbreaks; they make the development much more attractive, and provide an important visual barrier to neighboring developments; they provide the residents with wildlife to watch - -an asset for any project; they provide children with important first -hand experiences with nature; they help hold the soil and improve drainage; and because of all of the above, they increase the value of the property - -a benefit to both developer and homeowner. I talked about the medium -sized wet areas on the two Garcia parcels with John Confer, and he said it was important to leave these undisturbed. Such areas are important to many creatures (woodcocks, for example), and also help drainage. Victor Garcia was talking about channeling all the water from such areas into one of the larger streams. This would be a poor idea. If he continues to think along these lines, we can talk further about the problems with it. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT March 13, 1989 Commissioner Thomas Jorling NYS DEC 50 Wolf Rd. Albany, NY Dear Commissioner Jorling: Re Ithaca Falls designation under the WilcT,—Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act The Conservation Advisory Council of the City of Ithaca would like to add its voice to the request for designation of Ithaca Falls - -in fact, for all of Fall Creek from Ithaca Falls to Beebe Lake - -as a "wild, scenic, and recreational river." Fall Creek Gorge, including Ithaca Falls, is one of the most important scenic and recreational features of our city. Residents from the surrounding downtown neighborhood and indeed the entire city, students from the nearby high school, and countless tourists, make frequent use of the area, for fishing, swimming, waterfall - watching, hiking, bird- watching, photograpy, painting, relaxing, etc. The area extending from the Falls to Beebe Lake is on the Tompkins County EMC ,s unique areas list, for its botanical, geological, and scenic features. The Falls themselves form an impressive and dramatic entrance to the spectacular gorge above. The CAC feels that construction of a hydropower plant (or any other development) would compromise the beauty and serenity of this important urban site. Furthermore, we would anticipate extensive damage to the surrounding area as a result of the construction operation. It is arguable whether or not the Falls themselves would change drama- tically in appearance; however, the Falls constitute just one part of the entire scene. The appearance and possible noise of the nearby plant would be an unfortunate intrusion. Given the importance of this scenic and recreational area to the City - -and in fact, to New York State - -the CAC feels that designation of Ithaca Falls (if possible, all of Fall Creek Gorge) under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act is an important step in its ultimate protection -- whether from hydropower or any other development. Thank you for any help you can give. Sincerely, Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair P.S. The vote to approve rthis letter was as follows: r I' u — C'. c �i Q y Qy� C 0- . �uLw � y r 04 C. I `F J( 1) >Irr 4 lsl� ,y> Memo to: Sean Killeen Cc: Other members of Common Council Mayor Gutenberger CAC members From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Date: March 14, 1989 Re: Your suggestions to the CAC First, thanks very much for your suggestions on our recent ques- tionaire. We discussed your ideas at our meeting last night, and the Council asked me to report back to you. 1. The first suggestion was that we link more closely with the EMC. We are already in pretty close touch with the EMC. Roger Farrell is our liaison to the EMC, and thereby is the City ,s official representative on it. Also, I talk frequently with various members about matters of mutual interest. (Esp. Herb Engman, Ashley Miller, Bob Beck, Lynn Leopold.) 2. Your next idea was for us to link up with the Tk. Co. Planning Board. Roger Farrell will be attending their next meeting, for discussions about the Hogs Hole, and will see what might be done. Unfortunately, I don't know if we will have the manpower to have a regular attender at their meetings. All of us serve as liaisons to various other boards and feel that we cant take on more. However, two members were sick and unable to attend last nights meeting; possibly one of them would be interested. It certainly sounds like a good idea, and I hope that someday we might be able to do something about it. 3. Your final idea, to link with the County ,s Comprehensive Health Planning Council, also would probably be worthwhile. None of us knows exactly what they do. John Johnson had to leave before we started our discussion of this, but Carolyn Peterson said she thought John attends their meetings, as a rep. from Human Services. If so, he could report back to us on matters that we might want to be involved with. Thanks again for your help! RESOLUTION TO COMMON COUNCIL, CONCERNING DESIGNATION OF FALL CREEK from the CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL March 14, 1989 On March 13, 1989, the Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to approve the following background statement, and to recommend that Common Council pass the following resolutions. (All members present except Jill Tripp and Eric Broberg.): Resolved, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca ask Assemblyman Marty Luster to immediately sponsor a bill in the NYS Legislature, designating Fall Creek, from its mouth at Cayuga Lake, to Rt . 13 in the vicinity of Monkey Run, as a "study river" under the Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River Systems Act; and be it further Resolved that Common Council let the DEC know that it supports designation of Fall Creek as a "Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River;" and be it further Resolved that Common Council give its support to the efforts of the citizens group that is working for this designation of Fall Creek. 1. Marty Luster has indicated a willingness to serve the City in this way as soon as he gets direction from Common Council to do so. 2. A citizens group is preparing the study required for designation. 3. People are very optimistic about the likelihood of Fall Creek qualifying for inclusion in the Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers System. 4. Mr. Vernon Husek's meeting with the City on March 9/89 is on tape at the Planning Dept. Those who were unable to attend the meeting would undoubtedly find the tape of great interest. Mr. Husek (NYS DEC in Albany) said during his meeting that if he lived in Ithaca, he would waste no time in seeking designation. He asked us how many cities we could name that had waterfalls such as Ithaca Falls right in the downtown. Thank you for your speedy decision on the resolution - -i.e. at the April meeting of Common Council. CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Commissioner Thomas Jorling NYS DEC 50 Wolf Rd. Albany, NY 12233 Dear Commissioner Jorling: March 14, 1989 Re Designation of Fall Creek under the WiTc1, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act Last night the Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to endorse the request being made by a local citizens group for desig- nation of Fall Creek, from its mouth at Cayuga Lake to Rt. 13 in the vicinity of Monkey Run, as a "wild, scenic and recreational river." Fall Creek, including Ithaca Falls, is one of the most important scenic and recreational features of our city. Residents from the surrounding downtown neighborhood and indeed the entire city, students from the nearby high school, and countless tourists, make frequent use of this unique natural area, for fishing, swimming, waterfall - watching, hiking, canoeing, bird- watching, photography, painting, relaxing, etc. The area is on the Tompkins County EMC ,s unique areas list, for its botanical, geological, recreational and scenic features. The Falls themselves form an impressive and dramatic entrance to the gorge above. The area of the creek below the Falls serves as an important spawning area for salmon and other fish. The CAC feels that a hydropower plant, or any other development, would compromise the beauty and serenity of this important area. Furthermore, we anticipate that any construction activities would cause extensive damage. Given the importance of this scenic, recreational, and ecological resource to the City as well as to the State, the CAC urges you to support designation of Fall Creek under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act as an important step in its ultimate protection. We appreciate your attention to this issue, and thank you for any help you can give. Sincerely, Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair, on behalf of the members (The CAC voted unanimously to endorse this letter.) Cc: Assemblyman Marty Luster Congressman Matt McHugh CAC Hydropower Commission Senator James Seward Common Council, Mayor Gutenberger Citizens Against Hydropower at Ithaca Falls "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 4 -� F 1 Memo to: Mayor Gutenberger W 4. C-�A vote U;"U A Common Council P &D Board and P &D Dept. a� '1° 4�, BPW & DPW Ithaca Town Board Town Planning Dept . Cc: CAC Six -Mile Creek Committee Circle Greenway Re: South Hill Recreation Trail EAF From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory�e� Council Chair Date: March 19, 1989 The CAC voted unanimously (with two members, Tripp and Broberg, absent) to approve the following general statements, and to delegate to our EAF Subcommittee the task of reviewing the EAF in detail. Specific comments on the EAF from the subcommittee follow the general comments. General comments: 1. Perhaps a trail width of four feet or less would be more appropriate to the setting than the proposed eight feet. We also recommend eliminating paving from any part of the trail. These measures would mitigate some of the aesthetic impacts, reduce costs, and reduce opposition to the plan. The CAC questions the need for a trail wide enough to permit truck and emergency vehicle access. Numerous woodland trails throughout the city, town, state, and nation are not accessible to such vehicles. People cannot, and need not, be protected from every possible risk. As for truck access, small carts are available for routine maintenance activities along narrow trails. Tree removal should involve simply getting fallen trees off the path and into the adjacent woods. 2. Without knowing the conditions of the easements from NYSEG, Therm, and others, it is impossible to evaluate the impact of the project on the environment, and a negative declaration cannot possibly be made. An environmental assessment must address likely scenarios. For example, if the easement would permit the extension of the sewer line out along the rr bed (as the Town intends), or a road (already at least tentatively planned for western portions), the level of development that would be stimulated below Coddington Rd. could be very damaging to the unique natural area below the rr bed as well as to the water supply. (See memo Over A E of March 6 from Darlington.) 3. The CAC feels that several mitigating measures must be taken, if the water supply, the unique natural area below the tracks, and the aesthetic characteristics of the trail itself are to be protected: a. Go for easements, not purchase, of the right -of -way. (Otherwise, some future board could overturn any protections that are put in place.) b. Ask for narrower easements than 66'. Twenty feet, for example, would be ample for maintenance purposes. c. Be sure that the easements allow for only a recreation trail and not a sewer line or future road. d. Be sure that there are no other conditions in the easements that could stimulate development below Coddington Rd. e. Reduce the designed pathway width to 4' or less. f. Examine further the rationale behind the use of gates, etc. to limit access from the trail to sensitive areas below it. Might these draw attention to such areas? Might vegetation be destroyed by people going around the gates? Would gates fit in with the natural charactistics of the area? Would it make sense to delay installation of gates, and then install them later only if it is determined that they are needed? 4. Many people are concerned about the cost of the project. A good trail could be made at far less expense by smoothing out the bumps and putting bark chips or cinders in muddy places. Summary: We believe the project could enjoy widespread support if: 1) the trail were narrower and less manicured or "suburban" in character; 2) a commitment were made -- ensured in part with the easement conditions - -not to ever extend the sewer line or a road along it; and 3) if the cost were reduced. Some trail monitoring and maintenance is a good idea. People just do not like the extent of the proposed changes nor of the impacts that such things as a sewer line would have. This is a beautiful trail already. Lets do only what is needed to keep it that way. Specific Comments on the EAF from the EAF subcommittee (Farrell, Waldron, Darlington): Notes: 1. Were delighted to see that the Town intends to do some 4 n 3 Conservation Overlay Zoning in the Six -Mile Creek area. 2. We are indicating just a few of the many questions that should be answered differently, in light of the eventual extension of the sewer line and maybe road. The EAF really should address this on every question, unless the Town is prepared to preclude such extensions, and unless the easements would not permit them. Questions: 1. If a sewer line or road were installed along any portions of the new trail, would EQBA funds have to be returned? 2. Would de -icers be used along any portions of the trail (esp. the portions to be plowed). 3. Is plowing really desirable? Could this aspect be dropped? 4. In Part II -A, we are not clear as to what is meant be "[the trail] will assist as an organizing element for additional open space conservation." Could this be spelled out? Page 1: Since the State is supplying the major funding, why isn,t it the lead agency, or at least an involved agency? Page 2: "Description of Action :" Should also include: acquisition of easements, future maintenance and operation, extension of other services (unless there is news to the contrary). Would the Town need to acquire land to get additional access to the trail? If so, that also should be in the description. Page 3: #5: (slope percentages) Since the proposal is for a 66' right -of -way, the "project" includes the slopes adjacent to the trail as well as the trail itself, and must therefore constitute more than 2% at slopes of 15% or greater. Also, does the 2% figure include both the part near Burns Rd. and the part from the lower switchback to the main line? #11: (any threatened species) At what time of year were birds and other animals inventoried, who did the inventories, and how many visits did the persons conducting the inventories make? Were reptiles and amphibians inventoried? (We have some rare species in this area.) #12: (unusual landforms, geological formations) Interesting ravines occur in a number of places along the trail. #14: (scenic views) Should be yes. Site includes many scenic views. #19: (CEA's) Site is contiguous to the City watershed. 0 Vev-> 4 B,l,a: (Acres owned or controlled by sponsor) None, yet. b, c: (Acres to be developed, left undeveloped) Should be answered. j: ( Linear feet of road frontage) How was the 735 arrived at? Figure seems high for ends of just five roads. Acquisitions maybe? Page 4: #2: (natural material to be removed) Should be answered. a rac& #4,5: (vegetation removal) What ,s answer if sewer line,,goes in? #6,7: (# of phases) It cant be both single- and multi - phased. Also, what would be done in phase 1? #13: (liquid waste disposal) Yes, if sewer line goes in. #19: (odors) Maybe, if sewer line. There are reports that one spot in the current sewer line smells of raw sewage. #24: (local, state, fed. funding): Isn't Town funding also involved? Page 5: C,1: (is a planning decision involved ?) Shouldn't this be "yes ?" #3: (Max. potential development of the site) Answer should be more explicit - road? sewer? #6: (consistent with local land use plans) Not with City ,s. #7: (predominant land uses) Add, "unique natural area, and City watershed" #8: (compatibility with adjacent uses) Sewer line or road would not be. Also, paving, and width of trail, are incompatible with surrounding uses. #9: (subdivision ?) (Technical question: If several parcels are combined into one, is it called a subdivision? If so, this is.) #11: (community services) People in the area say police protection is not now, and will not be adequate. Has the sheriff been consulted? PART 2, Impacts: Instructions state that if any threshold is met or exceeded, response must go in column 2. Page 6, #1: (physical change to site) X,s should be in col. 2. #2: (effect to unusual land forms) Yes (col. 2), if sewer line or road. Page 7, #3: Part II -A says site includes several DEC - protected streams. #5: (affect on surface or groundwater) Examples 4 (contamin. of water supply), 5 (effect on groundwater), and 8 (siltation) should be checked ,, r r" in col 2, if a sewer line 'A is intended. (With sewer line would come development, and with development would come increased groundwater u r 5 pollution. Also, sewer lines sometimes leak, as can septic systems, but such leakage in this site would reach the water supply sooner and without as much opportunity to be filtered by the soil, and could be far greater in volume. Page 8, #9: (plants and animals) If sewer line or road is put in, development will become intense, with subsequent loss of species, both directly and through loss of habitat. Page 8-9, #10: (agricultural resources) If sewer or road, subsequent development would undoubtedly lead to loss of agricultural land. Page 9, #11: (aesthetic resources) All examples should be checked (even more so if sewer line is extended and development intensifies). (Paved path, and such a wide path - -not in keeping with the surroundings.) or ro #13: (open space and recreation) If sewer line then major reductions will follow, as will permanent foreclosure of rec. opportunities. Page 10, #14: (transportation) Yes, if a road #15 (energy demands) Yes, if sewer or road Page 11, #18: (growth and neighborhood character) If sewer or road, then col. 2 for substantial growth, increased budget expenses, change in density of land use, increased demand for services. Part ll A 1. Please spell out what plants would be used for revegetation of disturbed areas. Later, autumn olive is mentioned as one species to be used. Since this is not native to this area and does spread, please consult with Bob Wesley or Nancy Ostman as to the advisability of its use. Would people with adequate training be assigned to clearing, pruning, relocating, or replacing plants (esp. the rare ones)? Who will monitor their work? What exactly would be involved in changing the trail alignment to reduce impact on nearby residences? Will more natural areas be destroyed to accomplish this? 2. What erosion controls measures would be used? 3. Please discuss in greater depth the plans for the area between the switchback and the main line. 4. Please describe exactly where an eventual road might be, west of EVE✓ M Northview. 5. (Impact on plants and animals) The EN/IC ,s designation of the area as a unique natural area is for far more than its importance for recreation! There are many places where the trail is not "separated from critical drainage and forested areas ... by ... farm fields and brushland." 6. Who is going to monitor the protection of those plants that are on the NYS Protected list (shield fern and bloodroot are two examples named in the report) that occur in the project area? 7. How will the trail "encourage the conservation of other significant vegetation along the trail corridor outside of the right of way "? 8. (Aesthetic resoufrces). Paved part will certainly be significantly 0.wd i eo.,erL:LI� w different from ,,current condition. The rest will be also, but to a somewhat lesser extent. 9. How much wider an area would be needed for initial construction than the 8 -foot width? And wouldn't this then be repeated every 7 or so ' years when the same vehicles had to enter for maintenance, so that the impact would not be temporary afterall? 10. How would prohibition of motorized vehicles be enforced? 11. How would the trail have a "beneficial impact in encouraging the retention of significant vegetation and open space on property along its corridor "? 12. The trail as designed, and especially including a sewer line or road, is not compatible with any City plans, goals, or intentions. Note: Numerous other comments on Part II -A would merely duplicate comments already made on other parts of the EAF. We realize that filling out an EAF is not easy. Our many comments are intended paY-{ly to indicate areas that we feel need more information before a declaration of significance can be fairly made. 0 A. 1,1,1- TRICHLOROETHANE B. TRICHLOROETHYLENE C. CARBAMATE INSECTICIDE RESIDUES DETECTED ABOVE 10.0 uq/L ® DETECTM Ar OR > 1.0 uq/L D. ORGANOCHLORINE INSECTICIDE RESIDUES 100 r 90 DETECTED A801E 0.10 u A — ® DfTwrcD AT OR > 0.01 uqA 70 7O e0 60-- — O p 60 50 — — — Ao — 30 30-- — 20— _ / — -- 10-- WWI 10 0 051 Figure 3.-- Percentage of wells in which selected constituents were detected: (A) 1,1,1- trichloroethane. (B) Trichloroethylene. (C) Carbamate insecticide residues. (D) Organochlorine insecticide residues. (Reported levels are in micrograms per liter (pg /1).) Net- D. iter 25 � � zo 15 . � .�� � m � u �J ^`^'`"`^`- ' .�G�'~ ^ Vol ����/lK! r- ����� ����« . � 2f 0 Ii- � OG Figure 2.--Nitrate and boron concentrations in five land-use uzeau' Boxes represent iocerguaztiIe range (I0R) of data, between the 25th and 75th percentiles; horizontal bar indicates median. Whiskers (vertical lines) denote -range of data within 1'5 times the IgR' Outliers are indicated by circles (1,5 to 3'0 times the IQD) or . squares (Beyond 3'0 times the IOR)' Letters above box- plots indicate results of multiple comparison tests (Iukey`s atudeotized range teat; groups of data with common letters do not differ statistically). ~ • National Water Summary 1986— Ground -Water Quality: WATER - QUALITY ISSUES 117 " Table 6. Summary of selected inorganic chemical constituents in ground water in relation to land use, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, N.Y., 1978 -84 Trichloroethane [Analytical data are from the most recent sampling date at each well Median concentrations, expressed in milligrams per liter, were computed using ruelhuds of Gilliorn and Helsel 119861. Sources. Modified from Eckhardt and others, 19881 Inorganic chemical constituent Nitrate, as nitrogen Chloride Total dissolved solids Land -use chloroethylene category Median Welts Median concen- Tukey Wells Tuke y Median Wells Tukey sampled test' sampled concen- tration p test' concen- sampled test' tration tration Undeveloped...... 79 0.7 C 80 15 BCD 42 82 D Recreational'...... 77 1.9 BC 96 13 CD 55 105 BCD Institutional....... 64 2.4 AS 71 20 ABC 52 170 AS Low - density 8 (64) residential'...... 29 2.8 AS 34 12 D 30 112 ABCD Medium - density 38 (47) residential'...... 133 2.9 AS 134 16 BCD 81 78 CD High- density 2 (46) C residential'...... 71 4.6 AS 78 31 A 49 202 A Agricultural........ 58 6.0 A 60 20 ABC 14 128 ABC Transportation'... 46 2.0 BC 57 23 AB 32 152 AS Commercial....... 27 3.3 AS 33 25 AS 17 142 ABC Industrial........... 26 2.3 AS 32 22 AB 19 110 BCD All land uses...... 610 2.4 .... 675 18 ..... 391 111 'Median concentrations with same letter for Tukey's test are not significantly different; for example, median nitrate concen- trations in undeveloped areas (C) are not significantly different from those in recreational IBC[ and transportation (80 areas the 95 percent level of confidence. at 'Includes parkways. 13 (129) 'Less than two housing units per acre. 4 (115) 'From two to four housing units per acre. residential' 'More than four housing units per acre. "Includes utility and cornrnunicauon facilities. Table 7. Summary of wells that had samples containing detectable amounts of selected volatile organic compounds in relation to land use, upper glacial aquifer, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, N.Y., 1978 -84 [Analytical data are from the most recent sampling date at each well. Reporting limit for each compound has varied from 5 to 1 micrograms per liter depending on the year and variable analytical interferences. Source: Modified from Eckhardt and others, 19881 Land -use category Percentage of wells sampled that contained detectable concentrations of indicated volatile organic compound (number of wells sampled given in parentheses) Trichloroethane Tetrachloroethylene '•Trichloroethylene Chloroform 1, 2 -DI- Benzene chloroethylene Undeveloped 0 176) 0 1761 0 (76) 7 (76) 0 (68) 0 (74) Recreational' 19 1 &1) 12 164) 11 (64) 8 (64) 0 (59) 0 (57) Institutional 38 (47) 21 (47) 17 (47) 2 (44) 2 (46) 0 (42) Low - density 12 (26) 8 (26) 8 126) 8 (25) 0 (24) 0 (21) residential' Medium - density 29 (129) 21 (129) 13 (129) 4 (129) 4 (115) 2 (123) residential' High density 42 (92) 33 192) 37 (93) 22 (77) 12 (83) 2 (70) residential' Agricultural 0 1551 2 (55) 4 155) 4 (55) 0 (40) 0 (54) Transportation" 17 159) 15 159) 14 (59) 14 (59) 2 (50) 9 (58) Commercial 29 149) 42 148) 41 (49) 14 (49) 11 (45) 2 (49) Industrial 47 (45) 51 (45) 44 (45) 9 (44) 12 (43) 2 (44) All land uses 24 1642) 20 (64 1) 18 (643) 9 (622) 5 15731 2 (592) 'Includes parkways. 'Less than two housing units per acre. 'Frorn two to four housing urts per acre. 'More than four housing units per acre 'Includes utilities and communicauoO facilities Dyer 120 National Water Summary 1986— Ground -Water Quality: HYDROLOGIC PERSPECTIVES ON WATER ISSUES I,I,I - Trichloro cthanc,ictrachlorocthylene, and trichloroethylene were detecte most requently in Water from wells in industrial, commercial, _high- density residential, and institutional land -usc areas. hcsc compounds were detected less frequently in water from recreational areas ( which include vehicular parkways that traverse Long Island), transportation areas, and medium- density residential areas. These compounds were not detected in water from undeveloped areas and were detected infrequently in water from agricultural and low- density residential areas. Chloroform was the only volatile organic compound detected in water from all 10 land -use categories; it was found most frequently in water from wells in high- density residential areas (22 percent of wells). Benzene was detected most frequently (9 per- cent of wells) in water from wells in transportational areas. m a n 00 UU W= oa 70 o� WO =u au 60 Z Oa U OK 50 Qo =w 40 W< ap �> Q 30 NV N �Z -/ Z 3� 20 o� U-Z '0 Q V ZZ Wo TRICK LO ROE THYLENE In m my areas where population density commonly exceeds 5 people per acre, land use is it complex mixture of the more intense land -usc categories. Population density, in this case, showed significant correlation to selected organic compounds. Correlations between population density and the detection frequencies of trichloroethylene and 1,1,1- trichloroethane were made by plotting the frequency of detection for each compound for wells falling within a given population- density category. The coefficient of determination (R2) of a linear regres- sion between detection percentages and population density (fig. 58) is 0.69 for trichloro ethylene and 0.72 for 1,1,1- trichloroethane. The relation was developed only for areas having fewer than 11 people per acre because insufficient data existed for areas of higher population density. Both organic compounds are detected more frequently as population density increases, most notably in south - central Nassau County and southwestern Suffolk County where population density commonly exceeds 5 people per acre. Ij I SUMMARY 0 T,I,I.TRICHLOROETHANE / 7 4 1, N 111 I a POPULATION DENSITY, IN PEOPLE PER ACRE Figure 58. Percentage of wells in which trichloroethylene and 1,1,1- trichloroethane were detected in relation to population density, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, N.Y., 1978 -84. Reporting limits ranged from 5 to 1 micrograms per liter over time. (Source: Eckhardt and others, 1988.1 Results of this study indicate that contamina- tion from human activities has affected water quality in the upper glacial (water- table) aquifer in Nassau and Suffolk Counties of Long Island. Statistical comparisons of water - quality data in 10 land -use categories indicate a correlation between land use and water quality in the aquifer. Specific results include: • Ground water from undeveloped areas had the lowest median concentrations of nitrate, sulfate, potassium, calcium, and alkalinity and the lowest median specific conductance. Volatile organic compounds were detected least frequently in water from wells in this category. • Ground water from agricultural areas had the highest median concentrations of nitrate, sulfate, and calcium. • Ground water from high- density residential areas had the highest median specific conductance and the highest median concentration of chloride, potassium, and total dissolved solids. Water from wells in this category also had the second- highest median concentration of nitrate, the second - highest detection frequency of 1,1,1- trichlo- roethane, and the third - highest detection -D" A -v , -e e k" aa4 �iw a, �-i . G alp �'� (� S S) z 0 frequency of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene. Chloroform was detected in water from wells in all land -use areas, but most frequently in high - density residential areas. Volatile organic compounds were detected re Iativcly infrequently in ground water from wells in low- density residential areas. • 1,1,1- Trichloroethane, tetrachlorocthylene, and trichloroethylene, which were the most commonly found volatile organic compounds, were detected most frequently in ground water from industrial, commercial, institutional, and high- density residential areas. • Spatial distribution of trichloroethylene and 1,1,1- trichloroethane was related directly to population density. The compounds were detected most frequently in central and south- central Nassau County and west- central Suffolk County, where population density commonly exceeds 5 people per acre. land use in these areas is a heterogeneous mixture of' medium- to high - density residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and transportation areas, which together affect ground -water quality in a way that can be quantitatively represented best by popula- tion density. Refinement of land -use and water - quality rela- tions on Long Island will help ground -water manage- ment agencies to identify areas of potential ground- water contamtination, thereby providing a basis for improvements in ground -water monitoring and ground -water protection strategies. REFERENCES CITED Conover, W.J., 1980, Practical nonparametric statistics, 2d ed.: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 493 p. Eckhardt, D.A., Flipse, W.J., Jr., and Oaksford, E.T., 1988, Relation between land use and ground -water quality in the upper glacial aquifer in Nassau and Suffolk Coun- ties, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Resources Investigations Report 86- 4142, 26 p. Franke, O.L., and Cohen, Philip, 1972, Regional rates of ground -water movement of Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 800 -C, p. C271 -0277. Franke. O.L., and McClymonds, N.E., 1972, Summary of the hydrologic situation on Long Island, New York, as a guide to water management alternatives: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 627 -F, 59 p. National Water Summary 1986 — Ground -Water Quality: WATER - QUALITY ISSUES 121 Gilliom, R.J., and Helsel, D.R., 1986, Estimation of distribu- tional paruncters for censored trace -level water- quality data —1, Estimation techniques: Water Resources Research, v. 22, no. 2, p. 135 -146. Helsel, D.R., and Ragone, S.E., 1984, Evaluation of regional ground water quality in relation to land use —U.S. Geological Survey toxic waste- ground water con- tamination program: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Resources Investigations Report 84 -4217, 33 p. Koppelman, L.E., 1978a, Long Island comprehensive waste treatment management plan: Hauppauge, N.Y., Long Island Regional Planning Board, v. 1, 247 p. 19786, Long Island comprehensive waste treatment management plan: Hauppauge, N.Y., Long Island Regional Planning Board, v. 11, 363 p. Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1977, Land and water capability, natural resource inventory, existing land use 1977 and land -use plan 1995: Hauppauge, N.Y., 42 p. 1982a, Quantification and analysis of land use for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, 1981: Hauppauge, N.Y., 47 p. 19826, Historical population of Long Island com- munities, 1790 -1980: Hauppauge, N.Y., 77 p. McClymonds, N.E., and Franke, O.L., 1972, Water - transmitting properties of aquifers on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 627 -E, 24 p. Nassau County Department of Health, 1981, Water supply in Nassau County, New York — Briefing report: Nassau County [N.Y.] Department of Health, 45 p. Nassau County Planning Commission, 1959, A compilation of land uses 1956: Nassau County [N.Y.] Planning Commission, 23 p. Nassau - Suffolk Planning Board, 1968, Existing land use 1966: Nassau - Suffolk [N.Y.] Planning Board, 30 p. Ragone, S.E., 1984, U.S. Geological Survey toxic waste - ground -water contamination program, fiscal year 1983: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 84 -474, 56 p. Stoline, I\l.R., 1981, The status of multiple comparisons - simultaneous inference of all pairwise comparisons in one -way ANOVA designs: American Statistician, v. 35, p. 134 -141. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1984, Report on water supply priorities— Status report: Hauppauge, N.Y., 86 p. Suffolk County Department of Planning, 1962, Existing land use 1962: Hauppauge, N.Y., 42 p. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION David A. V. Eckhardt or Edward T. Oaksford, U.S. Geological Survey, 5 Aerial Way, Syosset, NY 11791. U.S. Geological Survey Water - Supply Paper 2325 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL March 19, 1989 Commissioner Thomas Jorling NYS DEC 50 Wolf Rd. Albany, NY 12233 Dear Mr. Jorling: The Conservation Advisory Council is concerned about the many threats to the various streams that run through the City. The proposal of a local citizens group to designate Fall Creek under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational River Systems Act is consistent with the CAC efforts to guarantee that our river systems are kept unspoiled in perpetuity. I would surmise that Cornell will resist designation of any part of Fall Creek that is bounded by Cornell land. Given Cornell ,s recent history regarding the two gorges that run through the campus, it is imperative that controls be instituted. In just the last few years, Cornell has had several sizeable building projects very close to Cascadilla Gorge: Snee Hall, the parking garage, the Law School addition (although beautifully constructed), the atrocious Performing Arts Center (the butt of jokes throughout the City), and, now under construction, the Theory Center. - FPCornell's attitude toward the gorges is well exemp- lified by this last example. Originally, it was to have been built right into the gorge. After some pressure, they pulled it back, so it would intrude 'only" 30 feet. After many months of intense pressure from many quarters, Cornell finally scaled the building down (though it is still monstrously large) and moved it out of the gorge. Never- theless, now that we all see how imposing it is and what an impact it will still have on the aesthetics of the gorge, everyone is appalled by the choice of sites. In addition, for years Cornell has had problems with pollutants entering the gorges. This is finally being addressed. But again, it has taken constant pressure - -both from the DEC and locally. Cornell wants to have a free hand to conduct "business as usual," so of course it will resist the designation proposal. Its environ- mental sensitivity is almost nonexistent - -and what little there is, comes only in response to pressure from faculty, students, and local residents. For this very reason, scenic or recreational designation is imperative. Development on and near the creek is not in the best interest of the creek, nor of the many people who benefit from its tremendous recreational and scenic values, nor of the plant and animal communities that depend on it, nor even of Cornell itself. We urge you to support designation all the way from Cayuga Lake to rt 13 at Monkey Run, and to include Cornell's Monkey Run holdings in the boundaries. Sincerely, Betsy jarlin�CAC Chair Cc: CAC memberSkn Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" N� 5� TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 I Memo to: Mayor Gutenberger The CAC voted unanimously (with two members, Tripp and Broberg, absent) to approve the following general statements, and to delegate to our EAF Subcommittee the task of reviewing the EAF in detail. Specific comments on the EAF from the subcommittee follow the general comments. General comments: 1. Perhaps a trail width of four feet or less would be more appropriate to the setting than the proposed eight feet. We also recommend eliminating paving from any part of the trail. These measures would mitigate some of the aesthetic impacts, reduce costs, and reduce opposition to the plan. The CAC questions the need for a trail wide enough to permit truck and emergency vehicle access. Numerous woodland trails throughout the city, town, state, and nation are not accessible to such vehicles. People cannot, and need not, be protected from every possible risk. As for truck access, small carts are available for routine maintenance activities along narrow trails. Tree removal should involve simply getting fallen trees off the path and into the adjacent woods. 2. Without knowing the conditions of the easements from NYSEG, Therm, and others, it is impossible to evaluate the impact of the project on the environment, and a negative declaration cannot possibly be made. An environmental assessment must address likely scenarios. For example, if the easement would permit the extension of the sewer line out along the rr bed (as the Town intends), or a road (already at least tentatively planned for western portions), the level of development that would be stimulated below Coddington Rd. could be very damaging to the unique natural area below the rr bed as well as to the water supply. (See memo I - Over> Common Council P &D Board and P &D Dept. BPW & DPW Ithaca Town Board Town Planning Dept. CGS: CAC Six -Mile Creek Committee Circle Greenway ' Re: South Hill Recreation Trail EAF 1 7m: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory, Council Chair Date: March 19, 1989 The CAC voted unanimously (with two members, Tripp and Broberg, absent) to approve the following general statements, and to delegate to our EAF Subcommittee the task of reviewing the EAF in detail. Specific comments on the EAF from the subcommittee follow the general comments. General comments: 1. Perhaps a trail width of four feet or less would be more appropriate to the setting than the proposed eight feet. We also recommend eliminating paving from any part of the trail. These measures would mitigate some of the aesthetic impacts, reduce costs, and reduce opposition to the plan. The CAC questions the need for a trail wide enough to permit truck and emergency vehicle access. Numerous woodland trails throughout the city, town, state, and nation are not accessible to such vehicles. People cannot, and need not, be protected from every possible risk. As for truck access, small carts are available for routine maintenance activities along narrow trails. Tree removal should involve simply getting fallen trees off the path and into the adjacent woods. 2. Without knowing the conditions of the easements from NYSEG, Therm, and others, it is impossible to evaluate the impact of the project on the environment, and a negative declaration cannot possibly be made. An environmental assessment must address likely scenarios. For example, if the easement would permit the extension of the sewer line out along the rr bed (as the Town intends), or a road (already at least tentatively planned for western portions), the level of development that would be stimulated below Coddington Rd. could be very damaging to the unique natural area below the rr bed as well as to the water supply. (See memo I - Over> 6 of March 6 from Darlington 0-wk 3. The CAC feels that several mitigating measures must be taken, if the water supply, the unique natural area below the tracks, and the aesthetic characteristics of the trail itself are to be protected: a. Go for easements, not purchase, of the right -of -way. (Otherwise, some future board could overturn any protections that are put in place.) b. Ask for narrower easements than 66'. Twenty feet, for example, would be ample for maintenance purposes. c. Be sure that the easements allow for only a recreation trail and not a sewer line or future road. d. Be sure that there are no other conditions in the easements that could stimulate development below Coddington Rd. e. Reduce the designed pathway width to 4' or less. f. Examine further the rationale behind the use of gates, etc. to limit access from the trail to sensitive areas below it. Might these draw attention to such areas? Might vegetation be destroyed by people going around the gates? Would gates fit in with the natural charactistics of the area? Would it make sense to delay installation of gates, and then install them later only if it is determined that they are needed? 4. Many people are concerned about the cost of the project. A good trail could be made at far less expense by smoothing out the bumps and putting bark chips or cinders in muddy places. Summary: We believe the project could enjoy widespread support if: 1) the trail were narrower and less manicured or "suburban" in character; 2) a commitment were made -- ensured in part with the easement conditions - -not to ever extend the sewer line or a road along it; and 3) if the cost were reduced. Some trail monitoring and maintenance is a good idea. People just do not like the extent of the proposed changes nor of the impacts that such things as a sewer line would have. This is a beautiful trail already. Lets do only what is needed to keep it that way. Specific Comments on the EAF from the EAF subcommittee (Farrell, Waldron, Darlington): Notes: 1. Were delighted to see that the Town intends to do some 3 Conservation Overlay Zoning in the Six -Mile Creek area. 2. We are indicating just a few of the many questions that should be answered differently, in light of the eventual extension of the sewer line and maybe road. The EAF really should address this on every question, unless the Town is prepared to preclude such extensions, and unless the easements would not permit them. Questions: 1. If a sewer line or road were installed along any portions of the new trail, would EQBA funds have to be returned? 21. Would de -icers be used along any portions of the trail (esp. the portions to be plowed). 3. Is plowing really desirable? Could this aspect be dropped? 4. In Part II -A, we are not clear as to what is meant be "[the trail] will assist as an organizing element for additional open space conservation." Could this be spelled out? Page 1: Since the State is supplying the major funding, why isn't it the lead agency, or at least an involved agency? Page 2: "Description of Action :" Should also include: acquisition of easements, future maintenance and operation, extension of other services (unless there is news to the contrary). Would the Town need to acquire .land to get additional access to the trails If so, that also should The in the description. Page 3: #5: (slope percentages) Since the proposal is for a 66' right -of -way, the "project" includes the slopes adjacent to the trail as well as the trail itself, and must therefore constitute more than 2% at slopes of 15% or greater. Also, does the 2% figure include both the part near Burns Rd. and the part from the lower switchback to the main line? #11: (any threatened species) At what time of year were birds and other animals inventoried, who did the inventories, and how many visits did the persons conducting the inventories make? Were reptiles and amphibians inventoried? (We have some rare species in this area.) #12: (unusual landforms, geological formations) Interesting ravines occur in a number of places along the trail. #14: (scenic views) Should be yes. Site includes many scenic views. 1119: (CEA's) Site is contiguous to the City watershed. QVe,r 4 B,I,a: (Acres owned or controlled by sponsor) None, yet. b, c: (Acres to be developed, left undeveloped) Should be answered. j: (Linear feet of road frontage) How was the 735 arrived at? Figure seems high for ends of just five roads. Acquisitions maybe? Page 4: #2: (natural material to be removed) Should be &( ansoweered. #4,5: (vegetation removal) What's answer if sewer line goes in? #6,7: W of phases) It cant be both single- and multi - phased. Also, what would be done in phase 1? #13: (liquid waste disposal) Yes, if sewer line goes in. #19: (odors) Maybe, if sewer line. There are reports that one spot in the current sewer line smells of raw sewage. #24: (local, state, fed. funding): Isn't Town funding also involved? Page 5: C,1: (is a planning decision involved ?) Shouldn't this be "yes ?" #3: (Max. potential development of the site) Answer should be more explicit - road? sewer? #6: (consistent with local land use plans) Not with City's. #7: (predominant land uses) Add, "unique natural area, and City watershed" #8: (compatibility with adjacent uses) Sewer line or road would not be. Also, paving, and width of trail, are incompatible with surrounding uses. #9: (subdivision ?) (Technical question: If several parcels are combined into one, is it called a subdivision? If so, this is.) #11: (community services) People in the area say police protection is not now, and will not be adequate. Has the sheriff been consulted? PART 2, Impacts: Instructions state that if any threshold is met or exceeded, response must go in column 2. Page 6, #1: (physical change to site) Xs should be in col. 2. #2: (effect to unusual land forms) Yes (col. 2), if sewer line or road. Page 7, #3: Part II -A says site includes several DEC - protected streams. #5: (affect on surface or groundwater) Examples 4 (contamin. of water supply), 5 (effect on gr o'nd Q ter), and 8 (siltation) should be checked in col 2, if a sewer line/, is intended. (With sewer line would come development, and with development would come increased groundwater 5 pollution. Also, sewer lines sometimes leak, as can septic systems, but such leakage in this site would reach the water supply sooner and without as much opportunity to be filtered by the soil, and could be far greater in volume. Page 8, #9: (plants and animals) If sewer line or road is put in, development will become intense, with subsequent loss of species, both directly and through loss of habitat. Page 8-9, #10: (agricultural resources) If sewer or road, subsequent development would undoubtedly lead to loss of agricultural land. Page 9, #11: (aesthetic resources) All examples should be checked (even more so if sewer line is extended and development intensifies). (Paved path, and such a wide path - -not in keeping w th the surroundings.) #13: (open space and recreation) If sewer line then major reductions will follow, as will permanent foreclosure of rec. opportunities. Page 10, #14: (transportation) Yes, if a road #15 (energy demands) Yes, if sewer or road Page 11, #18: (growth and neighborhood character) If sewer or road, then col. 2 for substantial growth, increased budget expenses, change in density of land use, increased demand for services. Part II A l.. Please spell out what plants would be used for revegetation of disturbed areas. Later, autumn olive is mentioned as one species to be used. Since this is not native to this area and does spread, please consult with Bob Wesley or Nancy Ostman as to the advisability of its use. Would people with adequate training be assigned to clearing, pruning, relocating, or replacing plants (esp. the rare ones)? Who will monitor their work? What exactly would be involved in changing the trail alignment to .reduce impact on nearby residences? Will more natural areas be destroyed -to accomplish this? 2. What erosion control: measures would be used? 3. Please discuss in greater depth the plans for the area between the switchback and the main line. 4. Please describe exactly where an eventual road might be, west of O vey-5 M Northview. 5. (Impact on plants and animals) The EMC's designation of the area as a unique natural area is for far more than its importance for recreation! There are many places where the trail is not "separated from critical drainage and forested areas ... by ... farm fields and brushland." 6. Who is going to monitor the protection of those plants that are on the NYS Protected list (shield fern and bloodroot are two examples named in the report) that occur in the project area? 7. How will the trail "encourage the conservation of other significant vegetation along the trail corridor outside of the right of way "? 8. (Aesthetic resources�Paved part will certainly be significantly different from current condition. The rest will be also, but to a somewhat lesser extent. 9. How much wider an area would be needed for initial construction than the 8 -foot width? And wouldn't this then be repeated every 7 or so years when the same vehicles had to enter for maintenance, so that the impact would not be temporary afterall? 10. How would prohibition of motorized vehicles be enforced? 11. How would the trail have a "beneficial impact in encouraging the retention of significant vegetation and open space on property along its corridor "? 12. The trail as designed, and especially including a sewer line or road, is not compatible with any City plans, goals, or intentions. Note: Numerous other comments on Part II -A would merely duplicate comments already made on other parts of the EAF. We realize that filling out an EAF is not easy. Our many comments are intended partly to indicate areas that we feel need more information before a declaration of significance can be fairly made. n 100 90 ac x 6c 0 4 J 3 A. 1,1,1- TRICHLOROETHANE ■ ww i 1 C. CARBAMATE INSECTICIDE RESIDUES too 90 aD 60 LL O xi 4 AO 100 9C ac n as 0 s. 4 3 Z (kS h S B. TRICHLOROETHYLENE 9t DCrEC -,M AT OR > SO uv /L DCTCC.M AT OR > t up/L 1 n J�lc�G0.\� VO�G/ 0 P r w i t N D. ORGANOCHLORINE INSECTICIDE RESIDUES 7 Jr p Figure. 3.-- Percentage of wells in which selected constituents were detected: (A) 1,1,1- trichloroethane. (B) Trichloroethylene. (C) Carbamate insecticide residues. (D) Organochlorine insecticide residues. (Reported levels are in micrograms per liter (pg /1).) Over 0 25 _ 10 N Q C! c� u J Z z 10 O a W U Z O U C NFMATE W" :M'• r Figure 2. -- Nitrate and boron concentrations in five land -use areas. Boxes represent interquartile range (IQR) of data, between the 25th and 75th percentiles; horizontal bar indicates median. Whiskers (vertical lines) denote range of data within 1.5 times the IQR. Outliers are indicated by circles (1.5 to 3.0 times the IQR) or squares (Beyond 3.0 times the IQR). Letters above box- plots indicate results of multiple comparison tests (Tukey's studentized range test; groups of data with common letters do not differ statistically). f3 . 400 M w 5 o: N 300 c� O G= U 20C Z Z O F a 10C z w U Z O U C :M'• r Figure 2. -- Nitrate and boron concentrations in five land -use areas. Boxes represent interquartile range (IQR) of data, between the 25th and 75th percentiles; horizontal bar indicates median. Whiskers (vertical lines) denote range of data within 1.5 times the IQR. Outliers are indicated by circles (1.5 to 3.0 times the IQR) or squares (Beyond 3.0 times the IQR). Letters above box- plots indicate results of multiple comparison tests (Tukey's studentized range test; groups of data with common letters do not differ statistically). f3 . National Water Summary 1986— Ground -Water Quality: WATER - QUALITY ISSUES 117 Table 6. Summary of selected inorganic chemical constituents in ground water in relation to land use, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, N.Y., 1978 -84 IArnalyhcal dam arc from thi! mast recent sarrilAng date- at each well Meehan concentrations, expressed in milligrams per liter, were computed using methuds of Gdliurn arid Helsel (1986). Sources: Modified from Eckhardt and others. 19881 Land -use category Undeveloped...... Recreational'...... Institutional ....... Low - density residential'...... Medium - density residential'...... C High- density residential'....... Agricultural......... Transportation'... Commercial ....... Industrial........... All land uses...... Nitrate, as nitrogen Inorganic chemical constituent Chloride Total dissolved solids Wells sampled Median concen- tration Tukey test' Wells sampled Median concen- tration Tukey test, Wells Median concen - tration Tukey test' 79 0.7 C 80 15 BCD 42 82 D 77 1.9 BC 96 13 CO 55 105 BCD 64 2.4 AS 71 20 ABC 52 170 AS 29 2.8 AS 34 12 D 30 112 ABCD 133 2.9 AS 134 16 BCD 81 78 CD 71 4.6 AS 78 31 A 49 202 A 58 6.0 A 60 20 ABC 14 128 ABC 46 2.0 BC 57 23 AS 32 152 AS 27 3.3 AS 33 25 AS 17 142 ABC 26 2.3 AS 32 22 AS 19 110 BCD 610 2.4 .... 675 18 ..... 391 111 'Median concentrations with same letter for Tukey's test are not significantly different: for example, median nitrate concen- trations in undeveloped areas IC) are not significantly different from those in recreational IBC) and transportation (BC) areas at the 95 percent level of confidence. 'Includes parkways. 'Less than two housing units per acre. 'From two to four housing units per acre. 'More than four housing units per acre. 'Includes utiliCy and cornmun cation facilities. Table 7. Summary of wells that had samples containing detectable amounts of selected volatile organic compounds in relation to land use, upper glacial aquifer, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, N.Y., 1978 -84 (Analytical data are from the most recent sampling date at each well. Reporting limit for each compound has varied from 5 to 1 micrograms per liter depending on the year and variable analytical interferences. Source: Modified from Eckhardt and others, 19881 Percentage of wells sampled that contained detectable Land -use concentrations of indicated volatile organic compound category Inumber of wells sampled given in parentheses) 'Includes parkways. 'Less than two housing units per acre. 'Front two to four housing wts per acre. 'More than four housing units per acre. 'hncludus uuuues and communlcauo+ facilities t, Over L Trichloroethane Tetrachloroethylene '•Trichloroethylene Chloroform 1, 2 -Dr chloroethylene Benzene Undeveloped 0 1761 0 1761 0 (761 7 (76) 0 (68) 0 174) Recreational' 19 (641 12 1641 11 (64) 8 (64) 0 159) 0 157) Institutional 38 1471 21 (47) 17 (47) 2 144) 2 (46) 0 (42) Low- density 12 126) 8 (26) 8 126) 8 (25) 0 (24) 0 (21) residential' Medium - density 29 (129) 21 (129) 13 (129) 4 (129) 4 (115) 2 (123) residential' High density 42 192) 33 (921 37 193) 22 (77) 12 (83) 2 (70) residential' Agricultural 0 (55) 2 (55) 4 (55) 4 (55) 0 (40) 0 (54) Transportation' 17 1591 15 (59) 14 (59) 14 (591 2 (50) 9 (58) Commercial 29 (49) 42 (48) 41 (49) 14 (49) 11 (45) 2 (49) Industrial 47 (45) 51 (45) 44 (45) 9 (44) ' 12 (43) 2 (441 All land uses 24 (612) 20 1641) 18 (643) 9 (622) 5 (573) 2 (592) 'Includes parkways. 'Less than two housing units per acre. 'Front two to four housing wts per acre. 'More than four housing units per acre. 'hncludus uuuues and communlcauo+ facilities t, Over L 120 National Water Summary 1986— Ground -Water Quality: HYDROLOGIC PERSPECTIVES ON WATER ISSUES I , I , I - richlorocthane, tetrachlortxthylenc. and trichlorocthylene were detected most frequently in water from wells in industrial, commercial, ii�h_ Llensit residential, and institutional land use areas. •11eS. compounds were detected less frequently in water from recreational areas ( which include vehicular parkways that traverse Long Island), transportation areas, and medium- density residential areas. These compounds were not detected in water from undeveloped areas and were detected infrequently in water from agricultural and low- density residential areas. Chloroform was the only volatile organic compound detected in water from all 10 land -use categories; it was found most frequently in water from wells in high- density residential areas (22 percent of wells). Benzene was detected most frequently (9 per- cent of wells) in water from wells in transportational areas. W m a� 8O u° Wz pd 70 ° 0 Wo =V au 60 Z 04 V V tt 50 a0 Z W ° 40 Wa ap :5> a� so �a �Z �z 3° 20 o� uW to au ZZ Wo VV O a is a U T R I C N L O R 0 E 7 M Y L E NE 1,1.1- TRICMLOPOETNANE / I, N 1 i 12 POPULATION OENSITY. IN PEOPLE PER ACRE Figure 58. Percentage of wells in which trichloroethylene and 1,1,1- trichloroethane were detected in relation to population density, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, N.Y., 1978 -84. Reporting limits ranged from 5 to 1 micrograms per liter over time. (Source: Eckhardt and others, 1988.) In m:my areas where population density commonly exceeds 5 people per acre, land use is a complex mixture of the more intense land -use categories. Population density, in this case, showed significant correlation U> selected organic compounds. Correlations between population density and the detection frequencies of trichloroethylene and 1,1,1- trichloroethane were made by plotting the frequency of detection for each compound for wells falling within a given population- density category. The coefficient of determination (R2) of a linear regres- sion between detection percentages and population density (fig. 58) is 0.69 for trichloroethylene and 0.72 for 1,1,1- trichlorocthane. The relation was developed only for areas having fewer than I 1 people per acre because insufficient data existed for areas of higher population density. Both' organic compounds are detected more frequently as population density increases, most notably in south - central Nassau County and southwestern Suffolk County where population density commonly exceeds 5 people per acre. SUMMARY Results of this study indicate that contamina- tion from human activities has affected water quality in the upper glacial (water - table) aquifer in Nassau and Suffolk Counties of Long Island. Statistical comparisons of water - quality data in 10 land -use categories indicate a correlation between land use and water quality in the aquifer. Specific results include: • Ground water from undeveloped areas had the lowest median concentrations of nitrate, sulfate, potassium, calcium, and alkalinity and the lowest median specific conductance. Volatile organic compounds were detected least frequently in water from wells in this category. • Ground water from agricultural areas had the highest median concentrations of nitrate, sulfate, and calcium. • Ground water from high- density residential areas had the highest median specific conductance and the highest median concentration of chloride, potassium, and total dissolved solids. Water from wells in this category also had the second - highest median concentration of nitrate, the second - highest detection frequency of 1,1,1- trichlo- roethane, and the third - highest detection A_V , '00 -cz-A age 1 LT, l; / frequency of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene. Chloroform was detected in water from wells in all land -use areas, but most frequently in high - density residential areas. Volatile organic compounds were detected relatively infrequently in ground water from wells in low - density residential areas. • 1,1,1- Trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene, which were the most commonly found volatile organic compounds, were detected most frequently in ground water from industrial, commercial, institutional, and high- density residential areas. • Spatial distribution of t rich] oroethylene and 1,1,1- trichloroethane was related directly to population density. The compounds were detected most frequently in central and south- central Nassau County and west- central Suffolk County, where population density commonly exceeds 5 people per acre. Land use in these areas is a heterogeneous mixture of medium- to high - density residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and transportation areas, which together affect ground -water quality in a way that can be quantitatively represented best by popula- tion density. Refinement of land -use and water - quality rela- tions on Long Island will help ground -water manage- ment agencies to identify areas of potential ground- water contamination, thereby providing a basis for improvements in ground -water monitoring and ground -water protection strategies. REFERENCES CITED Conover, W.J., 1980, Practical nonparametric statistics, 2d ed.: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 493 p. Eckhardt, D.A., Flipse, W.J., Jr., and Oaksford, E.T., 1988, Relation between land use and ground -water quality in the upper glacial aquifer in Nassau and Suffolk Coun- ties, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Resources Investigations Report 86 -4142, 26 p. Franke, O.L., and Cohen, Philip, 1972, Regional rates of ground -water movement of Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 800 -C, p. C271 -C277. Franke, O.L., and McClymonds. N.E., 1972, Summary of the hydrologic situation on Long Island, New York. as a guide to water management alternatives: U.S. Geological ;Survey Professional Paper 627 -F, 59 p. National Water Summary 1986— Ground -Water Quality: WATER - QUALITY ISSUES 121 Gilliom, R.I., and Helsel, D.R., 1986, Estimation of distribu- tional par:Uneters for c'e'nsored trace -level water-quality data -1, Estimation techniques: Water Resources Research, v. 22, no. 2, p. 135 -146. Helsel, D.R., and Ragone, S.E., 1984, Evaluation of regional ground water quality in relation to land use —U.S. Geological Survey toxic waste- ground water con- tamination program: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Resources Investigations Report 84 -4217, 33 p. Koppelman, L. E., 1978a, Long Island comprehensive waste treatment management plan: Hauppauge, N.Y., Long Island Regional Planning Board, v. 1, 247 p. 1978b, Long Island comprehensive waste treatment management plan: Hauppauge, N.Y., Long Island Regional Planning Board, v. I1, 363 p. Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1977, Land and water capability, natural resource inventory, existing land use 1977 and land -use plan 1995: Hauppauge, N.Y., 42 p. 1982x, Quantification and analysis of land use for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, 1981: Hauppauge, N.Y., 47 p. 1982b. Historical population of Long Island com- munities, 1790 -1980: Hauppauge, N.Y., 77 p. McClymonds, N.E., and Franke, O.L., 1972, Water - transmitting properties of aquifers on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 627 -E, 24 p. Nassau County Department of Health, 1981, Water supply in Nassau County, New York — Briefing report: Nassau County [N.Y j Department of Health, 45 p. Nassau County Planning Commission, 1959, A compilation of land uses 1956: Nassau County [N.Y.] Planning Commission, 23 p. Nassau- Suffolk Planning Board, 1968, Existing land use 1966: Nassau - Suffolk [N.Y.] Planning Board, 30 p. Ragone, S.E., 1984, U.S. Geological Survey toxic waste - ground -water contamination program, fiscal year 1983: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 84 -474, 56 p. Stoline, M.R., 1981, The status of multiple comparisons - simultaneous inference of all pairwise comparisons in one -way ANOVA designs: American Statistician, v. 35, p. 134 -141. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1984, Report on water supply priorities— Status report: Hauppauge, N.Y., 86 p. Suffolk County Department of Planning, 1962, Existing land use 1962: Hauppauge, N.Y., 42 p. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION David A. V. Eckhardt or Edward T. Oaksford, U.S. Geological Survey, 5 Aerial Way, Syosset, NY 11791. U.S. Geological Survey Water - Supply Paper 2325 3�- He' Memo to: P &D Board -L-- Der-1' Common Council, Mayor 15ew cam, V�A Cc: CAC ) i Planning/ Environmental Consultant From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair y Date: March 21, 1989 Re: Proposed hockey rink EAF The EAF that the CAC reviewed for the proposed hockey rink was not the revised one which went to Common Council and to the PP &D Board. Two major changes that I am aware of between the two versions are: a. possible use of bottom ash for the fill, and b. reorientation and relocation of the building so that it would run E -W, rather than N -S, and would be a bit farther to the east than originally proposed. The EAF subcommittee (Jones, Hotchkiss, Darlington) that reviewed the first EAF has now discussed the proposed change in location and orientation. We are all in agreement that the new proposal is aesthetically even worse than the original one. The building would be more visible from more places and would block out some important and highly valued views, especially the one to the north from the pool (and tennis court -if the rink were to go north of it rather than on top of it). I have not discussed the following idea with the other members, but I wonder if some other site -- perhaps within walking distance of downtown - -might be more appropriate for a building of this design. (Somewhere along rt. 13, perhaps? Or behind some rt. 13 structures of similar design ?) 2. We are still trying to get information on bottom ash. So far, this is what we have learned: a. It is treated as solid waste by the DEC and would have to have a liner. b. Analysis can vary considerably from one batch to another- what's in it depends on the coal that was used. c. The permit process would be long and complex. (It s not clear that the DEC would even issue a permit for this situation.) —o OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 March 20, 1989 Richard J. Cook CNG Transmission Corp. 445 W. Main St. Clarksburg, W. VA 26302 -2450 Dear Mr. Cook: Thanks for your call last week. Every thing is all set for a meeting with interested parties about the pipeline across Six -Mile Creek: Tuesday, April 18th at 1 PM at the Planning Dept. third floor of City Hall (108 E. Green St.). Representatives from the Planning Dept., the Depk. of Public Works, the Six -Mile Creek Committee, Circle Greenway, and the Conservation Advisory Council will all be there. (Possibly others as well.) See you April 18th. Sincerely, Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" c� 0 TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 Tools for Protection of Six -Mile Creek March 22, 1989 Buzz Lavine, Margaret Fabrizio, John Johnson, and Betsy Darlington met on March 20 to consider various ways to enhance protection of the watershed and the unique natural area along the Six -Mile Creek corridor. We went through the list sent out several months ago by Thys Van Cort, and discussed each idea (Buzz ,s expertise was invaluable!): 1. New watershed rules and regulations. This could be a powerful tool for protecting water quality. The regs proposed by Steve Baker before he moved away last June would protect not just the creek but all tributaries as well. Buzz is going to talk to John Andersson at the County Health Dept. and Ill talk to City Engineer, Bill Gray, and tell them a letter may come from our joint nol� mi�ttee,aKn scoA C action. 2. Conservation Overlay Zones. The Comprehensive Plan that the Town of Ithaca is working Beeners whatythe pan recOommend 6 -Mile. Buzz is going to ask Su 3. TDR's (Transfer of development rights). A complicated tool that requires a lot of planning. Unlikely in Dryden for many years; even more unlikely in Caroline. But possible ainoP his of Ithaca. The Town Board members need encouragement The basic principle is that everyone shares equally in development rights. Lets say Mr. Newt owns 10 acres below the rr bed that the Town has decided may not be developed. Ms. Toad owns 10 acres in a part of town that can be developed. She may indeed go ahead and develop that 10 acre, but honten after cresay That is, she compensates development . Newt rights on some (all?) of for not being able to develop his land, in order to gain the right to develop her own land. (At least, I think that's how Buzz explained it.) 4. Conservation easements. implies, ldo EXCEPT for rights that of axle spelled and all the rights that this out in the easement -- usually development rights. All or part of the Easements are land can be covered bbe the considerable easement. t tax benefits to the owner: donated. If donated, they a. charitable deduction on state and federal income tax (for the difference in value between the land before the donation and after); b. possible reduction in property taxes (assessors are not required to lower the taxes, but they should, and they should be urged to do so); c. reduction in estate taxes. Lets say a couple has 200 acres of valuable, developable property but their income and assets are rather low. They might think they can protect their land by leaving it to their conservation- minded children. They die. The kids get it - -and quickly discover that the estate taxes are so high they must sell the land to pay the taxes. Since an easement would greatly reduce the value of the land, the estate taxes would be much lower. ��6 � '-� 5� ek!,�_ 0 ve ✓ —> It The tax benefits of donating an easement naturally depend on how much has been given up. If all development rights are donated, the tax benefits will be greater than if certain areas are designated as ones on which development can take place. An easement does not open the land to the public, unless the owner says so in the easement. 5. Deed restrictions. Although restrictions can be put into the deeds on any piece of property, this usually happens only at the time the land changes hands, and especially when it is proposed for development. A municipality can require deed restrictions as a condition for approval for a development. Municipalities should be urged to use this tool. Deed restrictions are much easier to break (legally) than conservation easements. 6. Runoff management. Controls should be required as part of the normal development approval process in a municipality. Erosion and sedimentation ca--LJ ordinances are especially helpful in this. Betsy is going to call Stuart Stein (on the County Bd. of Reps.) and ask him to to have his committee ask the County Planning staff to prepare some sample ordinances and to circulate these to the various municipalities in the County, urging their adoption. 7. Critical Environmental Areas (CEA's) and unique natural areas. Useful to have these designations, but not a whole lot of teeth in them. The second has no teeth at all, except as a warning to reviewers of proposals to proceed with caution. An action that takes place in a CEA automatically becomes a Type I action, thus requiring environmental review. John Johnson is going to ask Paul Mazzarella what the status is for 6 -Mile: is it already a CEA? If not, we should start the process of getting it designated. 8. Mapping - potential streets, etc. An official document. Probably not a lot to be done on this now, but we should be involved in decisions regarding roads and other map changes in the 6 -Mile Cr. area. Question for Susan or George: what does the Comprehensive Plan propose? 9. Wild, scenic, and recreational river designation. This would be useful and should be pursued. 10. Outright acquisition of land, either from willing donors or sellers or by condemnation. This naturally affords the greatest protection. We agreed that there is a need for a plan: a. what to purchase (whether easements or outright acquisition), and b. what the priorities are - highest would be lands the City should acquire, either through donation or purchase; next would be land that is only valuable enough to get some cheaper way than through purchase; and lowest priority would be land that needed protection but not as desperately as the others, and for which deed restrictions should be sufficient. Michael Jones has done a lot of work for the Town on 6 -Mile and should be included in figuring out which lands to put into which categories. Tools for Protection of Six -Mile Creek March 22, 1989 BUzZ Lavine, Margaret Fabrizio, John Johnson, and Betsy Darlington met on March et i unique n l natural area along the hS x-ml th e Creek corridor. watershed and th We went through the list sent out several months ago by Thys Van Cort, and discussed each idea (Buzz's expertise was invaluable!): 1. New watershed le and regulations. regs proposed by Steve Baker before for for protecting water quality. The he moved away last June Would John Andersson at the County11He tributaries as well. Buzz is going gill Gray, and tell them a letter Dept. and I'11 talk to City Engineer, asking some action. may come from our joint -ti cor n miC' " ng for C A C. 1 2. Conservation Overton Zones. ently The Plan that the 6 -N1 le. Buzz is n of Ithaca is working PP going to ask Susan Beepers what the plan recommends. 3. TDR's (Transfer of development rights). complicated requires a lot of planning. Unlikely denfomany years•even moreunllkely in Caroline. But possible in Town of Ithaca. The Town Board members need encouragement to adopt this tool. principle is that everyone shares eciu,- The basic rights. Lets say Mr. Newt owns 10 ar, -. hat the acres in a Town has decided may not be d� 1 and develop art of town that can be develo r'` f'' +f > >ent rights P but only after pay E , i Iewt that 10 acres, Y V ; on some (all ?) of his ten acres. to for not being able to develop his l f . d I it.) develop her own land. (At least, I ;� 4. Conservation easements. A Lando% snip of his land and all the rights that this implies, i _ , for rights that are spelled or part of the out in the easement--Usually covered easement . Easements are sold or donated. land can be covere y If donated, there can be considerable tax benefits to the owner: a. charitable deduction heland beforeetheddonation and after); (for the difference in value between t b. possible reduction in property taxes (assessors are not required to lower the taxes, but they should, and they should be urged to do so); 'S a couple c. reduction in estate taxes. Y but theyincome and has 200 areerather valuable, developable n property protect their land by leaving it to low. They might think they The kids their conservation- mindhe chilren. They . soh high they me t must sell the quickly discover that land to pay the taxes. Since an easement would greatly reduce the value of the land, the estate taxes would beam h to 6 sQ 4. &C_ ove✓--> It The tax benefits of donating an easement naturally depend on how much has been given up. If all development rights are donated, the tax benefits will be greater than if certain areas are designated as ones on which development can take place. An easement does not open the land to the public, unless the owner says so in the easement. 5. Deed restrictions. Although restrictions can be put into the deeds on any piece of property, this usually happens only at the time the land changes hands, and especially when it is proposed for development. A municipality can require deed restrictions as a condition for approval for a development. Municipalities should be urged to use this tool. Deed restrictions are much easier to break (legally) than conservation easements. 6. Runoff management. Controls should be required as part of the normal development approval process in a municipality. Erosion and sedimentation cw." ordinances are especially helpful in this. Betsy is going to call Stuart Stein (on the County Bd. of Reps.) and ask him to to have his committee ask the County Planning staff to prepare some sample ordinances and to circulate these to the various municipalities in the County, urging their adoption. 7. Critical Environmental Areas (CEA's) and unique natural areas. Useful to have these designations, but not a whole lot of teeth in them. The second has no teeth at all, except as a warning to reviewers of proposals to proceed with caution. An action that takes place in a CEA automatically becomes a Type I action, thus requiring environmental review. John Johnson is going to ask Paul Mazzarella what the status is for 6 -Mile: is it already a CEA? If not, we should start the process of getting it designated. 8. Mapping - potential streets, etc. An official document. Probably not a lot to be done on this now, but we should be involved in decisions regarding roads and other map changes in the 6 -Mile Cr. area. Question for Susan or George: what does the Comprehensive Plan propose? 9. Wild, scenic, and recreational river designation. This would be useful and should be pursued. lo. Outright acquisition of land, either from willing donors or sellers or by condemnation. This naturally affords the greatest protection. We agreed that there is a need for a plan: a. what to purchase (whether easements or outright acquisition), and b. what the priorities are - highest would be lands the City should acquire, either through donation or purchase; next would be land that is only valuable enough to get some cheaper way than through purchase; and lowest priority would be land that needed protection but not as desperately as the others, and for which deed restrictions should be sufficient. Michael Jones has done a lot of work for the Town on 6 -Mile and should be included in figuring out which lands to put into which categories. A -eq� C - h j-L C ffj_k- VL'- 5 . ,, ham, . A �,�13 -7 : 3 u . Tools for Protection of Six -Mile Creek March 22, 1989 Buzz Lavine, Margaret Fabrizio, John Johnson, and Betsy Darlington met on March 20 tons oue various ways to enhance area along the Six -Mile Creek corridor. watershed and the u q We went through the list sent out several months ago by Th}s Van Cort, and discussed each idea (Buzz's expertise was invaluable!): tool 1. New watershed rules and regulations. The by Steve Bakerubefore for protecting water quality. Te regs he moved away last going would alk protect not just the John Andersson at creek he County11Hea1 h arses as well. Buzz is go g and tell them a letter Dept. and Ill talk to City Engineer, Bill Gray, may come from our jo C- i ej committee, asking 4- CAC action. 2. Conservation Overlay Zones. ently The COZlse for l 6 -tiff le. Buzz u n of Ithaca is working on pp going to ask Susan Beeners what the plan recommends. 3. TDRs (Transfer of development gs) complicated tool requires Unlikely n yen for many years; evenoreunlikely a lot of planning. in Caroline. But possible in Town of Ithaca. The Town Board members ent to adopt this tool. need encouragem The basic principle •isNeh� owns l0eacresebelow equally that the rights. Lets say NI Town has decided may not be developed. Ms. Toad owns 10 acres in a part of town that can be developed- h indeed d ahead and ut only a f er pY i MrN wt for the development rights that 10 acres, b on some (all ?) of his o ten v lop his land, in order t pgantthe�righN t t for not being able t I think thatos how Buzz explained it.) develop her own land. (At least, 4. Conservation easements. mllies, EXCEPT for rights h that arse spelled and all the rights that this P or part of the out in the easement -bustheyeasemePmenEasements are sold or donated. land can be cover Y If donated, there can be considerable tax benefits to the owner: a. charitable deduction on state theand do donation and after); (fa the difference in value between the land before b. possible reduction in property taxes (assessors are not required to lower the taxes, but they should, and they should be urged to do so); acr s Of c. reduction in estate property taxes. •but their income and assets 200 areerather low. They might thin valuable, developable think they can protect their land by leaving it to their conservationhat the children.. x They high they kids meustit--and the quickly discover that land to pay the taxes. Since an easement would greatly reduce the k�ues of the land, the estate taxes would beamuch lower. Set, i�.o \2�,a� 1_ A - The tax benefits of donating an easement naturally depend on how much has been given up. If all development rights are donated, the tax benefits will be greater than if certain areas are designated as ones on which development can take place. An easement does not open the land to the public, unless the owner says so in the easement. 5. Deed restrictions. Although restrictions can be put into the deeds on any piece of property, this usually happens only at the time the land changes hands, and especially when it is proposed for development. A municipality can require deed restrictions as a condition for approval for a development. Municipalities should be urged to use this tool. Deed restrictions are much easier to break (legally) than conservation easements. 6. Runoff management. Controls should be required as part of the normal development approval process in a municipality. Erosion and sedimentation cu,,1 J ordinances are especially helpful in this. Betsy is going to call Stuart Stein (on the County Bd. of Reps.) and ask him to to have his committee ask the County Planning staff to prepare some sample ordinances and to circulate these to the various municipalities in the County, urging their adoption. 7. Critical Environmental Areas (CEA's) and unique natural areas. Useful to have these designations, but not a whole lot of teeth in them. The second has no teeth at all, except as a warning to reviewers of proposals to proceed with caution. An action that takes place in a CEA automatically becomes a Type I action, thus requiring environmental review. John Johnson is going to ask Paul Mazzarella what the status is for 6 -Mile: is it already a CEA? If not, we should start the process of getting it designated. 8. Mapping - potential streets, etc. An official document. Probably not a lot to be done on this now, but we should be involved in decisions regarding roads and other map changes in the 6 -Mile Cr. area. Question for Susan or George: what does the Comprehensive Plan propose? 9. Wild, scenic, and recreational river designation. This would be useful and should be pursued. 10. Outright acquisition of land, either from willing donors or sellers or by condemnation. This naturally affords the greatest protection. We agreed that there is a need for a plan: a. what to purchase (whether easements or outright acquisition), and b. what the priorities are - highest would be lands the City should acquire, either through donation or purchase; next would be land that is only valuable enough to get some cheaper way than through purchase; and lowest priority would be land that needed protection but not as desperately as the others, and for which deed restrictions should be sufficient. Michael Jones has done a lot of work for the Town on 6 -Mile and should be included in figuring out which lands to put into which categories. Tools for Protection of Six -Mile Creek March 22, 1989 Buzz Lavine, Margaret Fabrizio, John Johnson, and Betsy Darlington met on March 20 tunique lnaturallarea along the hSix -Mile Creek corr. dor. watershed and the We went through the list sent out several months ago by Thys Van Cort, and discussed each idea (Buzz's expertise was invaluable!): I. New watershed rule egulations. This coul be proposed by Steve powerful tool for protecting water quality. he moved away last Juno would alk protect not John Anderson at creek he County11He tributaries as well. Buzz is going 'Dept. and Ill talk to City Engineer, ill Gray, and tell them action. a letter may come from our joint r Ij_eJ 1 'sew 4 CAC 2. Conservation Overlay Zones. ently The ncod � Plan that the 6-Mile. Buzz u n of Ithaca is working o PP going to ask Susan Beeners what the plan recommends. 3. TDR's (Transfer of development rngfors)many yearls•ae; ted ventmorehunl'kely�es a lot of planning. Unlikely Y en in Caroline. But possible in Town of Ithaca. The Town Board members need encouragement to adopt this tool. eveopment The basic principle i Newt owns 10 acresebelow lthe�rrdbedl that the rights. Lets say M • not be developed. Ms. Toad owns 10 acres in a Town has decided may part of town that can be de P Mr E wt for the development rights develop that 10 acres, but only paying on some (all ?) of his ten his land, in order t compensates N t t for not being able I think that's how Buzz explained it.) develop her own land. (At least, 4. Conservation easement mlandowner i, XCEPT for rights h that arse land and all the rights that this P cc part of the out in the easement --usually y easemennt. Easements are sold or donated. land can be covered y If donated, there can be considerable tax benefits to the owner: a. charitable deduction 1 land beforeetheddo donation and after); (for the difference in value between th b. possible reduction in property taxes (assessors are not required to lower the taxes, but they should, and they should be urged to do so); C. reduction in estate taxes. Lets say a couple has 200 acres of valuable, developable property but their income and assets are rather g low. They might think they can protect their land by leaving it to their conservation- Ethe estaee taxesharedso•high t ley meusttsell the quickly discover that land to pay the taxes. Since an easement would greatly reduce t�c,.,vlct�s of the land, the estate taxes would be much lo�� - , SQ S�,\\ \.,A � Sak\ _ll, �4r.8� ,� w0t,4 T `1 0ve✓ —> FM The tax benefits of donating an easement naturally depend on how much has been given up. If all development rights are donated, the tax benefits will be greater than if certain areas are designated as ones on which development can take place. An easement does not open the land to the public, unless the owner says so in the easement. 5. Deed restrictions. Although restrictions can be put into the deeds on any piece of property, this usually happens only at the time the land changes hands, and especially when it is proposed for development. A municipality can require deed restrictions as a condition for approval for a development. Municipalities should be urged to use this tool. Deed restrictions are much easier to break (legally) than conservation easements. 6. Runoff management. Controls should be required as part of the normal development approval process in a municipality. Erosion and sedimentation ca-I ordinances are especially helpful in this. Betsy is going to call Stuart Stein (on the County Bd. of Reps.) and ask him to to have his committee ask the County Planning staff to prepare some sample ordinances and to circulate these to the various municipalities in the County, urging their adoption. 7. Critical Environmental Areas (CEA's) and unique natural areas. Useful to have these designations, but not a whole lot of teeth in them. The second has no teeth at all, except as a warning to reviewers of proposals to proceed with caution. An action that takes place in a CEA automatically becomes a Type I action, thus requiring environmental review. John Johnson is going to ask Paul Mazzarella what the status is for 6 -Mile: is it already a CEA? If not, we should start the process•of getting it designated. 8. Mapping - potential streets, etc. An official document. Probably not a lot to be done on this now, but we should be involved in decisions regarding roads and other map changes in the 6 -Mile Cr. area. Question for Susan or George: what does the Comprehensive Plan propose? 9. Wild, scenic, and recreational river designation. This would be useful and should be pursued. 10. Outright acquisition of land, either from willing donors or sellers or by condemnation. This naturally affords the greatest protection. We agreed that there is a need for a plan: a. what to purchase (whether easements or outright acquisition), and b. what the priorities are - highest would be lands the City should acquire, either through donation or purchase; next would be land that is only valuable enough to get some cheaper way than through purchase; and lowest priority would be land that needed protection but not as desperately as the others, and for which deed restrictions should be sufficient. Michael Jones has done a lot of work for the Town on 6 -Mile and should be included in figuring out which lands to put into which categories. �� �� . � � . �,,� 3 r_7,3� c�G Tools for Protection of Six -Mile Creek March 22, 1989 Buzz Lavine, Ma rgaret Fabrizio, John Johnson, and Betsy Darlington various enhance consider met on March 20 tons area along the Six-mile Creek corridor. watershed and the u q ue natural list sent out several months ago by Thys Van Crt, We went through the and discussed each idea (Buzz's expertise was invaluable!): 1. New watershed rules and regulations. heregs proposed by Steve powerful tool for protecting water quality. he moved away last Jun talk for John Andersson at he County11Healbthaorses to as well. Buzz is going I�11 talk to City Engineer, Bill Gray, and tell them a letter Dept. and may come from our joint no mi n �rK 4 CAC action. sfrl n 2. Conservation Overlay Zone e s. enclud COZle 6 i�1 le. Buzz is on app of Ithaca is working Beeners what the plan recommends. going to ask Susan TDR's (Transfer of devepngfors)many orehunikely�es 3. yearls•aeventm; in a lot of planning. Unlikely Dryden in Town of Ithaca. The Town Board members in Caroline. But possible need encouragement to adopt this tool. equally The basic principle hat the M owns l0eacresebelow •isNehh rights. Lets say Town has decided may betdevelloped developed. She may ay Toad indeed go ahead rand develop part of town that can a Mr. Newt for the development rights only after paying g that 10 acres, but on some (all ?) of his ten acres. That is, she compensates Mr. Newt develop his order gain for not being able to land. (At least, II thinkntha develop her own 4. Conservation easements. l EXCEPT for rights that arse spelled and all the rights that this implies, or part of the in the easement-- usuhelyeaevelopm are sold r donated. out Easements land can be covere y be considerable tax benefits to the owner: - If donated, there can theand (for the difference a. charitable deduction on state donation and after); in value between the land before b. possible reduction in property taxes (assessors are not required and they should be urged to do to lower the taxes, but they should, -" so); of Let'hyincome c. reduction in estate taxes. but t and asse0tOs areerather valuable, developable property mi ht think they can protect their land by leaving it to They g kids tsell low. their conservation- minded Childretaxesh are dso•high ey must the " quickly discover that the estate use Since an easement would greatly reduce the - the taxes. �va land to pay s of the land, the estate taxes would be much to L. A' s \\ \ cA pVP ✓—� . It The tax benefits of donating an easement naturally depend on how much has been given up. If all development rights are donated, the tax benefits will be greater than if certain areas are designated as ones on which development can take place. An easement does not open the land to the public, unless the owner says so in the easement. 5. Deed restrictions. Although restrictions can be put into the deeds on any piece of property, this usually happens only at the time the land changes hands, and especially when it is proposed for development. A municipality can require deed restrictions as a condition for approval for a development. Municipalities should be urged to use this tool. Deed restrictions are much easier to break (legally) than conservation easements. 6. Runoff management. Controls should be required as part of the normal ` development approval process in a municipality. Erosion and sedimentation ca-" ordinances are especially helpful in this. Betsy is going to call Stuart Stein (on the County Bd. of Reps.) and ask him to to have his committee ask the County Planning staff to prepare some sample ordinances and to circulate these to the various municipalities in the County, urging their adoption. 7. Critical Environmental Areas (CEA's) and unique natural areas. Useful to have these designations, but not a whole lot of teeth in them. The second has no teeth at all, except as a warning to reviewers of proposals to proceed with caution. An action that takes place in a CEA automatically becomes a Type I action, thus requiring environmental review. John Johnson is going to ask Paul Mazzarella what the status is for 6 -Mile: is it already a CEA? If not, we should start the process of getting it designated. 8. Mapping - potential streets, etc. An official document. Probably not a lot to be done on this now, but we should be involved in decisions regarding roads and other map changes in the 6 -Mile Cr. area. Question for Susan or George: what does the Comprehensive Plan propose? 9. Wild, scenic, and recreational river designation. This would be useful and should be pursued. 10. Outright acquisition of land, either from willing donors or sellers or by condemnation. This naturally affords the greatest protection. We agreed that there is a need for a plan: a. what to purchase (whether easements or outright acquisition), and b. what the priorities are - highest would be lands the City should acquire, either through donation or purchase; next would be land that is only valuable enough to get some cheaper way than through purchase; and lowest priority would be land that needed protection but not as desperately as the others, and for which deed restrictions should be sufficient. Michael Jones has done a lot of work for the Town on 6 -Mile and should be included in figuring out which lands to put into which categories. Memo to: P &D Board and Dept. 4 Mitchell Bobrow and Kathleen Rodgers t 105 Williams Glen Rd. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members Re: r-A�- Minor lot line adjustment between two parcels owned by applicant, enlarging one to 1 acre (with a house to follow) and shrinking the other parcel to 3/4 acre (from 1 acre). Williams Glen Rd. From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Date: March 26, 1989 Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) aP CACS ��� I Memo to: P &D Board and Dept. Arthur Pivirotto: 422 Taylor Pl. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members Re: EAF for 10-lot subdivision along a proposed northerly extension of S. Taylor Place. (Most lots to be in the 10,000 - 11,000 sq. ft. range, with three larger ones.) Date: March 26, 1989 _P ^I From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair UVS� The CAC s EAF subcommittee (Emilian, Hotchkiss, Darlington) met tonight to review the above EAF. Recommendation: Concern by neighbors over the lay -out and small size of the lots apparently led to a meeting of neighbors with Mr. Pivirotto. Our understanding is that he has agreed to make changes in the project, and the neighbors are satisfied with his new proposal. Without having any more information than this, and in view of the many unanswered questions in the LEAF, we do not feel we can make a recommendation at this time. The project would primarily replace a large lawn, but we believe very little in the way of woods or brush. So impact on flora and fauna would probably not be significant. However, there could be some impact to the home to the east of the project, from the loss of trees. It would be desirable for the developer to leave standing as many of these as possible, and to plant as many more as possible. We do not know if the changes we have been told of would accomplish this. Also, see #10, below. Comments: 1. Initially, we were given the EAF on the States form. We asked that the reviewer use the City form, and we received this on March 21. Curiously, there are many differences in the way the two forms were answered. What is the reason for these differences? 2. Since this involves 10 lots, is the Health Dept. an involved agency? 3. The LEAF has not been completely filled out. 4. Would natural gas or electricity be used for heat, hot water, and stoves? Specific comments on the LEAF: 1. PART I, page 1, A, 3: (Site description) Each column should add up to 4.26 acres, not 1 acre. Each type of item needs answering. Over i E 2. page 2, #11: (site used by neighborhood as rec. area or open space) Should answer be yes instead of no? 3. #12: (Scenic views of importance to neighborhood) Should this be yes, given that views into the area would be affected? 4. #16: (Land use within 1/4 mile) Should add, "open space - -woods and brushland." 5. #17: (Site been used for disposal of solid or hazardous waste) Is "yes" a typo? (Answered no on the State form.) If yes, describe! 6. page 3, B, #1: d, f, g, and i should be answered. (Length of project, # off- street parking spaces, # veh. trips per day or per hour, height of tallest structure.) 7. #2: (Amt. of material to be removed) Answer (0) inconsistent with a later answer - Part II, page 2 - that topsoil will be removed from more than 1/2 acre. Since project involves road- and house- building, it would seem that material will be removed; the amt. should be calculated. 8. #3: (Vegetation types to be removed, and amounts) .25 acres does not sound possible for a 4+ acre project. Also, types must be given. 9. #4: (Any mature or locally- important veg. to be removed) Should be yes. (E.g. the trees that buffer the property to the east.) 10. #5: (Any plans for revegetation) Answered no. A condition for approval should be a yes answer, with specifics detailed in Part III. 11. Page 4, #6: Just 3 months to complete entire project? This sounds unrealistic! 12. #12: (Liquid waste disposal) a: yes; b: sewage 13. #15: (Solid waste) a: yes; b-e should be answered (would C &D debris and household rubbish go to County Landfill ?) 14. #16: (Pesticides) Yes. (Unfortunately, it is unlikely that homeowners will not use these substances on their properties.) 15. Page 5, #19: (Noise during construction) Surely, "yes." 16. #20: (Increase in energy use) Yes! (By the way, what type ?) 17. #21: (Water usage) Should be answered. (Calculate at 100 gal /day/ person.) 18. #22, a,b: (Zoning classification) R -la? (Should be given) 19. #23, c: (Is Common Council approval needed for the road plan since this design is inconsistent with the proposed W. Hill master plan.) 3 20. PART H, page 2, #1: Several thresholds should be checked in col 2: - -any constr. on slopes over 15% (maybe) -- const. where water table is less than 3' (since Part I says it is 3 feet, site should be checked to see if any is less than this) (maybe) -- constr. for 1 year, or more than one phase (although answered in Part I as 3 months, this seems unlikely, and needs clarification). (maybe) -- removal of veg. from more than 1/2 acre (needs clarification) -- removal of topsoil from more than 1/2 acre -- Other: Cut and fill for road is written on state form, and col. 2 and 3 were checked. Needs clarification, in view of answer to B,2, page 3 of Part I. 21. page 3, #6: (Any impact on surface or groundwater) Checked yes on State form. (Housing developments can increase water pollution.) Thresholds to check: -- Project will adversely affect groundwater. (Col 1 ?) -- Siltation... How much depends on control measures during construction, and revegetation after construction. 22. page 4, #7: Two thresholds were checked on state form: erosion (col 2) and incompatibility with existing drainage (col 1). On local form, "other" also checked. All of these should be considered possible col 2 answers, and preventative measures detailed in Part III. 23. page 5, #10: (Effect on flora and fauna) Checked Yes on state form, and col. 1 for 1st threshold was checked. Re 2nd threshold (removal of over 1/2 acre of locally important veg.): how large is the area of trees on east side of road, and how much will be removed? 24. page 6, #11: (Aesthetic impacts) All thresholds should be checked, at least in col 1 and maybe 2. (1st one checked in col 2 and 3 of state form) 25. page 7, #14: (Transportation) Checked yes on State form. (An entire new road and cul de sac would indicate a Yes answer.) First 2 thresholds should be checked in col 1 or 2. And, under 'other impacts," state form was answered: "extension of existing road in accordance with current community plans." (Note: cul de sac is not in these plans.) 26. #15: (Energy) Answered yes on State form (as it should be). Under "other impacts," it said (on State form) "Will cause minor increase in 0 Jer "1 4 demand for available energy," and Col. 1 was checked. 27. page 8, #16: (Noise, etc.) Col. 1 was checked on State form for last two thresholds (noise levels and removal of natural barriers that act as noise screen). (Question about trees on east side needs answering.) 28. page 8 -9, #17: (health and safety): last threshold (chemical use) col. 2 (anything else would be very unlikely) 29. page 9, #18: (Change in character of neighborhood) Yes on state form. 1st threshold on state form asks if there will be a change in density, and is checked in col. 1 (Our form needs changing on this one!) "Precedent" threshold also checked in col 1 of State form, and should be here as well. (One example is the smaller lot size and another is allowing a cul de sac that isn't in the master plan.) 30. PART III, page 2: Suggestions (local form) sound good but #2 needs more specifics. Concluding paragraph may not be warranted until we see just what the changes might be. Other specifics also are needed (as indicated above), such as how runoff and erosion will be controlled. State form: Many comments that aren't on local form.. Again, specifics are needed, even if the applicant is a "respected member of the community." (What if he sold out to someone else? Or other circumstances changed ?) • I Memo to: P &D Board and Dept. Victor and Stephen Garcia, 14 Broadway, P.O. Box 693, Noy- � Haven, CT 06473 Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC Re: EAF- 75 -unit subdivision an about 38 acres on West Hill, south of old Hector St. R.O.W . and a bit east of Warren Place. (Garcia subdivision) Date: March 26, 1989 .� From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair ►Se7�s� The CAC's EAF subcommittee (Emilian, Hotchkiss, Darlington) met this evening to review the above EAF. Recommendation: Positive declaration (project may have a significant impact on the environment) Comments: Major areas of concern: 1. Drainage, erosion, sedimentation, flooding. 2. Impact on birds and other wildlife. Charles Smith of the Lab of Ornithology says that bird species requiring brushland (e.g. brown thrashers, yellow - breasted chats, golden - winged warblers) are declining markedly because of loss of brushland to development. Brushlands are often unappreciated and treated as wasteland. Clustering would help, combined, of course, with retention of brushy areas. But, even with mitigating measures such as these, we can expect significant declines in wildlife in that area, given the size of the project (as the preparer acknowledges). 3. Site boasts a stand of locally rare hackberry trees that must be protected. 4. We note that the one map that was supplied to us shows 100% coverage of the site with building lots, yet some areas - -e.g. along the streams -- should not be developed. Rather than protecting these through deed restrictions (which are not too difficult to break legally), might it be safer to set these aside? (They should not even be considered as part of the developable area, when doing the lot lay -out. Nor should a couple of very wet areas.) 5. Degradation of views into the site from neighboring homes and from East Hill. 6. Loss of open space and natural area important to neighborhood and City. 7. Size of proposed set -aside for parkland. We would recommend 10 % -- rather than less than this, plus some monetary donation for play equipment. Money can always be raised for play equipment, and this can be assembled by community work parties. It is far more important to set aside land C9Ver i • 2 than to receive a monetary donation for equipment.) 8. Impact on traffic, esp. at the Octopus. (Even more so when combined with the various other subdivisions proposed for West Hill.) 9. Impact on schools and other public services. 10. What type of energy would be used for heat, stove, hot water? That is, natural gas or electricity? (The latter is far more damaging to the environment.) 11. Streams appear to be more than "relief streams." What is the basis for this use of terms? 12. There's a need for more maps, showing details about vegetation and topography. Aerial photos would also help. 13. More work is needed on lot lay -out. 14. We have recently learned of new studies showing consistent increases in groundwater pollution with residential development. (Several pages were circulated to many of you with the S. Hill Rec. Trail EAF review.) Specific Comments on the LEAF: 1. PART I, page 2, #5-c: Depth to water table should be determined. (Pivirotto's adjacent subdivision EAF says 3 feet.) __S IL4l- "•4 :' 5r,41 , �q 2. #6: (Slope) Pivirotto's says his is mostly 10 -15 %. This seems more accurate. 99% at 0 -10% slope seems off. 3. #11: (Used for open space, recreation) Should be Yes. 4. #14: (Streams) These appear to be more than just "relief streams." (For one thing, they were flowing during a dry period.) (a) They ultimately flow into Cayuga Inlet Flood Control Channel. 5. #16: (Land use within 1/4 mile) Also should say, "Open space - -woods and brushland." 6. Page 3, B-1 -a: (Length of project) Could you give the dimensions? 7. B-2: (Type and amt. of natural material to be removed) EAF must address whole project, not just road - building phase. So, how much for everything else? 8. B-4: (Mature trees /locally important veg. to be removed) Should be Yes. 9. Page 4, #12 -a,b: (Liquid waste disposal) Yes; sewage. 10. #15-c: (Solid waste disposal) Tompkins County Landfill? 3 11. Page 5, #20: (Energy use) What type? (Natural gas or electricity for stoves, heating, hot water ?) 12. #21: (Water usage) Calculate at 100 /gal /person. 13. #23: (Approvals) County Health Dept. also? Nate: Any thresholds in Part II that may be met or exceeded must be checked in Col. 2 (see instructions). 14. PART II, page 2, #1: (Impact on land) First two thresholds plus the three that are checked in col. 1 should all be checked in col. 2. Re 2nd example, depth to water table was not given so we must assume that this threshold may be met or exceeded. 15. page 3, #5: Should be yes, and last example (impact on Cay. Inlet) checked in col. 2 - -and controls should then be detailed in Part III. 16. #6: (Water quality impacts) Yes, and 4th and 7th examples checked in col. 2. Possible controls should be detailed in Part III. 17. page 4, #7: (Changes in drainage, runoff, etc.) Yes, and 2nd and 3rd examples checked in col 2. (Detail controls in Part Ill.) 18. #8: (Air quality) Yes. Calculate # of veh. trips per day. We don't know formula, but have heard 10 trips per car per day; figured at 140 cars per development, that would be 1404trips per day. In any event, 500 or more seems likely; so, col 2. And, under other impacts, write in, "typical air contaminants associated with 75 homes. ": (Col. 2) 19. page 5, #9: (Threatened species, etc.) Hasn't been inventoried yet, so this cannot yet be answered No. If yes, all 3 examples: col 2. 20. #10: (Nonthreatened species) Col 2 for both examples. (Note that Part I said 20 acres of vegetation would be removed.) 21. page 6, #11: (Aesthetic impacts) Yes, and 1st and 3rd examples: col 2. (Views to the site.) 22. page 7, #13: (Open space and rec.) Both examples: col 2. 23. #14: (Transportation) First 2 examples: col 2 24. page 8, #15: (Energy) Last threshold: col 2. 25 #16: (Odors, noise, etc.) 1st example: how far will site be from W. Hill School (ACS)/ (Relevant if there is any blasting.) Other examples: col 2. 26. page 9, #17: (Health, safety) Last threshold: col. 2. (Way over Over> 21 30,000 sq. ft.) 27. #18: (Character of neighborhood) Yes. 4th example - age group with special needs: col 2 (families with kids needing schooling). (Although this is in keeping with the neighborhood, the need for room in schools must be addressed.) And 5th example (precedent): col 2. 28. page 10, #19: States form asks if there is likely to be controversy, and ours should also. In any event, it does seem likely! Until more people know what's planned -- indeed until anyone knows what the final plans T are - -which col. in which to check the two examples cant be fairly evaluated. Written comments by prepares: We received the revised EAF with this new section late on Good Friday (March 24). While we each read this lengthy section, we did not have time in the brief period since receipt of it to review it thoroughly or together. Generally, however, we felt that importance of the impacts was underestimated by the preparer, and specific details of mitigating measures needed to be spelled out. ' n l Memo to: IURA 1 Common Council and Mayor P &D Board and Dept. INHS From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Date: March 27, 1989 I U t CA L_ Re: EAF for sale of City land along Floral Ave. to INHS The CAC's EAF subcommittee (Hotchkiss, Jones, Darlington) met to consider the above EAF. Recommendation: Negative declaration, but without this indicating anything as to our recommendation regarding impacts of the project plan that is to follow. Technically, an EAF is supposed to consider the known or likely outcomes of a particular action - -in this case, development of the parcel for housing. However, there are some practical concerns that led us to recommend a negative declaration. First of all, there are time constraints on the funding for the proposed project. Secondly, once the plans are made, we will have to review it all over again. It makes sense to us to spend the time on a careful review of the actual plans rather than on the sale of the land. Finally, considering the desperate need for affordable housing in the City, it does not make sense to us to tie things up at this stage with a long, careful review of the entire project when another review will have to be done anyway, once plans are formulated. PRESS RELEASE March 27, 1989 At its March 13th meeting, the Conservation Advisory Council voted to award its first "Environmentalist of the Month" award to Lynn Leopold, coordinator of Ithaca Recycles. Through her hard work, persistence, dedication, good humor, and patience, Ms. Leopold has successfully promoted change in the habits of all Ithacans. She is constantly seeking new ways to bring people into the ranks of recyclers, thus saving valuable natural resources as well as landfill space. Lynn's work has put Ithaca in the lead for recycling, and has established Ithaca as a role model for other communities. Hats off to Lynn Leopold, the CAC s first "Conserva- V.I.P."! (Contact people: Betsy Darlington, 273 -0707; Barbara Hotchkiss, 272 -0842) k Memo to: P &D Board and Dept. Common Council and Mayor BPW CAC Planning/ Environmental Consultants 310 W. State St. Youth Bureau Community Recreation Gzv\-�er- From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair &JAS Re: Use of bottom ash for skating rink fill at Cass Park Date: April 5, 1989 I received a response today from Bob Torba at the Syracuse office of the DEC regarding my request for info on use of bottom ash for skating rink fill at Cass Park: 1. The bottom line on bottom ash at this location is, forget it! 2. New regs. for solid waste disposal came out on Dec. 31, 1989 -- and bottom ash is treated as solid waste: a. A double liner would be required. b. There must be a five -foot separation between the liner and ground water - -an impossibility at that site. c. Ongoing monitoring of leachate would be required. d. If any leachate were found to be contaminated, remediation would be very expensive. e. Because of (b), the DEC would not issue the required permit. 3. As we thought, heavy metals are the thing to be concerned about. The contents of a given batch of ash depends on the batch of coal that was burned. 4. Bottom ash tends to be less contaminated than fly ash. Should the City or County be doing some monitoring of the water around the golf course and Cass Park (the current rink) since fly (or bottom ?) ash was used for fill there? Heavy metals tend to accumulate in bottom sediment so drinking water probably is ok, but heavy metal accumulation in fish can be a problem. Have the fish at this end of the lake been tested for heavy metals? Memo to: Thys Van Cort, City Planning Director Frank Liguori, County Planner BPW DPW (Gray, Fabbroni, and Dougherty) P &D Board Common Council and Mayor From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair (SIk 1 Cc: CAC Date: April 9, 1989 Topic: Aquatic Vegetation Control Program Report from E. Moran I have just finished reading the above report (very interesting and informative!). I have two questions: 1. Are there any plans to test the lake and the various streams through the City for heavy metals and other pollutants (in addition to the substances which would affect growth of weeds and which were part of this testing program)? 2. Are there any plans to include the Flood Relief Channel in future testing? This water also flows into the lake, ultimately. It appears to be very dirty. Because it ruQ4. ehind many rte. 13 commercial *a vrpark� buildings and large parking lots mig t it not be a good idea to test it, esp. for heavy metals, etc.fi Re: LEAF on historic designation of State Theater Recommendation of the EAF Subcommittee (Farrell, Broberg, Darlington): Negative declaration (no significant impact) Memo to: Common Council, Mayor P &D Dept. - Paul Mazzarella Cc: CAC members Date: April 11, 1989 G : Zz . I C"L -S S I C b- Re: EAF on rezoning of Miller St. Recommendation of the EAF Subcommittee (Braun, Broberg, Darlington): Negative declaration (no significant impact) Memo to: P &D Board P &D Dept. - Jon Meigs Robert McGuire, RockStream Studios 233 Cherry St. Building Dept. Cc: Common Council, Mayor CAC members Date: April 11 1989 ad Re: EAF on dition to present building - RockStream Studios in the Cherry St. Industrial Park Recommendation of EAF Subcommittee (Braun, Broberg, Darlington): Negative declaration (no significant impact). Comment: RockStream Studios is to be commended for the appearance of their site. The metal building is painted a nice shade of dark brown (the addition will be as well), and the landscaping is very attractive. Their plans include further work on the appearance of the site. Their efforts should set a good example for the rest of Cherry St. Memo to: ILPC P &D Dept. - Leslie Chatterton Building Dept. _ VPrr ..: Cc: Common Council, Mayor CAC members Date: April 11, 1989 Re: LEAF on historic designation of State Theater Recommendation of the EAF Subcommittee (Farrell, Broberg, Darlington): Negative declaration (no significant impact) Memo to: Common Council, Mayor P &D Dept. - Paul Mazzarella Cc: CAC members Date: April 11, 1989 G : Zz . I C"L -S S I C b- Re: EAF on rezoning of Miller St. Recommendation of the EAF Subcommittee (Braun, Broberg, Darlington): Negative declaration (no significant impact) Memo to: P &D Board P &D Dept. - Jon Meigs Robert McGuire, RockStream Studios 233 Cherry St. Building Dept. Cc: Common Council, Mayor CAC members Date: April 11 1989 ad Re: EAF on dition to present building - RockStream Studios in the Cherry St. Industrial Park Recommendation of EAF Subcommittee (Braun, Broberg, Darlington): Negative declaration (no significant impact). Comment: RockStream Studios is to be commended for the appearance of their site. The metal building is painted a nice shade of dark brown (the addition will be as well), and the landscaping is very attractive. Their plans include further work on the appearance of the site. Their efforts should set a good example for the rest of Cherry St. PRESS RELEASE April 15, 1989 The Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to give its April environmental commendation to the City of Ithaca "s Common Council. Common Council has spent countless hours working on ways to protect the environment (both indoors and outdoors) for the benefit of all of us. It has demonstrated a commitment to improving the protection of the watershed along Six -Mile Creek, lowered the "salt diet" on City streets, given its backing to the designation of Fall Creek as a "recreational river," and directed that City Hall look into using recycled paper. In addition, the Council has enacted significant environmental legislation, such as the site plan review ordinance, the cluster housing ordinance, and the smoking ordinance, and is currently working on a shade tree ordinance, conservation overlay zoning, and updating the City ,s environmental review ordinance. On behalf of all Ithacans, we thank Alderpersons Dick Booth, Susan Cummings, Dan Hoffman, John Johnson, Sean Killeen, David Lytel, Ben Nichols, Carolyn Peterson, Bob Romanowski, Ray Schlather, and Mayor John Gutenberger for their hard work and dedication to the well -being of the City of Ithaca. (Contact people: Cathy Emilian -- 273 -0824; Betsy Darlington -- 273 -0707) Memo to: P &D Board and Dept. (Meigs) Building Dept. Lama Brothers, 501 S. Meadow St., PO Box 249 Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair _&_7�5 � Re: EAF for addition to vacated Messenger Motors building, and conversion to retail space. Date: April 16, 1989 Our EAF Subcommittee (Braun, Broberg, Darlington) met today to consider the above EAF. Recommendation: Negative declaration, provided: 1. Debris is cleaned up from the bank of x -Mile Creek and the waters edge. (Large amounts of trash litter the area, left from the previous use.) 2. Measures are taken to improve the appearance of the back of the building, including painting it a nice color (e.g. dark brown) and planting trees and shrubs in the space between the building and the creek. The creek is used by canoers and fishermen. If these simple measures are undertaken, the project could enhance the appeal of such recreational use. (it's unfortunate that the creek, which should be a valuable recrea- tional resource, has been treated so badly, here and in other places downtown.) 3. Plans for landscaping turn out to be more than just a token effort. For example, could there be one or two islands for trees in the parking lot? And maybe some trees along the road? " - -ye I J..e9.4-w Specific comments on the EAF: Part I, page 2, #Sc: is the water table really so far down? (28/26 #10: (contiguous to unique nat. area): Six-Mile Creek page 3, #lg: Max. number of vehicle trips per hour or per day? page 4, #14a: (in flood plain): We think this is "yes" #12: (liguid waste disposal): Yes - sewage. #14d: Actually will range from 15' to about 25' from the top of the creek bank. #15: (Solid waste) Yes - Tompkins County Landfill page 5, #20: (increase in energy use): Probably #21: # gal. water to be used per day (should be answered) Part 11, page 3, #5 (and # 11, page 6): (effect on body of water), last threshold (Six -Mile Creek) - yes - view to and from the creek, and effect on the bank. (All of these could be improved by the project, if cleaned up and landscaped.) page 7, #14: (Traffic problems) Second example - col. 2. (Getting in and out of businesses in that area is already difficult. What is meant by "will institute controlled access to site "? An in and an out driveway? page 8 -9, #17: (Use of de- icers) Check in col. 1. (Will probably use them on the new parking lot, with drainage straight into the creek.) Under other, traffic safety should be discussed. Memo to: Building Dept. - Eric Datz, Commissioner P &D Board and Dept. Ann Pendleton and Guillaume Jullian, Architects Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, 900 Stewart Ave. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members k From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Re: EAF on transformation of Sagan - Druyan home at 900 Stewart Ave. Date: April 16, 1989 The EAF subcommittee (Braun, Broberg, Darlington) met with Ms. Pendleton and Mr. Jullian today to discuss the plans and the EAF. Recommendation: The main concern with the proposal is aesthetic - -what will it look like from various points such as the end of Willard Way, Stewart Ave., and Lake St.? We also discussed whether or not the garage would obstruct peoples view as they came around the curve on Stewart Ave. In the final analysis, we don't really feel qualified to evaluate these concerns, but our impression is that building would look attractive and interesting, and could be an improvement over the current one. For one thing, the long, straight concrete wall will be replaced with a curved wall, faced with brick of various shades. As for the garage, it is possible that visibility will at least be no worse than it is today, given that a view - obstructing fence will be removed. There are undoubtedly people in the building or engineering dept. who could evaluate this better than we. Comments on the LEAF: Part I, page 2: #10 (unique natural area): Yes, since it's on the edge of Fall Creek Gorge (designated by the County EMC) Part II was not filled out and we recommended the following responses to the architects who will suggest them to Eric Datz: Page 2, #1 (physical change to site): Yes, with lst, 4th and 5th examples checked in column 2. (Slope, bedrock, period of construction). None can be mitigated by project change. (Part III should address how these might or might not be important to the City - -in addition to answering the other questions for Part III.) #2 (effect on unique landforms): Yes (col. 2) -- change in view to the site, which comes up to the gorge rim. (Part III should include how the change in view might be good or bad.) #3 (effect on unique natural area): Yes (col. 2). (Same as for #2) #5 (effect on body of water): Yes (col. 1) Our concern is with construction debris falling into the gorge. Architects will clarify in Part III how this will be prevented. Page 6, #11 (effect on views): Yes. 2nd example checked in col. 2 (easily visible, not easily screened, etc.). (The effect could be a positive one, however. This, of course, is highly subjective. Part III should address this.) Page 8-9, #17 (public safety): Movement of vehicles and materials to and from the site during construction could pose some safety hazard along the curve of Stewart Ave. (Part III should address how this will be dealt with.) (? 9 sce �(� � viol ate , b_ `"`3 �f ` � 'p [' �1 ,, ` 7 un`1'`^ ia,n,c, k. '"�^� �Q. � G�r� -mom '�wA'oc-�eC �, �� L e CO rl � Memo to: P &D Board and Dept. (Meigs) Building Dept. Lawrence Weaver, 480 Floral Ave. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Re: EAF for proposed work at Glenside Monument, on Floral Ave. Date: April 17, 1989 Because I have a conflict of interest in this case, I did not take part in the evaluation of the above EAF. I did agree, however, to write up the comments from the three subcommittee members (Broberg, Farrell, Hotchkiss). Recommendation: none at this time Comments: Barbara Hotchkiss called Mr. Weaver to determine how much of what is shown on the drawings was new work and how much was already existing use. It turns out that he had not understood the form, and the 2368 sq. ft. of land affected, listed on the first part of the short EAF, pertains just to the building itself. The proposal also includes cutting into the hillside, putting in a retaining wall, demolition, and putting in a new materials storage area up above with a driveway leading to it - -in other words, substantially more than 2368 sq. ft. The subcommittee felt that a "large physical change" to the site would be involved (1st que. on the SEAF), and therefore a long form was needed in order to evaluate the project adequately. Whether or not the plan is also subject to site plan review the subcommitte does not know. Barbara Hotchkiss told Mr. Weaver that if a long form is required, the committee would be happy to meet with him to help him fill it out. x- Memo to: Common Council and Mayor The CAC's EAF subcommittee (Broberg, Tripp, Darlington) has discussed how to proceed with the above matter, in light of our comments of March 19th. Given that the many comments and questions we raised before have either not been addressed or have been inadequately addressed, we feel that a positive declaration and a DEIS would be the prudent course. A DEIS is very helpful in identifying potential problems and finding solutions for these. We feel that, given the many unanswered questions and the sensitivity of the area through which the recreation trail will pass, a DEIS is an important step to ensure protection for the Six -Mile Creek corridor. This is not an area in which we can afford to make mistakes. We are in favor of a recreation trail, and hope that the City and Town can work together to plan one that is both environmentally sound and acceptable to a larger number of people than currently appears to be the case. P &D Board and Dept. DPW & BPW Cc: Ithaca Town Board Ithaca Town Planing Dept. CAC, Six -Mile Creek Comm., and Circle Greenway members Re: South Hill recreation trail EAF From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair _1 ;�s Date: April 23, 1989 The CAC's EAF subcommittee (Broberg, Tripp, Darlington) has discussed how to proceed with the above matter, in light of our comments of March 19th. Given that the many comments and questions we raised before have either not been addressed or have been inadequately addressed, we feel that a positive declaration and a DEIS would be the prudent course. A DEIS is very helpful in identifying potential problems and finding solutions for these. We feel that, given the many unanswered questions and the sensitivity of the area through which the recreation trail will pass, a DEIS is an important step to ensure protection for the Six -Mile Creek corridor. This is not an area in which we can afford to make mistakes. We are in favor of a recreation trail, and hope that the City and Town can work together to plan one that is both environmentally sound and acceptable to a larger number of people than currently appears to be the case. Memo to: P &D Bd. and Dept. (Meigs) Building Dept. Lawrence Weaver, 480 Floral Ave. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members 1 From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair thus Re: LEAF for demolition, expansion, etc. at Glenside Monument, on Floral Ave. Date: April 24, 1989 The EAF subcommittee (Broberg, Farrell, Hotchkiss) reviewed the above long EAF and had the following recommendation and comments: Recommendation: Neg. dec. (no significant impact) Comments: 1. The Planning Board should make sure that construction plans -- particularly those involving cutting into the bank and installing a retaining wall - -will include provision for keeping muddy runoff from getting to the adjacent stream. 2. Planning Board or engineering dept. should make sure that the retaining wall is properly planned -- retaining walls can be tricky to build. 3. Part I and Part U are inconsistent re noise during construction: #19 in Part I is answered yes, but # 16 in Part II is answered no. 4. #1 in Part II (impact on land): construction on slopes over 15% should be yes (col. 2). (A Part III should then spell out what mitigating measures will be taken - -e.g. regarding erosion.) (Relevant for the wall construction and the new driveway to the new storage area.) 5. Same question: project will be in more than one phase, so should also be answered in col. 2. (The subcommittee sees no problem with this, however, even though techically col. 2 should be checked.) 6. Part I, #5A: presence of bedrock outcroppings is answered no, but committee thinks the answer is yes. (Shale apparently is visible at surface.) „M Memo to: P &D Bd. and Dept. (Meigs) Building Dept. Lawrence Weaver, 480 Floral Ave. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members 1 From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair is Re: LEAF for demolition, expansion, etc. at Glenside Monument, on Floral Ave. Date: April 24, 1989 The EAF subcommittee (Broberg, Farrell, Hotchkiss) reviewed the above long EAF and had the following recommendation and comments: Recommendation: Neg. dec. (no significant impact) Comments: 1. The Planning Board should make sure that construction plans -- particularly those involving cutting into the bank and installing a retaining wall - -will include provision for keeping muddy runoff from getting to the adjacent stream. 2. Planning Board or engineering dept. should make sure that the retaining wall is properly planned -- retaining walls can be tricky to build. 3. Part I and Part U are inconsistent re noise during construction: #19 in Part I is answered yes, but # 16 in Part II is answered no. 4. # 1 in Part II (impact on land): construction on slopes over 15% should be yes (col. 2). (A Part III should then spell out what mitigating measures will be taken - -e.g. regarding erosion.) (Relevant for the wall construction and the new driveway to the new storage area.) 5. Same question: project will be in more than one phase, so should also be answered in col. 2. (The subcommittee sees no problem with this, however, even though techically col. 2 should be checked.) 6. Part I, #5A: presence of bedrock outcroppings is answered no, but committee thinks the answer is yes. (Shale apparently is visible at surface.) Memo to: P &D Bd. and Dept. Building Dept. BPW Richard Cowles, 26 Highgate Circle, Ithaca 14850 From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair _?aA Re: EAF for 23 two-bedroom townhouses behind Dairy Queen, between Spencer Rd. and Elmira Rd., to serve low- mod. - income employees of Dairy Queen, Mr. Donut, and Citizens Savings Bank. Date: May 6, 1989 cc: e,, Cov.,ul, f(arrr, C /}C The EAF subcommittee (Tripp, Emilian, Darlington) reviewed the EAF with Mr. Cowles today. Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Comments: 1. Not only would this project provide much - needed low- income housing, it would also considerably improve the appearance of the site (currently run -down and occupied by house trailers). 2. Drainage on the site would be improved. 3. Traffic to parking lots would be accessed either from Elmira Rd. or Spencer Rd., so all the burden would not be on one street. 4. Density would be no greater than when used as a trailer park. 5. Some residents would be employees of Dairy Queen and would not need cars to get to work. Other residents could use nearby buses. 6. We suggested to Mr. Cowles that, in planning landscaping, they use a diversity of tree and shrub species so that disease or insect attacks will be less likely to wipe everything out at once. Specific comments on the long EAF: 1. Part I, page 2, #4: Applicant misunderstood question. May be close to 100% poorly drained (ability to percolate through the soil). 2. #5 (c): Depth to water table varies, he thinks, between one foot (as currently) and 8 feet. 3. page 3, #1 (f): (Parking spaces) These figures will be supplied. 4. page 4, #11: (Relocation of utilities) Electric wires will be buried. 5. Part H, page 2, #l: (Physical change to site) Should be answered yes, and threshold -- construction where water table is less than 3 feet- - checked in column 2. (Construction plans, which he will detail in Part 3, address this problem.) 6. #7 (change drainage) and #11 (affect on views): Yes, but project will result in improvement. 7. page 8, #16 (noise): Move the "yes" down to 3rd example. 8. #17 (health, etc.): Check de -icing example in col. 1 9. page 9, #18 (neighborhood character): Check "precedent" example. (At least, we can hope it will set an example for others!) (Obviously, a desirable impact.) -Y�I May 7, 1989 Richard Cowles 26 Highgate Circle Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Rick: Thanks for meeting with us yesterday, to review the EAF and your plans for townhouses behind the Dairy Queen. I would like to pursue a little further the question of natural gas vs. electricity for the heating and cooking in your units. First, I was under the impression that natural gas was cheaper than electricity, even when using new energy - saving technologies. Is NYSEG giving you the straight scoop on this? If, in fact, natural gas would be cheaper - -or at least as cheap - -then I would like to put in a plug for use of natural gas. It is by far the cleanest energy source currently available to us in this area at a reasonable cost. Electricity produced by burning coal produces five times as much carbon dioxide as does natural fas, for "an equal amount of energy delivered to a residence." Since CO2 is the major "greenhouse" gas, this should be of great concern to everyone. Unlike coal, natural gas contains "virtually no sulfur or sulfur compounds,... major contributors to acid rain...:'* Emissions of nitrogen oxides (the other major cause of acid rain) are also extremely low for natural gas and very high for coal. Also, natural gas combustion, unlike coal, produces no particulate matter. In the interest of continuing to have a liveable planet, I urge you to consider using natural gas in your units, and to check NYSEGs figures as to relative costs. Good luck with your project? It's so nice to have a development come along that we can actually feel enthusiastic about? �Best� "regards, Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair * These statistics and the other info come from page 306 of the April 21st (1989) issue of Science. If you ,d like a copy of the article, let me know. Cc: P &D Bd. and Dept. Building Dept. CAC Common Council and Mayor CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Mark Finkelstein State St. Associates 304 East State Street Ithaca, NY Dear Mark: May 9, 1989 TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 The Conservation Advisory Council is concerned about a couple of problems on your Gun Hill site. One is with the inevitable destruction of the trees along the western side of the building, although your agreement with the neighborhood said they would be protected. Months ago I called you about the problem and thought something was going to be done to protect the trees. Many on the CAC have expressed concern at our meetings that this has not been taken care of, and the committee asked me to write to you about it. True, the trees have not been cut down, but death by suffocation, crowding, and compaction is just as final, if not quite as fast. Once they die, then soil which they held in place could well slide down the hill and smother the roots of more trees, possibly resulting in a domino effect right down the slope. We urge you to consult with the Shade Tree Advisory Committee for guidance on how to deal with this problem which not only could impact the stream (with muddy run .off) and the neighbors but also depreciate the value of your project. The other problem of concern to us is the large pile of dirt sitting on the parking lot across the road from the building site. There is nothing that we can see to trap mud that runs off the pile during rain- storms. Siltation of streams from construction sites is a serious prob- lem- -one of the major causes of stream degradation and loss of fisheries. This, too, I talked to you about months ago and thought you were going to take care of. In fact, when we walked the site together ages ago, you said you wanted to do something to correct the very obvious erosion problems with the fill that constitutes the parking lot itself. We hope that will come to pass, but in the meantime, we hope you will get advice from the City Engineer on correcting the problem with the loose piie of dirt, if your own workers do not know what measures to take. cont'd. An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" May 9, 1989 Mark Finkelstein State St. Associates 304 E. State St., Ithaca Dear Mark: The Conservation Advisory Council is concerned about a couple of problems on your Gun Hill site. One is with the inevitable destruction of the trees along the western side of the building, although your agreement with the neighborhood said they would be protected. Months ago I called you about the problem and thought something was going to be done to protect the trees. Many on the CAC have expressed concern at our meetings that this has not been taken care of, and the committee asked me to write to you about it. True, the trees have not been cut down, but death by suffocation, crowding, and compaction is just as final, if not quite as fast. Once they die, then soil which they held in place could well slide down the hill and smother the roots of more trees, possibly resulting in a domino effect right down the slope. We urge you to consult with the Shade Tree Advisory Committee for guidance on how to deal with this problem which not only could impact the stream (with muddy runnoff) and the neighbors but also depreciate the value of your project. The other problem of concern to us is the large pile of dirt sitting on the parking lot across the road from the building site. There is nothing that we can see to trap mud that runs off the pile during rain- storms. Siltation of streams from construction sites is a serious prob- lem- -one of the major causes of stream degradation and loss of fisheries. This, too, I talked to you about months ago and thought you were going to take care of. In fact, when we walked the site together ages ago, you said you wanted to do something to correct the very obvious erosion problems with the fill that constitutes the parking lot itself. We hope that will come to pass, but in the meantime, we hope you will get advise from the City Engineer on correcting the problem with the loose pile of dirt, if your own workers do not know what measures to take. Thanks for your help! We look forward to hearing from you soon regarding what steps you are taking to address these problems. Sincerely, Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC City Engineer, Bill Gray Building Dept. BPW City Attorney, Ralph Nash S�.a kt 'T a 6n )C U� Note: • • ti H31. : 21 • • �� r See Item 17, Problem 1?- n_•ript.ion first. 'Ibis mny help in ce�1 ;�,lctiir� the form. 1. Segment Name: Full name of waterbody. 2. Segment Type: Waterbody t }fie (river, lake, Great Lake, estuary, Cr b -lv) . 3. Basin and Sub - Basin: One of 1'7 Major hydrologic basins in ?le,., 'iorl: arxt t}i^ associated sub - basin. rrivat:e citizens geed not ccq-- )fete. 4. ion: NYSDEC Region in wfiich the waterbody is located. 5. county: Primary County of waterbody location. 6. Classification: Adopted use classification of the .aterLxyly. 7. Flaw Category: Minimum Average Seven Consecutive a-iy Flea - 10 year recurrence (MA7CD /10) flcr,,a range, from table. Private citizen.- n--t--1 not complete. Category MA7CD /10 Rwy-ie A All impoundments, rivers over 150 cfs B Stream/Rivers between 20 - 150 cfs C Streams under 20 cfs Note: This item should be left blank unless certainly knu.n. i7'rSDEC Water Division staff will otherwise provide this inforTrvation. 8. U_SGS Quadrangle Map: The name of the topographic quadrangle map on utich the stressed segment appears. Private citizens need not complete. 9. _Describe Segment: Narrative locating stressed segment from upstream to downstream through use of readily identified physical features, e.g. - 11' it Route 43 bridge downstream to first waterfall in Falls Creel: Village, about 3 miles." 10. Affected Area: Portion of segment with problem (in miles or acres). r 11. Potential Resource Value: (To be cmpleted by Dep, —u n -nt c•:ildlife Resources staff) For freshwater se ants, the value includes categories intended to assess the potential of the resource that could be supperted if water problems were absent. It consists of the following: a. Public Access Factor: Points are awarded based on the percenta;re of the problem segrrn_nt available for recreational use. Categories aryl associated values are listed in the current P5�T publication. b. _Uniqueness Factor: Reflects ally sp�ial, (TMlitics a CM,tr 'it- mi (.111t. have or historically e:- :isted. categories atYi assa�iated values al -e listed in the current PWP. C. Resource Affected Factor: Points assigTy-,d base.i upon the affectr-3 size of the seg -nt. categories and associated values are cutlined in the current PP7P publication. For marine waters, a single value is assigned bas 3 upon the prLrary fishery resource in the segnrjit. 12. Degree of Problem: Note alorygside each uce prcvid�,d by t i-- �.ateiYoc3� classification, the degree of the problem involved, i.e.- use preclu�lnl, impafired, stressed, or threatel)ed. Use Precluded: Water quality and/or associated habitat deg-radation precludes, eliminates, or does not support a classified use; natural ecosystem functions may t- significantly disnrpted. ' E.g.- upper Hudson clocr-xi to fishery due to F)CB contariination. Sacandaga River devoid of benthic organisms due to flcfvr e} tre.--es from power dam releases. This precludes viable fishery. Use Impaired: Water quality and /or habitat characteristics fret -iently impair a classified use. Also aFT)lied wfie i the dc�si.gnated u-se is supported, but at a level significantly less than would othervdse be j expected. Natural ecosystem functions may be disrupted. 1 E.g., Beaches in marine waters are often closed after storm events due to high coliform levels froth -CSO's and stormwater runoff. Zlzere is a ific- advisory- -reganiing white bass ccnsurption in the lower CND N '/Mohawk. This discourages fishing due to toxic concerns. V) 5� N`19 Stressed: Reduced water quality is occasionally evident anr_3 designated uses are intermittently or marginally restricted. tlatural ecosystems may exhibit adverse changes. E.g.- Ambient water column analyses indicate occ:Is.ional starxlarl violations but impaired use not evident. Localized aesthetic proble.*r, exist. 'Threatened: Water quality presently supporting designated use ary-1 ecosystems exhibit no obvious signs of stress. Hu,;ever, existing or changing land use patterns may result in restricted use or ecosystem disruption. E.g.- Numerous proposals for development in headwaters of waterbo3y or in area of small waterbody. Schdlarie Cree}; is one example with residential pressure. The Batten),-.111 is subject to pressure durin3 high periods of papermakii-yg cycles. Please also note the availability of problem documy-ntation; gcx - , scams, poor. Private citizens should provide copies of doczir;*�t ition, as possible. 13. Type of Pollutant: Identify by chec}dng the appropriate blan}:(s). Nctr, all significant pollutants. Designate the primary pollutant by circl i rrj it on the form. Notes: "Priority Organics" mc- ,ins tho^,n_ toxic organics amol-Yg tjie 1 26 toxic:- FFn hay; identified for primary control urxler the Clean Water Act. If unsur e whether the organic compotund is "Priority" or "lion-priority," please clzec }. in "Priority" item. "Oxygen DeTnarding Substances" means any pollutant that will bn us-_�d by bacteria consuming oxygen resulting in depressed levels of oxygen in the water. E.g.- sewage, organic sediments, dead algae. "Thermal changes" means very warm or cold water disci)argcs ,Bich stre�:s; biota. It also means loss of riparian vegetation which can allcx•, a once cold water fishery stream to warm beyond the tolerance of cold water. species. "Water level or flaw" means changes in one or both which impact u_ ->e, or the actual loss of flaw. E.g.- Reservoir drawdown impacts upon habitat. Sam streams are devoid of flow downstream of power dams regularly or intermittently. LIST OF FOULIT'A27I'S AMID ISSIBLE EFFECTS Sediment Turbidity Loss of reservoir capacity Alteration of habitat Flooding Fish survival impacts Nutrients Eutrophication Algal blooms Aquatic weed growth Turbidity Anoxia Changes in species composition Ground water contamination Thermal Ene Alteration of hahi.tat Changes in species composition Fish survival impacts Oxygen Demanding Substances Anoxia Degraded water supply Human health impacts Domestic aninal /wildlife impacts Toxics and Hazardous Substances Bioaccumulation Contaminated sediments Degraded water supply Biota mortality Ground water contamination Changes in pH -,Alt, Deicing CIlerucals Lake stratification affected Increased salinity Ground water contamination Aquatic organism toxicity Acid Deposition Changes in pi i Release of met,-il.s into 4. -ater 14. source(s) of Follutant: All sources should be designated and identified as leaving high, medium, or low relationship to the problem. The prime source mast-Se designated. Note that, to the extent }'.mown, subcategories of the agricultural source must be designated. This will help a number of cooperating agencies design and implement meaningful programs to help farmers and reduce pollutant loads. 15. Specific Pollutant Generators For point sources (permitted disc kirges) , give the official nzar,,�- of thr, discharge and indicate if better operation of improved facilities are needed. For nonpoint scuroas, name the area, community, etc. and the issue. E.g.- "Farms on hilly terrain in southern Jackland County loose excessive silt." 16. Resolveability: Report the resolveability of the issue with an X Opposite one of the six classes. Specifically: a. Manageable by Reqional Office: Region has all the tools available in house to manage the situation. b. Require Central Office Managcn-�ent: Region must look to Central Office for significant action_-, to manage the issue, e.g.- Clean Lakes, facility causing impairment is located in another state. C. Needs Study and a Management Plan: Issue cannot be resolved until its solution is identified through formal study and develcpr� -nt of management actions tailored specifically to the issue. d. Strategy Exists, Funding Needed: Simply, sorrrone must accept financial responsibility at-d provide the needed funds. e. Lmnairment Not Resolvable: Tecinical, legal, social, political concerns preclude impairment resolution for the foreseeable future, e.g. - lead runoff from the exhaust of vehicles using leaded gasoline. f. Condition Needs Verification: 'I1ie condition-1 is suspected but there is no or poor documentation, or the condition may have been abated but not re- evaluated. g. Manageable by External Agency: An institution external to DEC must take effective action to resolve the problem with DEC influence, assistance and/or cooperation, but not mandate. 17. Details: It's time to get folksy here. Please put dc*,n on paper. what you want others to kznow and accept. You want to describe the situation as clearly as possible. Do not take knowledge or information for gr-anto - -i. Examples: Use Precluded: Do not say "Nutrients. prevent bathirrg." We can picture several such scenarios, only one of 4%iiich is right. Rather, say "27utrient runoff from surrounding dairyfarm improper manure storage causes emergent weed growth in this lake 30 to 40 feet frcR,;shore. This makes swimming virtually impossible. Use Impaired: Do not say "City sewer system discharge sometimes cau. --es the Health Department to close the beaciz. " Rather, say "Hexville's North Pump Station sometimes fails in the summer, causing an overflow of raw sewage to Dirty Creek which enters Pristane Lake near Nice Town's Beach. Health Department samples show excess bacteria for a week or two after these 3x/summer events so the beach is closed much of the 12 week season. Stressed: Do not say "Infrequent oil spills bother fishermen." Rather, say "At least once per season, Ajax Oil Company will have a minor spill that causes no environmental harm, but discourages dc�,Thstream fishitxj when the sheen passes. Some fishermen say they will never return because if there is oil, what else can be in the water. Threatened: Do not say "There are developers making all sorts of offers to local landowners." Rather, say "Dinky stream runs through Pretty Valley aYY3 developers have discovered it. So far, three farmers have sold out, 500 of stream frontage. Several more are under heavy pressure. DEC has apprcr,7ed two 49 lot subdivisions already and three are pending. Soils are not fit for septic tanks so treatment and discharge to this small stream will be needed. N=: Assume that the us.--r of this information knows virtually nothing specific in regard to the issue. . Therefore, report as clearly as possible, information that should be known. This includes political, social arr3 econcmic considerations. These items are subjective and will be reviewed in that light. At the same time, your opinions can be helpful. ;.EPA's Office of 6Valor is now calling on . states to ccvisider strategiczi that will knit various programmatic approaches to clean water into a single,, unified state effort. VIEWPOINT A new nonpoint- source water pollution control challenge CONGRESS enacted the Water Quality Act of 1987 on February 4. This law sets new directions for the Clean Water Act, including a new section 319 that en- courages states to strengthen management of nonpoint -source water pollution. An expenditure of $400 million is author- ized over the next four years to help states implement their nonpoint -source control responsibilities. The act also estab- lishes new authorities for attacking pollution in lakes, bays, estuaries, and groundwater using nonpoint -source money, and other funds authorized in the Clean Water Act to manage identified nonpoint - source pollution in targeted w•aterbodies. The Clean Water Act's "Declaration of Coals and Policy" is amended to mandate "the control of both point and non- point sources of pollution" (emphasis added) so the act's goals can be met. This puts control of nonpoint - source pollution on an equal policy footing with point sources in the Environ- mental Protection Agency's water pollution control effort. Under section 319, states must develop an assessment (with- in 18 months) indicating which state waters are not likely to achieve water quality standards without additional action to control nonpoint pollution sources. In addition, states must prepare a management program setting forth the best man- agement practices and other measures to be used in reduc- ing nonpoint -source loadings affecting the waters in ques- tion. EPA must approve both state- generated documents. The section 319 mandate to states creates new opportunities and challenges for state and federal water quality administra- tors as well as farmers, foresters, soil scientists, industrialists, environmentalists, and urban dwellers. While building on past state and local efforts, these new directions should also lead to new combinations of management programs and roles to better control nonpoint - source pollution. Over the years Congress has directed EPA to clean up pol- lution in the nation's waters and to help states maintain their dean water. These dictates appear mainly in the Clean Water Act, a law that began with the Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972. The Water Quality Act of 1987 is the most recent amendment of that legislation. As amended over the years, the Clean Water Act has emerged as a series of related programs, each with its own requirements and funding levels. Understandably, each of these water quality programs has been developed and imple- mented through EPA program offices and their state counter- parts though their basic objectives are the same- clean water. Based on the new act, EPA's Office of Water is now call- ing on states to consider strategies that will knit various pro- grammatic approaches to clean water into a single, unified Carl F. Myer is chief of the Nonpoint Sources Branch, Office of water, U.S. Enoiranmintal Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 204W. 222 Journal of Soil and Water Conservition state effort. The strategy will indicate the basic mission, role, and level of effort for each program in targeted waters. While these concepts are still being refined, the broad outline of State Clean Water Strategy contains three phases: ► Assessment— identification and definition of water quality problem areas and their causes, point and nonpoint. ► Targeting — action priorities applied to assessed waters based on indicators, such as environmental /public health risks, value of aquatic habitat, benefits to be realized, etc. ► Management/implementation —Clean Water Act pro- grams to be applied to management of targeted areas. State assessments must be based on guidelines recently issued by EPA for preparation of the 1988 state water quali- ty assessment (305(6)) report. This report, a biennial require- ment of the Clean Water Act, is due April 1, 1988. These guidelines provide that state assessments can result from mon- itoring, based on site - specific, ambient water quality data (either chemical or biological analysis, or both), or from eval- uation of waters, based on visual inspection, citizen com- plaints, interviews with fisheries personnel, in combination with other data on water quality. In the case of evaluation, the assessment must include a plan for accomplishing any necessary monitoring over time According to EPA's Office of Water, "the heart of the clean water strategy process is the ranking of priorities in order to target areas for immediate'control action and identify areas for further study:" These will be geographic areas that target specific waterbodies for clean -up. Suggested also is that states consider using a workshop approach to establish targets and further data - gathering. Participants at such workshops could include public agencies (water quality, soil consemation, fish and game, forestry; state, local, and federal; etc.), public and private interest groups (environmental, agricultural, forest products, mining, etc.), and the interested public (in- dividuals or groups). Once targeting is completed, states must turn to the third step in the strategy: development of management plans for the targeted basins that haw specific water quality problems. The key question here has to do with the origin and nature of the pollution sources and the availability of programs and funds to address those problems. The State Clean Water Strategy, makes possible the exami- nation and relation of individual state water quality programs in the most beneficial manner. It should be mounted so that the advantages of program integration can be recognized and used. Where integration is unneeded, states should be able to proceed now with implementation through application of individual water quality management activities. Through the proposed state strategy process, EPA believes that states can make the most of their point - and nonpoint - source programs made available through the Clean Water Act, as amended through 1987. These programs have one basic goal: clean water for the nation. Carl F. Myers — i Memo to: Helen Jones, P &D Dept. ✓ From: Betsy Darlington, CAC TZAs� Re: SW Park and Inlet Valley Date: May 19, 1988 CcQies -Eo CAC r� e�,�, 5 1 i «sw� a �,o �, ._ <�. C• _.i On Sunday, May 15 I led a bird club trip to SW Park, starting about 7:15 AM. The group included the club president, Dick Evans, who knows his birds inside out and upside down. He knows far more bird songs than I (or than most people); he considers himself an ornithologist, though he's not employed that way at the moment. We walked in the entrance road and followed its course into the main dump area. From there we proceeded northward, then westward, paralleling the edges. This is where most birds were found in this part of the park, though a number were out in the grassy or brushy areas, too. From the west end we crossed over to about the middle of the park and went south into the woods, wandering around this way and that, and finally ending up at the levee. We then took a short excursion into the Inlet Valley area SW of the levee, on the east side of the creek. The following species list, rather than being in taxonomic order, is in the order in which we found the birds. SW PARK: rose- breasted grosbeak killdeer least flycatcher -KrV 5 American robin Tennessee warbler (later, in the bobolink Awoods, we saw and heard vast numbers of these grackle migrating birds; they nest farther north) rock dove common yellowthroat (a warbler) mallard American goldfinch grey catbird indigo bunting mourning dove northern (Baltimore) oriole cedar waxwing song sparrow cardinal red - winged blackbird chimney swift American crow yellow warbler ring - necked pheasant house finch Carolina wren northern flicker house wren belted kingfisher willow flycatcher common grackle blue jay red - tailed hawk brown - headed cowbird red -eyed vireo warbling vireo \ downy woodpecker INLET VALLEY: ('\4 J4'erE vt,-��u rose - breasted grosbeak bay- breasted warbler northern oriole Cal) warbling vireo song sparrow bank swallow red - winged blackbird rough - winged swallow common yellowthroat ring- necked pheasant rufous -sided towhee cerulean warbler northern flicker white- breasted nuthatch blue -grey gnatcatcher blackburnian warbler eastern wood pewee willow flycatcher tufted titmouse cedar waxwing Also, a lovely patch of Virginia bluebells We did not see bluebird or red - bellied woodpecker, found on previous trips.ko S w VL . Memo to: P & D Board and Dept. Barbara Pardee, 104 Warwick Pl. Building Dept. and BZA BPW Cc: Common Council and Mayor Conservation Advisory Council members Re: 506 Spencer Rd. - -sale of 30 -foot width at back of yard to Cutting Motors for parking cars. From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Date: May 20, 1989 The EAF subcommittee (Wertis, Hotchkiss, Darlington) met today to consider the above EAF. Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact), but we recommend against granting the variance. Comments: A negative declaration does not necessarily mean a project is advisable. The home at 506 Spencer Road would lose about 35 feet of its small back yard. Replacing this area (currently weedy, but at least green - -and certainly an area that could be made usable as a play area) with a high fence and parked cars would hardly "enhance the property" (see first part of SERF). Would the tenants rent be lowered to compensate them for the loss of open space? Or would people who have little voice in things that affect their lives once again get the raw end of a deal? Granting the variance would mean expanding the commercial zone into a residential area. Also, this could set an unfortunate precedent for further encroachments - -by Cutting Motors or any other commercial enterprise that is adjacent to a residential area. If the variance is granted, we recommend that Cutting Motors or Ms. Pardee be required to plant trees on one side of the fence or the other, to mitigate somewhat the loss of green space. (Why isn't Cutting Motors the applicant ?) Memo to: P & D Board and Dept. Surjit Singh, 504 Dryden Rd. Chris Anagnost, 304 College Ave. Building Dept. and BZA BPW Cc: Common Council and Mayor Conservation Advisory Council members From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair 6X- s Re: 504 Dryden Rd.: subdivision of 11,500 -sq. ft. lot, on Dryden Rd., Oneida PI, and Oak Ave.; and construction of two-family house. Date: May 20, 1989 The EAF subcommittee (Hotchkiss, Wertis, and Darlington) met today to review the above EAF. Recommendation: 1. Positive declaration. (Project could have a significant impact.) 2. We are opposed to the granting of these variances. Set -backs are in the zoning ordinance for good reason and should be enforced. Comments: This lot is in an area that is already densely populated with student rooming houses. The lot provides a small amount of visual and auditory relief. Two large apple trees, a large flowering dogwood, a clump of young chestnut trees, a blackberry patch, a big stand of Jerusalem artichokes, and a substantial hedge would presumably be lost, or at the very least, hidden from view. Squeezing a large two - family house - -which almost certainly would end up as another student rooming house - -into this small space would remove an open space that is important to neighbors and passersby. Neighbors in the few remaining single - family houses are opposed to this project, and with good reason. With its construction, there would be more noise, more parking problems, more traffic, and more trash. It might be noted that the parking lot that would be displaced is already littered with trash that never gets cleaned up - -a new problem since ownership changed hands. It can be expected that trash from tenants would simply add to this problem. If a house must be built on this site, why not a one - story, single - family home? (Not as good as leaving the site undeveloped, but far better than the proposal.) Another problem: Would the house block the view from Oneida Pl. of traffic coming down Oak Ave.? Question: Is there any plan to recycle (sell or give away) the nice trees and shrubs that would (we think) have to be removed? Specific comments on the LEAF: Part I, page 1, A,3: (Site description) Why are "meadow or brushland" and "unvegetated" "N/ A" (not applicable)? Except for the parking area and a driveway, the entire site is vegetated. This should be filled out properly. (-T(.-. r n � "M Memo to: P & D Board and Dept. Richard Patterson, Russell Patterson, Tim Ciaschi, P.O. Box 357, Ithaca Building Dept. BPW Cc: Common Council and Mayor Conservation Advisory Council members Re: Centennial Block, 601 W. Seneca: 3 -story office building, 2400 sq. ft. (footprint). SW caner of Seneca and Meadow. From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair �esy Date: May 20, 1989 The EAF subcommittee (Wertis, Hotchkiss, Darlington) met today to review the above EAF. Recommendation: Since the major adverse impact would be increased traffic congestion, we do not feel qualified to judge the significance of the impact. A traffic engineer should have a better idea. Comments: Our major concern is traffic problems along Meadow and Seneca. Also to be considered is the impact on the few remaining homes of yet another traffic generator. Will access to loading area and parking be from Seneca or Meadow? What effect will the eventual two -way pair have on access problems? Were happy that two magnolias and maybe a large maple will be saved. Comments on LEAF: Part 1, page 2, #4-a, b: (Soil types and drainage) Should be answered. #5-b: (Depth to bedrock) Should be answered. page 4, #16: (Herbicides, pesticides) Does this mean applicant is making a commitment not to use these materials on the property? Part U, page 2, it l: (Physical change to site) Yes - -3 -story building in a now - vacant lot (should be written in under 'other ") page 7, #14: (Transportation) Increased traffic problems on overloaded roads. page 10, #19: (Controversy) How do people living nearby feel about the project? May 21, 1988 Memo to: P &D Board, P &D Dept. Common Council members CAC members BPW Anna Steinkraus (Farmers' Market) Re: EAF for new market site behind swage tx. plant From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Recommendation: negative declaration Today the CAC subcommittee for EAF s met with Anna Steinkraus and Amanda Lott from the Farmers Market to review the EAF they had prepared for the new site. We suggested (and they agreed to) a number of changes in the way the form was filled out, and they will write up a Part 3. Our feeling was that the site would be vastly improved by the actions the Market intends to take. Presently the site is mostly made up of raw dirt piles and debris (chunks of pavement, old paint cans and rollers, etc.). This, combined with the dike that encircles the area, and various prickly weeds, makes the site essentially unusable for recreation. The bare soil seems to be of a consistency that would readily blow during dry weather. By levelling the site, removing the refuse, seeding the soil, putting gravel on the parking areas, and perhaps relocating some of the young aspens to screen the sewage treatment plant, the site would be converted from essentially a waste area to a very attractive site, not just for the Market but also for picnickers and walkers. At last, people would be able to take advantage of the fine view to the north and west. With the old dike removed, the entire shoreline would be opened up for use as a park. The vegetation along the shore includes some fine old willows to picnic under, and the Markets simple structure could provide picnickers with shelter during nonmarket hours. There obviously would be more traffic at the rt. 13 intersection, but 3rd St. is wide enough so we feel that cars would not pile up there and cause problems in the intersection. The parking area for the Market is ample, and there is room for expansion, if need be. Traffic obviously will have to be monitored so that if any problems should arise, they can be dealt with. Of course, since the Market takes place only for a few hours on Saturday mornings, Market traffic would not coincide with peak -hour traffic along rt. 13. Since traffic should flow smoothly in and out of the parking area, cars should not have to sit waiting, with idling engines, so there should not be a significant impact on air quality. (Also, again, the Market occurs for only a few hours a week.) The Market has not heard any objections from Grossmans or Haversticks, the only businesses that Market customers would have to pass. I called Grossmans at a time when the manager, unfortunately, was not there, but the woman I spoke to said she hadn't heard anyone mention objections to the Market s presence. (She, of course, was not speaking for the management.) Our feeling was that they may in fact welcome it; patrons might combine trips to Grossmans and the Market, rather than going to a more distant lumber yard. In any case, at this point the only controversy concerning the site seems to be from the County Board, which is considering the site for a baling station. In our opinion, the latter use would be a shameful waste of prime waterfront land, while the Market would open up heretofore unrealized recrea- tional opportunities. HrrLNUTA r9 R� S -t )c C) u� M -1 MODEL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE CON TEl iTS Section 1.00 = Purpose 2.00. Authority 3.00 4.00 Enactment and Title Jurisdiction v" d 0` 5.00 6.00 Effective Date Conflict with Existing Regulations 7.00 8.00 Separability Definitions �� \ 9.00 Activities Requiring a Permit 10.00 Permit Application, Review, Issuance, and Compliance Procedures 11.00 Permit Application Materials 12.00 Standards 13.00 Performance Guarantee 14.00 Variances 15.00 Amendments 16.00 Violations q — ( o R� S -t )c C) u� M -1 MODEL EROSIOI * AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE tion 1.00 PURPOSE th is the purpose of this ordinance to protect public health, safety, and welfare.in (name of municipality) by regulating site preparation 'and construction activities, including excava- tion, filling, grading and stripping, so as to prevent problems related to erosion, sediment, or drainage. In relation to this purpose the ordinance is intended to: (1) Preserve the quality of the natural environment from such adverse effects of site preparation and construction as: (a) pollution of lakes, ponds, and watercourses from silt or other materials; (b) unnecessary destruction of trFes and other vegetation; (c) excessive exposure of soil to erosion; (d) unnecessary modification of natural topography or unique geological features; and (e) failure to restore sites to an attrac- tive natural condition. (2) Protect people and properties from such adverse effects of site preparation and con- struction as: (a) increased runoff, erosion, and sediment; (b) increased threat to life and property from flooding or storm waters; (c) increased slope instability and hazards from land slides and slumping; and (d) modifications of the ground water regime that adversely affect wells and surface water levels. (3) Protect the town (village) and other governmental oadsand other public publicvfacil�ies,doftpro- at public expense, programs of repairing viding flood protection facilities, and of compensating private property owners for the destruction of properties arising from the adverse effects of site preparation and construction; and (4) Insure that site preparation and construction are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of (name of municipality). -ction 2.00 AUTHORITY In accordance with Article 9 of the Town Law (Articles 4 and 20 of the Village Law) of the State of New York, the (name of legislative body of the municipality) has the authority to enact ordinances for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, or general welfare of (name of municipality), including the protection and preservation of the property of its in- habitants. By the same authority the municipal officers or (name appointment of any municipality) offict elude in any such ordinance provision for employees to effectuate and administer such ordinance. ection 3.00 ENACTMENT AND TITLE In order that site preparation and construction activities may be in conformance with the known and provisions of this ordinance, this ordinance is hereby adopted and shall be may be cited as the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance of (name of municipalit\ ). ection 4.00 JURISDICTION Upon the approval of this ordinance by the Town Board (Village Board), all site prepara- tion and construction activities requiring a permit under this ordinance shall be in con- formance with the provisions set forth herein. ;ection 5.00 EFFECTIVE DATE publication This ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately after its passage, of notice of adoption, and posting as prescribed by law. M-2 Section, 6.00 CONFLICT WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS Where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions than are imposed by the provision of any law, ordinance, regulation, or private agreement, this ordinance shall control. Where greater restrictions are imposed by any law, ordinance, regulation or pri�,ate agreement than are imposed by this ordinance, such greater restrictions shall control.. Section 7.00 SEPARABILITY If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or other part of this ordinance is for any reason invalid, the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance shall not be affected. Section 8.00 DEFINITIONS 8.01 AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. All activities directly related to the growing or rais- ing of crops or livestock for the sale of agricultural produce, including horticultural and fruit operations. 8.02 AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL. The person designated by the Town Board (Village Board) to administer and maintain the provisions of this ordinance. 8.03 DRAINAGE. The gravitational movement of water or other liquids by surface runoff or subsurface flow. 8.04 EROSION. The wearing away of the land surface by action of wind, water, gravity, or other natural forces. - 8.05 EXCAVATION. Any activity which removes or significantly disturbs rock, gravel, sand, soil, or other natural deposits. 8.06 FILLING. Any activity which deposits natural or artificial material so as to modify the surface or subsurface conditions of land, lakes, ponds or watercourses. 8.07 GRADING. The alteration of the surface or subsurface conditions of land, lakes, ponds, or watercourses by excavation or filling. 8.08 MULCHING. The application of a layer of plant residue or other material for the purpose of effectively controlling erosion. 8.09 SEDIMENT. Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being transported, has been deposited, or has been removed from its site of origin by erosion. 8.10 SITE PREPARATION. The activities of stripping, excavation, filling, and grading, no matter what the purpose of these activities. 8.11 SOIL. All unconsolidated mineral or nonliving organic material of whatever origin which overlies bedrock. 8.12 STRIPPING. Any activity which removes or significantly disturbs trees, brush, grass, or any other kind of vegetation. 8.13 TOPSOIL. The natural surface layer of soil, usually darker than subsurface layers, to a depth of at least six (6) inches within an undisturbed area of soils. 8.14 WATERCOURSE. Any natural or artificial stream, river, creek, ditch, channel, canal, conduit, culvert, drainageway, gully, ravine, or wash in which water flows in a definite M -3 direction or course, either continuously or inteimittently, and which has a definite chan- nel, bed, and banks, and any area adjacent the-eto subject to inundation-by reason of _overflow, flood, or storm water. 8.15' WETLANDS. Areas of aquatic or semi- aquatic vegetation, or any areas which have been mapped as such by the Town (Village) Planning Board, the Town (Village) Conservation - Council, the County Department of Plan eingof the County Env onmental Con ervation under the District, or the New York State Departm Freshwater Wetlands Act. Comment: This is a good set of definitions for any soil related ordinance. section 9.00 ACTIVITIES REQUIRING A PERMIT 9.01 None of the following activities shall-be commenced until a permit has been issued under the provisions of this ordinance. (I) Site preparation in the subdivision of land into two or more parcels; (2) Site preparation within wetlands; (3) Site preparation on slopes which exceed one and one -half (l 1/2) feet of vertical rise to ten (10) feet of horizontal distance [or site preparation in areas of severe erosion potential, if such areas have been mapped for the jurisdiction]; (4) Site preparati n within the hundred year floodplain of any watercourse; e, (5) Excavation which affects more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of material within yyGLA any parcel or any contiguous area; c- (6) Stripping which affects more than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of ground surface within any parcel or any contiguous area; (7) Grading v► -hick affects more than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of ground sur- face within any parcel or any contiguous area; and (8) Filling which exceeds a total of one hundred (100) cubic yards of material within and parcel or any contiguous area. Comment: A municipality should review these activities carefully to be sure they meet its needs. Ac- tivities should be added to cover other specialized areas such as shorelines and mineral ex- cavations. 9.02 The following activities are exempted from permit requirements: (l) Activities not meeting the criteria in Section 9.01; � (2) Agricultural operations;- (3) Excavations for the basements and footings of single family houses and for septic tank systems, wells, and swimming pools attendant Sectionl9.Ol (1) through,9.01(4); ng those excavations required to obtain permits under (4) Activities subject to permits under the Commercial Excavation Ordinance of (name of municipality); (5) Household gardening and activities related to the maintenance of landscape features on existing developed lots, excepting such activities as are required to obtain permits under Section 9.01(5) through 9.01(8); an d (6) Governmental activities, but only to the extent that such activities are exempted from the provisions of this ordinance by law. M -4 Comment: This list identifies some obvious exemptions, but it should also be carefully reviewed. Routine activities should be exempted so that administration of the ordinance will not burden either public or private interests. Section 10.00 PERMIT APPLICATION, REVIEW-', ISSUANCE, AND COMPLIANCE PRO- CEDURES 10.01 Before any site preparation requiring a permit under Section 9.00 of this ordinance is com- menced, six (6) copies of a permit application shall have been filed with the Town (Village) Clerk, and this application shall have been approved and a permit shall have been granted pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. 10.02 Upon filing an application for a.Dermit, the applicant(s) shall pay to the to"A-n (village) a fee of twenty -five dollars (S25) if the permit may be required under Section 9.01(1), (5), (7), or (8) of this ordinance; otherwise, the applicant(s) shall pay a fee of five dollars (S5). The fee-shalFbe deemed a reasonable sum to cover the costs of administration and shall in no part be returnable to the applicant(s). 10.03 The Town (Village) Planning Board shall have the authority to grant or deny all permits pursuant to this ordinance. 10.04 Copies of the permit application shall be submitted to the Town (Village) Engineer, the Town (Village) Conservation Council, and the County Soil and Water Conservation District, which shall submit recommendations on the application to the Town (Village) Planning Board within thirty (30) days of the date of filing. 10.05 The Town (Village) Planning Board may, upon its discretion, conduct public hearings on permit applications, which hearings shall be fixed at a reasonable time and shall be given notice by a newspaper of general circulation in the town (village) at least ten (10) days prior to the date thereof. 10.06 The Town (Village) Planning Board shall grant or deny all permits within sixty (60) days of the date of filing of the application thereof, unless the applicant and the Town (Village) Planning Board consent to a time extension. 10.07 Prior to granting a permit, the Town (Village) Planning Board shall determine that the re- quest is in harmony with the purpose and standards set forth in this ordinance. 10.08 In granting a permit, the Town (Village) Planning Board shall fix a reasonable time limit for the termination of the permit and may attach any conditions which it deems necessary to assure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. 10.09 Major modifications of the terms of approved permits shall follow the same application, review, and approval procedures as those set forth in this section for the original permit. 10.10 It shall be the responsibility of the Authorized Official to inspect sites as frequently as necessary to assure compliance with the terms of approved permits and the provisions of this ordinance and to submit written notification of any violations of these terms or provi- sions to the Chairman of the Town (Village) Planning Board. 10.11 If at any time during the effective period of a permit or upon its expiration the terms of the permit are violated, the Town (Village) Planning Board may revoke the permit and may M -5 require that the performance guarantee be forfeited to the town (village). If the applicant shall be unable to complete the project or any phase thereof within the s -)ccified time, he shall, thirty (30) days prior to the specified date of completion, present in writing a request for an extension of time, setting forth therein chcc �nsion ris warr , thcbor d may If in ihe s tion of the Town (Village) Planning Board su l an grant additional time for the completion of the work. He ra] rocedures used by the Plan - -ot_ The ap lication review procedure sh This will enable the Planning ning Board un��ct ir sub tvision re ��w han a applicatn er is ordi nance as part of their normal operations. :tion l 1.00 PERMIT APPLICATION MATERIALS A property owner(s) or his agent(s) may initiate a request for a permit or the modification of a permit by filir g with the Town (Village) Clerk six (6) copies of an application. Maps and plans accompanying the application shall be prepared by a licensed architect or engineer or by any other person approved by the Chairman of the Town (Village) Plan- ning Board. The Chairman of the Town (Village) Planning Board may require that addi- tional copies of the application be filed with the Town (Village) Clerk, and he may modify the requirements concerning materials to accompany the application by waiving or adding such requirements as he deems appropriate to the nature and scope of the proposed ac- tivities. The Chairman of the Town (Village) Planning Board may require the applicant(s) to reconstruct application materials if they are deemed to be of insufficient scale or quality or do not meet the standards of this section. Excepting for modifications authorized or re- quired by the Chairman of the Town (Village) Planning Board, each application shall con- tain the following material: 11.01 Existing features map(s), at a scale no smaller than one inch equals two hundred feet (1' = 200'), indicating: (l) The boundaries of all parcels on which site preparation activities are proposed to be undertaken; (2) All structures and roads within a distance of five hundred (500) feet of the parcel on which site preparation activities are proposed to be undertaken, the structures iden- tified by their uses and the roads identified by their surface material and width of sur- face; (3) All watercourses within a distance of five hundred (500) feet of the parcels on which site preparation activities arc proposed to be undertaken; (4) Existing topography at contour intervals of no greater than five (5) feet within a distance of five hundred (500) feet of the parcels on which site preparation activities are proposed to be undertaken; (5) All sewer, water, gas, and electric lines and all other utilities within the parcels on which site preparation activities are proposed to be undertaken; (6) Major wooded areas and tree clusters within a distance of five hundred (500) feet of the parcels on which site preparation activities are proposed to be undertaken; (7) All vegetation areas on the site proposed for ite preparation clustersactivities, including areas of grass, areas of brush, and wooded areas re (8) The depth to bedrock on the site proposed for site preparation activities, if determin- ed during site evaluation; and M -6 (9) The depth to permanent ground water aquifers on the site proposed for site prepara- tion activities, if such depth is determined during site evaluation. 11.02 Operations map(s) at a scale no smaller than one inch equals two hundred feet (I' _ 200'), which present a complete erosion and sediment control plan and which indicate: (1) All excavation, filling, and grading proposed to be undertaken, identified as to the depth, volume, and nature of the materials involved; (2) All stripping, identified as to the nature of vegetation affected; (3) All areas where topsoil is removed and stockpiled anti where topsoil is ultimately placed, identified as to the depth of topsoil in each such area; (4) All temporary and permanent vegetation to be placed on the site, identified as to planting type, size, and extent; (5) All temporary and permanent drainage, erosion and sediment control facilities, in- cluding such facilities as ponds and sediment basins, identified as to the type of facili- ty, the materials from which it is constructed, its dimensions, and its capacity in gallons; (6) The anticipated pattern of surface drainage during periods of peak runoff, upon completion of site preparation and construction activities, identified as to rate and direction of flow at all major points within the drainage system; (7) The location of all roads, driveways, sidewalks, structures, utilities, and other im- provements; and (8) The final contours of the site in intervals of no greater than two (2) feet. l 1.03 A time schedule which is keyed to the operations map(s), indicating: (1) When major phases of the proposed project are to be initiated and completed; (2) When major site preparation activities are to be initiated and completed; (3) When the installation of temporary and permanent vegetation and drainage, erosion, and sediment control facilities is to be completed; and (4) The anticipated duration (in days) of exposure of all major areas of site preparation before the installation of erosion and sediment control measures. 11.04 An estimate of the costs of providing temporary and permanent vegetation and drainage, erosion, and sediment control facilities. Comment: The Permit Application materials should adequately describe the proposed operation and tell what measures are being taken to minimize erosion on the site. The time schedule should be realistic and relate to the climate conditions of the area. Section 12.00 STANDARDS In granting a permit under this ordinance the standards and considerations taken into ac- count shall include but not be limited to the following: (1) Excavation, filling, grading, and stripping shall be permitted to be undertaken only in such locations and in such a manner as to minimize the potential of erosion and sedi- ment and the threat to the health, safety, and welfare of neighboring property owners and the general public; (2) Site preparation and construction shall be fitted to the vegetation, topography, and other natural features of the site and shall preserve as many of these features as t easi- ble; M -7 The control of erosion and sediment shall be a continuous process undertaken as necessary prior to, during, and after site preparation and construction; (4) The smallest practical area of land shall be exposed by site preparation at any given tin ie; (5) The exposure of areas by site preparation shall be kept to the shortEst practical period Of time prior to the construction of structures or improvements or the restoration of the exposed areas to an attractive' natural condition; (6) Mulching or temporary vegetation suitable to the site shall be used where necessary to protect areas exposed by site preparation, and permanent vegetation which is well adapted to the site shall be installed as soon as practical; (7) Where slopes are to be revegetated in areas exposed by site preparation, the slopes shall not be of such steepness that vegetation cannot be readily established or that problems of erosion or sediment may result; (8) Site preparation and construction shall not adversely affect the free flow of water by encroaching on, blocking, or restricting watercourses; (9) All fill material shall be ot a composition suitable for the ultimate use of the fill, free of rubbish and carefully restricted in its content of brush, stumps, tree debris, rocks, frozen material, and soft or easily compressible material; (10) Fill material shall be compacted sufficiently to prevent problems of erosion, and where the material is to support structures, it shall be compacted to a minimum of 90110 of standard proctor with proper moisture control; (11) All topsoil which is excavated from a site shall be stockpiled and used for the restora- tion of the site, and such stockpiles, where necessary, shall be seeded or otherwise treated to minimize the effects of erosion; (12) Prior to, during, and after site preparation and construction, an integrated drainage system shall be provided which at all times minimizes erosion, sediment, hazards of slope instability, and adverse effects on neighboring property owners; (13) The natural drainage system shall generally be preserved in preference to modifica- tions of this system, excepting where such modifications are necessary to reduce levels of erosion and sediment and adverse effects on neighboring property owners; (14) All drainage systems shall be designed to handle adequately anticipated flows both within the site and from the entire upstream drainage basin; (15) Sufficient grades and drainage facilities shall be provided to prevent the pond ing of water, unless such ponding is proposed within site plans, in which event there shall be sufficient water flow to maintain proposed water levels and to avoid stagnation; (16) There shall be provided where necessary to minimize erosion and sediment such measures as benches, berms, terraces, diversions, and sediment, debris, and retention basins; (17) Drainage systems, plantings, and other erosion or sediment control devices shall be maintained as frequently as necessary to provide adequate protection against erosion and sediment and to insure that the free flow of water is not obstructed by the ac- cumulation of silt, debris, or other material or by structural damage. Section 13.00 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE After the approval of the application and before the issuance of any permit, the applicant RE shall file with the Tows (Village) Clerk an amount of the estimated cost of the project as submitted under Section 11.04 of this ordinance and verified by the Authorized Official, one of the following performance guarantees: (1) A certified check. ' (2) A performance bond which shall be satisfactory to the Town (Village) Board and Town (Village) Attorney as to form, sufficiency, manner of execution, surety and period of execution. (3) A letter of credit from a bank approved by the Town (Village) Board and Town (Village) Attorney. The Chairman of the Town (Village) Planning Board may grant a waiver of such guarantee if he deems the proposed activities to be of minor scope and to be consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. ` The party or parties filing the performance guarantee provide that either upon termination of the permit or the operation, whichever may come first, the project shall be in conformi- ty with both the approved specific requirements of the permit and the provisions of this ordinance. In the event of default of such and violation of any other applicable laws, such performance guarantee shall be forfeited to the town (village). The town (village) shall return to the applicant any amount that is not needed to cover the costs of restoration, ad- ministration, and any other expenses incurred by the town (village) as a result of the appli- cant's default. Such performance guarantee shall continue in full force and effect until a certificate of compliance shall have been issued by the Authorized Official after such con- sultation with any agencies or individuals as he deems necessary to insure that all provi- sions of the ordinance and of the permit have been met. Section 14.00 VARIANCES Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of this ordinance or certain provisions thereof are encountered, variances may be granted by the Town (Village) Board. Section 15.00 AMENDMENTS The Town Board (Village Board) may from time to time on its own motion, on petition, or on recommendation of the Town (Village) Planning Board, and in accordance With the laws of the State of New York, amend, supplement, or repeal the regulations or provisions of this ordinance. Section 16.00 VIOLATIONS 16.01 If there is any damage due to a violation of this ordinance or if any soil, liquid, or other material is caused to be deposited upon or to roll, flow, or wash upon any public property, private property, or right -of -way in violation of this ordinance, the person, firm, partner- ship, corporation, or other party responsible shall be notified and shall cause the same to be removed from such property or way within thirty -six (36) hours of notice. In the event of an immediate danger to the public health or safety, notice shall be given by the most ex- peditious means and the violation shall be remedied immediately. In the event it is not so remedied, the town (village) shall cause such and the cost of such by the town (village) shall be paid to the town (village) by the party who failed to so remedy and shall be a debt owed to the town (village). �. 16.02 Any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other party who violates any provision of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misd !meanor and subject to a fine of no; less than fifty dollars (S5O) nor more than one hundred dollars (5100) or to imprisonment of not mo-: than six (6) months, or both such fine and imprisonment; and in addition, aTfy party who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance or omits or refuses to perform any and every act hereby required shall respectively forfeit and pay a penalty of fifty dollars (550 for each and every such violation and nonperformance. The imposition of any such penal - ty for the violation of this ordinance shall not excuse such violation nor permit the contin- uance thereof. The application of the above penalty or penalties for a violation of the pro- visions of this ordinance shall not be held to prevent the removal of conditions prohibited by this ordinance by such legal means as may be proper. 16.03 Ever day that a violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance continues fter writ- ten notice shall rave been served upon the owner or his agent, either personally or by registered mail addressed to such person at his last known address, shall constitute a separate violation. M -10 MODEL LAND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS — SOIL DATA AVAILABLE Section 8' SOILS GROUPS A. Purpose For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety and ,general welfare; determining, establishing and defining soil groups; and to adopt such regulations for each group, the entire area of Goshen is hereby divided into fifteen (15) soils groups. (See Table of Soil Groups) Comment: The number of soils groups reflects the variety of soil types present in any municipality. The 15 soil groups utilized in the Town of Goshen were also used in other municipalities in Orange County. This breakdown of soil groups has applications in other areas of New York State, although the number and specifications should be modified as necessary to fit the community. B. Map The groups are comprised of several soil types as identified hereinafter and which soil types are shown on the map designated as the Town of Goshen Soil Map, dated February 1971, and made a part of this regulation. All pertinent notations, soil mapping unit designators and other information shown upon said map shall be as much a part of this regulation as if the matter and things set forth by the said map were fully described herein. Comment: The map should be easy to read, with clear designations of soil types. Figure B -1, a section of the soils map used by the Town of Goshen, provides an example. Soil type's are marked with a number - letter code which corresponds to a Soils Map Index (see p. ). Soil groups can be identified by looking up the codes in the Index. C. Preparation The soil groups and the Town of Goshen Soil Map were prepared with the assistance and coopera- tion of the USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Orange County, New York. Soil Report published in January of 1972. D. Applicability These regulations shall not repeal, impair or modify private covenants or other public lam s, except that it shall apply whenever it imposes stricter regulations. E. Non - representation The granting -of a permit due to the designations, grouping, characteristics and special foundation requirements shall not constitute a representation, guarantee or warranty of the suitability of lands, practicability or safety of any structure, use, or other plan proposed. F. Sediment Control 1. The subdivider shall provide effective sediment control measures for planning and construction of subdivisions. Use of the following technical principles shall be applied as deemed appropriate by the Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District. M -11 - �ment: Any assistance to be provided by the Soil and R'aseio ubstitutte�h the of' the Pelan- ;ged for before such a provision is enacted. An alternative g Board, Town Engineer or the Building Inspector. a. The smallest practical area of land shall be exposed at any one time during the y veloestnent. b. 'When land is exposed during development, the exposure shall be kept to the prac- tical period of time. ' c. Temporary vegetation and /or emulsion shall be used to protect critical areas exposed during development. d. Sediment basins, debris basins (silting basins or silt traps) shall be installed and maintained to remove sediment from runoff waters on lands undergoing development. e. Provision shall be made to effectively accommodate the increased runoff caused by changing soils and surface conditions during and after development. = f. Permanent final vegetation and structures should be installed as soon as practical in the development. g. The development plan should be fitted to the type of topography and soils so as to create the least erosion potential. h. Wherever feasible, natural vegetation should be retained and protected. >>mment: These guidelines are excellent and could be included in all land development regulations. 2. A permit is required to grade and /or. shape the topography, and is subject to the same restric- tions and reviews as are subdivisions. (Preparation of agricultural land for seed crops is not con- sidered grading.) Drainage Channels All primary drainage channels which are located within or immediately adjacent to an improvement or a subdivision shall be protected by the developer. 1. All channels and waterways must have erosion control carried out in accordance with Section F above. ovided to take care of necessary drainage. 2. Single unit outlets must be pr i. Utilization on found in the Orange County Soil Report 1. It recognized that the soil maps and the information do not eliminate the need for future on -site investigations. The delineated areas of a given soil ly contrasting mapping unit may contain small areas of other kinds of soil that have stronginclusions and properties. The small areas (between 10 to 15 perce nt at the tots] area) are called cannot be separated out on the scale of mapping used in Orange County. �omment: On -site investigations by both the municipality and the developer of soi l types, culli desired ��hcrc the Soil Group indicates likely roblems by adjusting thcgettng of structures and other facilities. possible to overcome some soil p 2. The Building Inspector or the Town Engineer shall have full authority result make ad iti nalsts. re- quirements to fit conditions that may be observed to the field and M -12 (f; "r p` T' F6 k 3. A permit ap flicant whose construction plan does not meet minimum requirements of the regula- tion may: a. Incorporate in the construction plans accepted methods of construction and /or accepted materials whose use will meet the added requirements. b. Or, petition the planning board for a variance from the decision of the building inspector. Said board may request the Soil and Water Conservation District to conduct an immediate on -site soil inspection for the purpose of determining the specific soil type and subsequent group, or insist that a subsurface soil investigation be conducted by a professional engineer to determine the soil bearing capacity, its stability, drainage characteristics, permeability and other properties that may be in question. Comment: This clearly requires the applicant to obtain additional soil information from a qualified professional at his own expense if the applicant desires to appeal a finding based on the Soil Map or ob- tain a variance from the decision of the building inspector. M -13 TABLE OF SOIL GROUPS ,ments: This Table was prepared before the enactment of d XIV al a ds at the State be moiled ed ltle,, ,ling with wetlands and floodplains. Groups VII, IX, X an ode appropriate mention of the Freshwater Wetlands Act, Tidal Wetlands Act, anti the U.S. Flood disaster Protection Act. A wide range of other land and water use legislation also relates to the development process. Further in- formation in these areas should be obtained from the municipal attorney. ;ROUP I. SOILS DEVELOPED IN SANDS AND GRAVEL, NEARLY LEVEL THROUGH SLOPING A. Characteristics: The soils in this group are excessively well drained, medium and coarse textured and are formed irr glacial outwash plains, terraces and stream valleys. They are underlain by water deposited beds of sand, or sand and gravel. These soils have moderately rapid to very rapid permeability. The seasonal high water table and bedrock are below 6 feet. Slope ranges fro 0 through 15 percent. Soils included in this group arc: 1A, 1 , 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 9A, 9B, , 1 , 10B, IOC, 13A, 133, and 13C. B. Use and Requirements: 1. These soils may be used for on -site septic systems that are adequately designed. These soils have slight limitations for septic systems on "A" and "B" slopes and moderate limitations on "C" - slopes. 2. Buildings with and without basements may be installed on these soils. These soils have slight limitations for homesites with and without basements on "A" and "B" slopes and moderate limitations on "C" slopes. 3. Erodibility on these soils is low to medium and may be a problem on the steeper "C" slopes. GROUP II. SOILS DEVELOPED IN VERY FINE SANDS AND SILTS, NEARLY LEVEL TO GENTLY SLOPING A. Characteristics: The soils in this group are well drained and occur in areas where glacial lake sediments have accumulated. These sediments contain very fine sands and silts. These soils are moderately permeable and have a seasonal huh water table of 6 feet plus. Slope ranges from 0 through 8 percent. Soils included in this group are: 78A, 78B 99A, and 79B. B. Use and Requirements: ite septic systems that are adequately designed. 1. These soils may be used for on -s These soils have slight limitations for septic systems. 2. Buildings with and without basements may be installed on these soils. These soils have slight limitations for homesites with and without basements. 3. Erodibility on these soils is high and may be a problem on all slopes. GROUP 111. SOILS DEVELOPED IN COARSE SILTS AND LOAM WITH A FIRM BASAL TILL LAYER, NEARLY LEVEL THROUGH SLOPING M -14 A. Characteristics: The soils in this group are well drained, medium to moderately coarse textured, and are developed in thick .glacial till deposit of the upland. These soils are moderately permeable in the upper 30 inches and slowly permeable 6clow 30 inches. The water table and bedrock are generally 6 feet or deeper. Slope ranges from 0 to 15 percent. Soils inc u e to t is group are: 38C, 39A, 39B, 63B, and 63C. B. Use and Requirements: I. These soils may be used for on -site septic systems that are adequately designed. These soils have moderate limitations for septic systems. 2. Buildings with and without basements may be installed on these soils. These soils have slight to moderate limitations for homesites. 3. Erodibility on these soils is low to medium, and erosion may be a problem on the "C" slopes. GROUP IV. SOILS DEVELOPED IN COARSE SILTS AND LOAM WITH A FIRM FRAGIPAN. NEARLY LEVEL THROUGH SLOPING A. Characteristics: The soils in this group are well to moderately well drained and occur mostly on the tops and sides of dr-umlin hills. The-soils are underlain by compact glacial till, and have a fragipan 16 to 30 inches below the soil surface. These soils are moderately through very slowly permeable and have a seasonal high water table at 11/2 through 4 feet. bedrock is usually below 6 feet. Soils inc uded in this group are: A, 5B, 20B, 26C, S5A, 35B, 35C, 40B, 40C, 41 , 4I C, 64B, and 64C. B. Use and Requirements: 1. These soils may be used for on -site septic systems that are adequately designed to overcome the noted limitations. These soils have moderate to severe, and severe limitations for on -site septic systems. The Bath (40) and Swartswood (20) soils have a slowly permeable layer at 24 to 30 inches, and the Troy (4)), Wurtsboro (35) and Braceville (5) soils have a slowly permeable layer at 16 to 24 inches. If the well drained layers are removed during grading, or if systems are installed belo"A the well drained layers, problems can be expected. On -site investigation is necessary to determine site conditions, with special atten- tion given to time of year, and field conditions under which tests are taken. (See New York State Department of Health bulletins.) 2. Buildings with and without basements may be installed on these soils. In cases where buildings are installed deeper than 4 feet on the Bath and Swartswood, and 3 feet on the Troy and Wurtsboro, a fret- flowing outlet should be provided. These soils have slight to moderate limitations for buildings. The Castile (Braceville) soils are influenced by the seasonal high water table and position in the landscape. 3. Erodibility is low to medium on these soils, and erosion may be a problem on the As GROUP V. SOILS DEVELOPED IN HEAVY SILTS AND CLAYS, NEARLY LEVEL TO GENT- LY SLOPING A. Characteristics: The soils in this group are moderately well drained and occur in areas where glacial lake sediments have accumulated. These sediments contain clay and M -15 heavy silts. These soils are gowly permeable, very unst lc, and have a high shrink and swell potential. The water table is from /2 to 3 feet. Bedrock is generally cow 6 f2Zt- Sl,op­c-T-a'hges from 0 to 8 percent. oils included in this group are: 80A, 80B, and 84B. B. Use and Requirements: 1. These soils may be used for septic systems, if it is proven that the limitations as stated in the Soils Interpretation Report for Orange County have been or will be overcome. These soils have severe limitations for septic systems. 2. Buildings with and without basements may be installed on these soils. In cases where basements are constructed at depths greater than 3 feet, adequate founda- tion drainage to a free outlet should be provided. These soils have slight through severe limitations for homesites. 3. Erodibility on these soils is-high, and erosion may be a problem on all slopes. GROUP V1. SOILS DEVELOPED IN MEDIUM SANDS AND SILTS INFLUENCED BY BEDROCK AND SURFACE STONES, NEARLY LEVEL THROUGH SLOPING A. Characteristics: The soils in this group are well to moderately well drained, and occur on the tops and sides of drumlin hills. The soils are underlain by compact glacial till and have a fragipan that ranges from 16 to 30 inches. The soils in this group have a sur- face stoniness condition and shallowness to bedrock problem. On -site investigation is a must on these soils. Slope ranges from 0 to 15 percen . of s included in this group arc: 22AC, 77B, 77C, and 02013C. B. Use and Requirements: 1. In cases where deep pockets of Bath soils are found in the Bath - Nassau complex unit (77), these soils may be used for on -site septic systems if adequately designed. On -site septic systems may also be used in cases where the extreme stoniness of the Bath- Swartswood (020) soils is found to be only a surface condition. On -site in- vestigation is necessary to determine the extent of stoniness or the bedrock condi- tion of these soils. The soils have severe limitations for septic systems. 2. Buildings with and without basements may be installed on these soils if adequate foundation drainage is provided to a free- flowing outlet. These soils have moderate to severe limitations for homesites. 3. Erodibility on these soils is slow to medium. Erosion may be a problem on the "C" slopes. GROUP VII. SOILS DEVELOPED IN SILTS, CLAYS AND VERY FINE SANDS THAT ARE NVET, NEARLY LEVEL TO GENTLY SLOPING A. Characteristics: The soils in this group are somewhat poorly drained and occur in con - cave areas in the glacial till upland. These soils are very fine sands through silty clay texture. Permeability is slow to very slow. The seasonal high water table is 1/2 to 1 1/2 Set. Bedrock is generally 6 feet plus. These soils arcs o ondinQ. Soils tot is group arc: 4A, 4B, 7, 25A, 42A, 42B, 81, 85A, 85B, and 025B. B. Use and Requirements: 1. Septic systems should not be installed on these soils. (See the Soils Interpretation M -16 Report for Orange County.) Exemption from this section may be granted by the Planning Board on one -lot subdivisions if the applicant can prove, to the satisfac- tion of the Board, that the septic system will function without problems. 2. Homesites with basements should not be installed on these soils. Homesites t without basements may be installed if adequate drainage is provided to a free- _ flowing outlet. 3. Erosion on these soils ran ge& froM t�� high_ 4. Red Hook (7) and Raynham (81) are placed in this group, but, in some cases, these soils are subject to ondin and flooding. On -site investigation is necessary to determine the location of these sot s on t e andscape. GROUP VIII. SOILS DEVELOPED IN SILTS THAT ARE INFLUENCED BY BEDROCK, NEARLY LEVEL THROUGH SLOPING -' A. Characteristics: The soils in this group occur mostly in the rougher areas of the upland. The soils are unO. rlain by hard bedrock, and some areas contain exposed rock out- crops. In most places, har rock is found from 20 to 40 inches below the soil's surface. Permeability is moderate to s ow a ove e t e rock. Where limestone be rock occurs, severe cracks and voids in the rock must be considered. Slope ranges from 9 to 15 per- cent. Soils included in this group are: 3A, 3B, 3C, 48B, 48C, 75AB, 75C, 070BC, 071 BC, 073AC, 074AC, 077AC, and 080AB. B. Use and Requirements: 1. Septic systems should not be installed on these soils. Exemption from this section may be granted by the Planning Board on one -lot subdivisions if the applicant can prove, to the satisfaction of the Board, that the septic system will function without problems. 2. Homesites may be installed on these soils, but adequate foundation drainage should be 'd d provt a to a free - flowing outlet. 3. Erodibility on these soils is low to medium. Erosion ma 1 be a problem on the "C" GROUP IX. SOILS DEVELOPED IN SILTS, CLAY AND VERY FINE SANDS THAT POND NEARLY LEVEL A. Characteristics: The soils in this group are poorly to very poorly drained with a seasonal high water table at 0 to 1/2 foot These sods are located in flat concave areas on the landscape. Permeability is very slow. A ponding condition will occur during most of the Year. In some areas these soils are located along streams and are sib'ecLt to infrequent oodir.anges from 0 to 3 percent. Soils included in this group are: 8, , 8 97, 98, and 026. B. Use and Requirements: 1. Septic systems should not be installed on these soils. 2. Buildings should gMbe installed on these soils. These are ponding soils and give temporary storage�.,during heavy rainfalls. In cases where buildings are installed on these soils, the storage eliminated by draining these areas should be replaced with holding ponds so as not to increase runoff to areas below. M -17 T.. f i f' RC UP X. SOILS DEVELOPED IN VERY FINE SANDS AND SILTS THAT FLOOD, NEARLY LEVEL A. Characteristics: The soils in this group are nearly level and are in the flood plains of stream valleys. All these soils are sub e� ct to flooding with the lower - lying, poorly drained soils being flooded most frequently. The seasonal high water table fluctuates with the stream eve . ermeabiIt y is mo erate through very slow. lope ranges from to 3 percent. Soils included in this group are: 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 99, 100, 101, 193, and 293- - B. Use and Requirements: 1. These soils should not have septic systems installed on them. 2. Buildings with and without basements should not be constructed. Red Hook (7) and Raynham (81) soils are placed in Group VII, but, in some cases, these soirs are located along small streams and are subject to ponding and flooding. On -site investigation is necessary to determine location of these soils on the land- scape. GROUP XI. SOILS DEVELOPED IN VERY FINE SANDS, HEAVY SILTS AND CLAYS, GENT- LY SLOPING A. Characteristics: The soils in this group are well to moderately well drained, and occur in areas where 1u._al lake sediments have accumulated. Thestse�menu -artn la-'ers composed of silts, very fine sands, and clay. These soils are slowly permeable, eery Nnstable and have a high shrink and swell potential. The water table ranges from 1 - I /!- to 6 feet. Erosion and sou in on t ese soils'is severe. Bedrock is generally below fect. Slope ranges from 8 to 15 percent. Soils included in this group arc: IK -, and 84C. B. Use and Requirements: 1. These areas should not be used for on -site septic systems except in cases where it can be proven that erosion and sloughing will not occur, or necessary measures have been taken to prevent them. 2. Buildings with and without basements should not be installed on these soils except in cases where it can be proven that erosion and sloughing will not occur, or necessary measures have been taken to prevent them. 3. Erodibilit on these soils is high, and erosion and sloughing may be a se\ ere prob- cm. 3ROUP XII. SOILS DEVELOPED IN SANDS AND SILTS THAT ARE INFLUENCED BY STEEP SLOPES, MODERATELY STEEP TO STEEP A. Characteristics: The soils in this group are all soils that occur on slopes ranging from 15 through 25 percent. Slope percentages in some units are combined. The range of 'these soils is 15 through 35 percent. These soils are rated rapid for surface runoff. Soils included in this group arc: 1D, 9D, 13D, 20D, 22DE, 38D, 39D, 40D, 64D, 65DE. 77D, 020DE, 070DE, 071DE, 074DE, 075DE, 076DE, and 077DE. B: Use and Requirements: 1. Septic systems should not be installed on these soils. M -18 F F° 2. Buildings should not be constructed on these soils except in cases where 50 percent f of the area where the buildings are to be constructed is less than 15,percent slope (or 4,000 square feet). 3. Erodibility on these soils is low to medium, and erosion may be a problem. GROUP XIII. SOILS DEVELOPED IN SANDS, SILTS AND CLAYS THAT ARE DOMINATED BY VERY STEEP SLOPES A. Characteristics: The soils in this group are all soils that occur on slopes ranging from 25 through 45 percent. These soils are rated very rapid for surface runoff. Soils includ- ed in this group are 01 E, 20E, 22F, 40E, 65F, &4D, 020F, 071F, 074F, 076F, and 077F. B. Use and Requirements: 1. Septic systems should not be installed on these soils. 2. Buildings should not be installed on these soils. 3. Erosion is a problem on these steep slopes. GROUP XIV. SOILS DEVELOPED IN ORGANIC MATERIAL, NEARLY LEVEL A. Characteristics: The soils in this group occur in depressional areas where surface oceanic mat_ctial_5are generally 5 feet or greaten hese areas arc subject to either flooding or ponding, and are covered with water most of the year. Soils included in this group arc: 94, 96, 194, 197, 294, and B. Use and Requirements: 1. These soils should not have septic systems installed on them. 2. Buildings (other than those that are agriculturally related) should not be installed _... on these soils. 3. These soils are best suited for agricultural use.' GROUP XV. WATER BODIES AND MARSHLAND A. Characteristics: This group consists of marshland and water bodies within Orange County. The marshland has approximated 1 to 2 feet of water during most of the year. All ponds and lakes are also included in this group. The mapping unit in this group is 103. M -19 MODEL LAND SUBDIVISION APPENDIX C REGULATIONS — NO SOIL DATA AVAILABLE SECTION SITE DRAINAGE, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION N" A. Three (3) sets of plans for the control of drainage, erosion and sedimentation shall be submitt tfie Planning Board, or its duly authorized representative, at the time the preliminar • ed to or construction plans are submitted. S plat drawings B. Measures to provide the control of drainage, erosion and sedimentation shall be described - vided for in the construction plans and the estimated cost of accomplishing said mea surer and pro - included in the performance bond. shall be C. During the construction phase, consultive assistance will be furnished, if necessary, by the Pla Board or its duly authorized representative. The Planning Board or its duly authorized rc eseng tative shall enforce compliance with the approved plans. p n D. The Planning Board or its duly authorized representative shall make a continuing review and evaluation of the methods used and the overall effectiveness of the drainage andgerosi sedimentation control program. on and The following control measures should be used for effective control of drainage and erosion and sediment: I. The smallest practical area of land should be exposed at anyone time during construction. 2. When land is exposed during construction, the exposure should be kept to the shortest Practical period of time. p 1 3. Where necessary, temporary vegetation and /or mulching should be used to protect areas expos-, r ed during construction. 4. Sediment basins (debris basins, desalting basins, or silt traps) should be installed and maintained to remove sediment from runoff waters and protect land undergoing change. _ S. Provisions should be made to effectively accommodate the increased runoff caused by chan ed soil and surface conditions during and after construction. g 6. The permanent final vegetation and structures should be installed as soon as practical in the con- struction. 7. The development plan should be fitted to the topography and soils so as to create the least ero- sion potential. 8. Wherever feasible, natural vegetation should be retained and protected. 9. Provision of adequate protecti minimizing such steep grading. ve measures when slopes in excess of 10 percent are graded; and M -20 [!I I l MODEL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE FOR THE LAKE GEORGE BASIN Prepared by: The Lake George Basin Erosion Control Committee March 1978 M_91 i PREFACE This model ordinance was designed to be adopted as a separate dinancc—or, a municipals y may c oose'tAZ incorporate controls of the nature propose , �0 a zoning or subdivision ordinance or into a s� an review or nnn� �'h��'ilty is advised to evaluate'each provision carefully and to change those provisions which are not well suited to its needs. M -22 M -23 CONTENTS PAG£S t' Article I General Provisions 1 _ 1.10 Title 1 1.20 Purpose 1 1.30. Effective Date 1 Article II Application of Ordinance 2 2.10 Activities requiring a permit 2 2.20' Exemptions • 2 Article III Permit Procedure 3 3.10 Permit Application 3 3.20 Required map "of site 3 3.30 Additional map of proposed activities 4 3.40 Project schedule 4 3.50 Fee 4 3.60 Copies 4 Article IV Project Review and Permit Approval 5 4.10 Planning Board authority 5 4.20 Public Hearings 5 4.30 Extensions and modifications 5 4.40 Inspections 5 4.50 Letter of Credit 6 Article V Guidelines and Standards 7 5.10 Guidelines 7 5.20 Standards 7 Article VI Violations 9 Article VII Miscellaneous Provisions 10 7.10 Variances 10 7.20 Amendments 10 7.30 Separability 10 7.40 Conflict with existing regulations 10 Article VIII Definitions 11 M -23 �t ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.10 Title The ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance of (name of mu.nicipality). 1.20 Purpose It is the purpose of this ordinance to protect public health, safety and welfare in (name of municipality) by regulating site preparation and construction activities to prevent problems related to erosion, sediment.or drainage. 1.30 Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately after its passage, publication of notice of adoption and posting as prescribed by law. M -24 J A_ F I. ARTICLE II ' APPLICP.TION OF ORDINANCE •2.10 Activities Requiring a Permit ` None of the following activities shall be commenced within the municip8litY) until an accordance Erosion the Control Permit h provisions of this Ordinance: (a) Site preparation.Vithin 100 feet of a wetland. (b) Site preparation of existing slopes which exceed 15% for a horizantal distance of 100 feet along a slope. (c) Site preparation within-100-feet of all streams and water bodies as mapped and classified by the Department of Environmental Conservation. in (d) Site preparation within the of any water course d elineated on Urban Development Flood Hazard Maps. 2,20 Activities Exempt From .Permit The following activities shall be exempt from the permit requirements: (a) Agricultural operations, construction of agricultural structures which have approved Soil Conservation Plans or, are less than 25 acres in size and not within 100 feet of a watercourse. (b) Municipal Activities (c) Commercial timber harvesting factivities and related silvicultural treatments to M -25 e I P /G I j ARTICLE III ' PROCEDURE 3"10 Permit Application Any property owner (s) oontrolapermit may by filinginitiate ana request for an Erosion C Clerk. All application with the Town (village) required fee, applications shall be accompanied by the a project schedule and an explanatory map �s). The Planning Board may modify the requirements concerning all materials to accompany the application by waiving or adding Such requirements concerning materials to accompany the application as they deem necessary for the nature and scope of the proposed activities. The Planning Board may require the applicant (s) to reconstruct application materials if they are deemed to be of insufficient scale of quality or do not meet the standards of this section. 3.20 Map of Site Each application shall be accompanied bthanmap :2pp the It proposed project at a scale no smaller shall include: (Planning Board may alter scale upon consultation). (a) The boundaries of all parcels on which site prepara- tion activities are proposed to be undertaken,in- cluding all physical significant features, (b) All h site preparation parcels on to be which site prep undertaken, (c) Existing topography at contour intervals of no greater than five feet, (d) All vegetation on the site including areas of grass, areas of brush and wooded areas and tree clusters, (e) A locational map at a scale of l" = 2,000'. (f) Exact nature of the site preparation activities proposed to be undertaken, identified as to dep th,area and nature of materials involved. (g) Location of all roads, driveways, utilities and other improvements. M -26 sidewalks, structures, r iI{ I 1 i 3.30 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures The applicant shall provide a description of erosion b: sediment control measures used to meet the guidelines and f standards of Article V, including but not limited to: (a) All temporary and permanent drainage, erosion and control facilities, such as ditches, waterways and sediment basins, including the dimensions and capacity. (b) All temporary and permanent vegetation and or mulch to be placed on the site, identified as to planting type, size and extent. ` 3.40 Proiect Schedule The application shall be accompanied by a schedule showing when each stage of the project will be completed, includina estimated starting and completion dates, anticipated duration (in days) of exposure of all major areas of site preparation before the installation of erosion and sediment control measures. 3.50 Fee Upon filing an application for a permit with the Town (Village) Clerk, the applicant shall pay to the Town (Village) Clerk • fee of amount of dollars. The fee shall be deemed • reasonable sum to cover the costs of administration and shall be in no part returnable to the applicant. 3.60 Copies Copies of the permit application may be submitted by the Planning Board to the Soil and Water Conservation District which may submit recommendations on the application to the Town (Village) Planning Board. M -27 {• f ARTICLE IV - PROJECT REVIEW AND PERMIT APPROVAL 4.10 Planning Board Aurhority .The Town (Village) Plain Pursuant to this tOrdinanoce. to grant or deny all permits p of the It shall grant or deny all icationsthereof, unless the date of filing of the appl. applicant and the Planning Board consent to an alternate time period. In granting a permit, the Town (Village) Planning Board shall fix a nreasonable l for the termination the permit an the the he B Y deems necessary to assure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. 4.20 Public Hearings The Town (Village) Planning Board may, upon its discretion, conduct public hearings on permit applications, which hearings shall be fixed ataofe generale Circulation hinithe be given notice by a newspape r g rior to te date thereof. Town (Village) at least five dn�iedpwithout ahpublic hearing. In no case will a permit be de 4.30 Extensions and ?•codifications An extension of the permit may be granted upon a showing by the p ermittee that the work was delayed byin assns beyond the his control or that an extension will no filling or of environmental damage caused by the grading, clearing of vegetation. Major modifications of the terms of approved permits shall follow the same application, review and approval procedures as those set forth in this section for the original permit. 4.40 Inspections (a) Ins ections at Reasonable Times h a Permit is regl'i All construction or work for whicy shall be subject to inspection at reasonahle timeplannins authorized representatives Town ascertain eompliance Board or by one authoriz with the provisions of this Ordinance. f9 ►: t` f 4.50 (b) Notification The permittee or his agent shall notify the permit issuing authority at least two working days in advance of the start of the site preparation. Letter of Credit z After the approval of the application and before the issuance of any permit, the applicant and each owner of record of the-premises other than the applicant and each owner of shall jointly make, execute, and file with the Town (Village) Clerk a letter of credit from a bank approved by the Town (Village), in an amount to be determined by the Planning Board. The Town (Village) Planning Board may grant a waiver of such letter of credit, if said amount is dollars or less for the structural measures to control erosion and sediment. The party or parties filing the letter of credit guarantee that either upon termination of the permit or the operation, which ever may come first, the project shall be in conformity with both the approved specific requirements of the permit and the provisions of this Ordinance. In the event of default of such and violation of any other applicable laws such credit shall be forfeited to the Town (Village). The Town (Village) shall return to the applicant any amount that is not needed to cover the costs of restoration, administration, and any other expenses incurred by the Town (Village) as a result of the applicant's default. Such credit shall continue in full force and effect until a certificate of compliance shall have been issued by the authorized official after such consultation with any agencies or individuals as he deems necessary to insure that all provisions of the ordinance and of the permit have been met. Mat 5.10 Guidelines ARTICLE V GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS Uriless the standards in Section 5.20 below are more;- restrictive, the applicant shall conform to the published "Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control in Urban Areas of New York State" by the U.S.D.A.- S.C.S. Copies of which are maintained at each Soil and Water Conservation District office. 5.20 Standards (a) When land'is exposed during development, the exposure should be kept to the shortest practicable period of time and the smallest amount of land possible. (b) Temporary vegetation and /or mulching shall be used to protect critical areas exposed during development. (c) Permanent vegetation shall be successfully established and erosion control structures shall be installed as soon as practical on development. Wherever feasible, natural vegetation shall be retained and protected. (d) The development shall be fitted to the topography and soils to create the least erosion potential. (e) Provisions shall be made to effectively accommodate any increased runoff-during or after development, by changed soil and surface conditions. (f) Sediment basins (debris basins, desilting basins or Silt traDS) shall be installed and maintained to remove sediment from runoff waters and from land undergoing development. (g) All fill material shall be of a composition suitable for the ultimate use of the fill, free of rubbish and carefully restricted in its content of brush, stumps, trees, debris, rocks, frozen material and soft or easily compressible material. Fill material shall be compacted sufficiently to prevent problems of erosion. (h) Grades of at least one -half percent and drainage facilities shall be provided to prevent the ponding of water, unless such ponding is proposed within the site plans, in which event there shall be sufficient water flow to maintain proposed water levels and avoid stagnation. M- 30 1 (i) Provisions shall be made that there will be no detrimental effect on water quality of the watercourses. There will be no discharge of sediment or other material into the watercourses. M -31 N ARTICLE VI VIOLATIONS 6.10 If there is any damage due to a violation of this 9rdinance or if any soil, liquid, or other material is caused to be deposited upon or to roll, flow, or wash upon any public property, private property, or right -of -way in violation of this Ordinance, the person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other party responsible shall be notified and shall cause the same to be removed from such property or way within X hours of notice. In the event of an immediate dancer to tie public health or safety, notice shall be given by the most expeditious means and the violation shall be remedied immediately. In the event it is not so remedied, the Town(Village) shall cause such and the cost of such by the Town(Village) shall be paid to the Town (Village) by the party who failed to so remedy and shall be a debt owed to the Town (Village). 6.20 Any person, firm, partnership,corporation, or other party who violates any provision'of this ordinance shall be guilty of a violation and subject to a fine of not less than X dollars nor more than X dollars, or to imprisonment o —not more than X months, or both such fine and imprisonment; and in addition, any party who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance or omits or refuses to perform any and every act hereby required shall respectively forfeit and pay a penalty of X dollars for each and every such violation and mmnperformance. The imposition of any such penalty for the violation of this ordinance shall not excuse such violation nor permit the continuance thereof. The application of the above penalty or penalties for a violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall not be held to prevent the removal of conditions prohibited by this ordinance by such legal means as may be proper. 6.30 Every day that a violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance continues after written notice shall have been served upon the owner or his agent, either personally or by registered mail addressed to such person at his last known address, shall constitute a separate violation. M -32 Jl ' I ARTICLE VII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 7.10 Variances s - Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of this ordinance or certain provisions thereof are encountered, variances may be granted pursuant to the provisions of Town(Village) Law. 7.20 Amendments The Town Board ( Village Council) may from time to time on its own motion, on petition, or on recommendation of the Town (Village) Planning Board, and in accordance with the laws of the -State of New York, amend, supplement, or repeal the regulations or provisions of this ordinance. 7.30 Separability If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or other part of this ordinance is for any reason adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall be unaffected by such decision. 7.40 Conflict with Existing Regulations Where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions than are imposed by the provision of any law, ordinance, regulation, or private agreement, this ordinance shall control. there greater restrictions are imposed by any law, ordinance, regulation, or private agreement than are imposed by this ordinance, such greater restrictions shall.control. M -33 ARTICLE VIII DEFINITIONS 8.10 Agricultural Operations All activities directly relakefor °the the salegrowing -agricultural raising of crops or llves.toc produce, including horticulture and fruit operations. 8.20 Authorized Official The person designated by the Town Board (Village Council) to administer and maintain the provisions of this ordinance. 8.30 Critical Area An area where there is risk of erosion. 8.40 Drains e The gravitational movemeff water or other liquids by surface runoff or subsurface 8.50 Erosion The wearing away of the land surface by the action of wind, water, gravity or other natural forces. 8.60 Excavation soil, or Any activity which removes gravel, sand or, other natural deposits. 8.70 Filling Any activity which deposits natural or artificial material surface conditions of so as to modify the surface or s land, lakes, ponds or ourses 8.80 Floodplain lake or other body of water Areas adjoining a watebeotemeorarily inundated by that have been or may p periods of high water. ( 100 y ear storm .) 8.90 Gradin oil surface so as to change the The alteration of the s existing landforms. 3.110 Sediment •,' Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being transported, has been deposited, or has been removed from its site of origin by erosion. 8.120 Site Preparation , The activities of stripping, excavating, filling, and grading, no matter what the purpose of these activities, which effects more than 100 cubic yards of material or 10,000 square feet.of ground surface. 8.130 Soil All mineral or decayed organic material of whatever origin which overlies bedrock. 8.140 Stripping Any activity which removes rthat significantly isdisturbs exposed. the vegetation to the extent 8.150 Topsoil The natural surface layer of soil, found at varying depths, usually containing organic matter. 8.160 Watercourse Any natural or artificial lake, stream, river, creek, ditch, channel, conduit, culvert, drainageway, gully, ravine, or wash in which water flows in a definite direction or course, either continuously or intermittently, and which has a definite channel, bed, and banks. 8.170 Wetlands Areas of aquatic or semi - aquatic vegetation of one aart- or larger, which have been mapped as such by the Dep ment of Environmental Conservation, the Adirondack Park Agency, or the town, village or county planning board. M -35 1�a se re;• "�n,,, i� 21 v 7%';�,, OFFICE OF CITY COUNCI To: TP &W Committee Members From: Steve 7k---- wc i� o-,,, S k. • �' V �.� o o G� ° o o � �- �00000� o a� �a�T0 �a�m -CAC O1 `V1 March 22, 1989 7 Attached is the latest version of the packaging ordinance. I believe it is in shape to consider in Committee Thursday and send to the full City Council. Comments received as a result of the request for additional input made at our last Committee meeting were helpful in tightening the proposal. Also helpful were various meetings in the last few weeks with industry and trade organizations, especially the Minnesota Dairy Federation. Finally Byron Starns from Leonard, Street and Deinard has offered helpful advice. Mr. Starns has expertise in this area of the law from previous experience in the Minnesota Attorney General's office. I think there are four key questions to ask in weighing whether the Council should adopt this ordinance. 1. Is food and beverage packaging an important part of the City's solid waste stream? Yes. It is important to emphasize that the ordinance applies to food and beverage packaging genrally, although clearly the greatest impact is on plastic packaging. Packaging of all forms made up 43% of the municipal solid waste stream in 1986, and is projected to increase to 46% by 1995. Packaging is by far the single largest component of our garbage. Estimates are that food and beverage packaging represent around 3/4 of this total, or roughly 30% of municipal solid waste, so the ordinance does address a significant part of the City's solid waste problem. 2. Is plastic packaging a rapidly growinq segment of food packaging? Unquestionably! According to the Metropolitan Council plastic container production has increased six -fold since 1972 and four -fold since 1979. Plastic food and beverage containers nationwide equalled 11.9 billion units in 1984. By 1987, that number had risen to 18.8 billion units, a 5510 increase. This growth is due to acp kage substitution and new Qroducts introduced into the market. Overall,HDPE (e.g,, gallon or z gallon milk jugs and PET (e.g., 2 liter pop bottles) were the primary resins used to produce these additional containers. In the Twin Cities, there were 4000 tons of PET beverage Z_. �4 T-1 TP &W Committee Members e page -2- March 22, 1989 containers generated in 1987. By 2000, that figure is projected to be 40,000 tons, a 1000% increase. 3. Are there environmental issues associated with plastic packaging? Yes. Several concerns were identified during the public hearing and in communications directed to the Council. Metals: Dr. Richard Dennison from the Environmental Defense Fund offered extensive testimony on-this point. Among other things he said: "EPA data indicates that plastics, and in particular plastic packaging materials - while clearly not the Qnly source of lead and cadmium in our waste are Y a maJor con r� ut0 �t respect o the risk posed incineration, t ese materials likely account for ��- an even larger source, given their preponderance in the combustible portion of the waste stream." "These are plastics that -come under direct contact with food, and there are a host of other plastics that are used in packaging that do not come directly into contact with food.-FDA has certain regulations that distinguish among those. What I'm talking about primarily that would be affected by this ordinance are a broad range of plastics which are colored plastics which may contain lead or cadmium stabilizers but do not come necessarily in direct contact with food, and therefore FDA regulation: is insufficient to control those metals." In addition to Dennison's remarks, a January draft chapter in the EPA's "Report to Congress on Plastics" reads: "Heavy n as tics are encapsulated anonly negligible quantities could leach from the surface of these materials and, possibly, contaminate ground water. On the other hand, additives (primarily plastici hich ma constitute a are rac ion _)T the plastic) an add to leachae for prolonged periods." This EPA finding is further-corroborated by a Radian Corporation report which states 11 _= are rone to leachin because they are used in high concentration and it te6a to have low compatibility with resins. 1 LUH,111I LLCC i'icuiuci J /-3- 22, 1989 ;Finally, 1 find little comfort in a recent letter from General Mills that states, "For most of the plastics used in food, this statement (found in Section 204.10 - Chemicals hazardous to human health and safety of the environment are present in the composition of plastic packaging) is untrue." Why only "most "? Incineration: Referring again to the EPA plastics report: "This study (referring to work directed by Dr. Richard Magee who appeared at our hearing) indicated that a conventional incinerator, used for the incineration of municipal refuse, will perform satisfactorily on normal refuse containing approximately six percent plastics. However, since post consumer plastic waste now accounts for more than seven percent of the municipal solid waste stream, new data are needed to determine the effect of plastics in incineration operation at high levels." In the Twin Cities,post. consumer plastic accounts for 10 %, not 7%,-of the solid waste stream, a figure projected to grow to 15.8% by year 2000. Clearly existing test data is not very relevant to the experience in Minneapolis -St. Paul. As I said in my opening remarks at the public hearing, there remains an open question about the exact effect of plastics on air emmissions and ash residue from incinerators especially when burn plants operate under sub- optimal) conditions as will inevitably happen'at times. Given uncertainty it only makes sense to minimize this potentially hazardous input to the incinerator. Use of Non - renewable Resources: The Association of Metropolitan Recycling Managers praised the ordinance because it discouraged the use of packaging from non - renewable resources. Plastic is petroleum based. PET, for instance (one of the fastest growing forms of plastic packaging) is 53% crude oil and 47% natural Ns. Avoiding the use of, or at least re -using or recyc ing pac aging made from non - renewable sources seems prudent in an energy dependent state. In a related point use and burning of a mosphere, a sere one person observed at the public hearing that the manufacturin plastics will inevitably result in net addition of 2 o e us concern at a ti:se of global warming. 4. Will this proposal effectively address the growth of food and beverage packaging, especially plastic packaging, and associated environmental issues? Yes. I believe the major effect of the ordinance will be to accelerate the inclusion of plastics, especially rapidly gorwing plastic containers i e HDPE milk Tugs.and PET bottles, in the City's rec clin Because industry and trade groups marketing these formsof plastic containers have an incentive to insure they are collected as recyclables by the effective date of the ordinance, I believe we can count on private sector support in our effort. The Advisory Committee on Environmentally Acceptable Packages creates a forum for the expression of that cooperation. TP &W Committe Members Page -4- March 22, 1989 f A second effect will be to provide an incentive for.the paper and cardboard products for packaging. The Burger Ong ecision to move away from styrofoam to cardboard burger pods is an example of what will happen in other areas, especially egg cartons, on -site wrapping in grocery stores and restaurants. There will also be some enforcement actions by the Commissioner of Health. The most difficult cases will have to do with applyi.no the exception se for — rially a a e a ternative form of packaging which meets the terms of the ordinance. Before any plastic product which can't be recycled or returned could be removed from food establishments, the Commissioner would have to consider 1) the availability of acceptable packaging for that product 2) the economic consequences of obtaining this acceptable packaging if available and 3) competitive effects rising from any enforcement action. Overall, the result of the ordinance will be to reduce the amount of garbage that is now disposed by encouraging the recycling of items not now recycled. The composition of the waste stream that does reach the incinerator (and ultimately landfills through ash residue) will also be changed by encouraging provision of paper and cardboard packaging and removing some plastics through recycling and enforcement. This compostional change will help minimize toxic by- products from incineration. Finally, the Minneapolis -St. Paul effort will create addiitional pressure on industry groups and the federal government to take faster action to address the problems we seek to solve in a more comprehensive and uniform way nationally. To sum up, Jeanne Wicka from the Environmental Action Foundation provided perhaps the best statement of why the ordinance makes sense in her testimony. While referring to the many state and local initiatives regarding packaging and plastics, she said: "Why all this legislative interest. Very simply, its not about banning plastics, it is not about pickin n p antics. a It is about is designing a waste stream to maximize those waste management options at the top end of the waste management hierarchy. Those options are source r duction, reuse and rec clan . This legislation and other state and oca initiatives are aiming to maximize source reduction, reuse and recycling in order to minimize landfilling and incineration. I strongly believe that the ordinance before you today is an important step." cc: Council Members Mayor Fraser t 1. 2. FACT SHEET ON PLASTIC PACKAGING ORDINANCE GENERAL QUESTIONS: What does this ordinance do? Beginning in 19:'0, most food and beverage packaging in paint Paul must be environmentally acceptable — it m r,rt, ust be recyclable, returnable, or otherwise acceptable. Unacceptable frod an d beverage pacE: aging will be banned it falls within specified exem Lion Cate ries, whicr, "Dit are permitted for ntjhl_ i_ cf�calth realms or because no acceptable alternative is commercially available. esold Nonfood or shampoo, detergents) which are Y e5tabIisr,ments will not be affected by the ordinance. Th-_ ordinance will be enforced through the u is ea Division food inspection petty misdemeanors with a maximum fine service, and violations will be of s50 per violation. - Why do we need this ordinance? rdinance to help meet county and regional waste a. We need this o reduction goals. The ii.S. EPA has estirt,ated that plastics in the waste stream will more tt,ar, double by tt,e `ar•_QD -(an Increase from 14. i ion pounds In 1987 to- 34.1 billion pounds). Such a sharp increase needs to be a major focus of solid waste management policies, and, in particular, efforts need to be made to reduce plastic waste - However, waste reduction policies and programs to date do not address this issue. Landfill abatement goals are set with reference to percentage and tonnage decreases from the waste stream known in 1:�5, a rapid increase in a portion of the waste streaa, will either prevent reaching tr.GS_ Pals In or will render them meaningless. In the Twin Cities area the waste reduction goal is 4% ldlandfill abatement. Metropolitan Council's policy plan for sol waste and rtianaacment has only general statements on how to reduce waste, local says that many waste reduction efforts are beyond the scope goverr,R,_ ts. Its discussion of product-bans is as follows: "bans on the production of certain products or materials may 0 be used to control products that present substantial environ- rt�cntal. or public health risks. Generally they can be applied only if there are alternative materials or products. Bans are somewhat limited, and require either legislative action ncy resolution to be implemented properly." (p. 21) or regulatory age �s abatement progress reports do not show progress made Met. f r'unCil source specifically due to waste reduction efforts, but only show separation pro9re 5 s- Rart,s Master Plan adopts the 47 waste reduction ey Gour,ty's `slid Waste ;r will be achieved primarily through mulching -2— i and backyard composting of grass and leaves, and to a very limited extent through two —sided photocopying. Ramsey County identifies three general strategies for reducing waste: a) preventing wastes from being generated; b) handling materials to prevent them from being disposed of as a waste; and c) use of recycled products, where a used or recycled product substitutes for a new one. This ordinance follows the first strategy. Ramsey County does not see bans as an effective means of waste reduction: "Unfortunately, this is also an area where government— mandated programs can be the least effective, or place unreasonable restrictions on freedom of choice. For example, F-roposing to ban disposable items would be an effective (but unrealistic) program in waste reduction. It has been estimated (Minneapolis Tribune, 10/5/x:5) that Ramsey County residents annually dispose. of co million paper cups, 41 million plastic cups and containers, 30 million paper plates, 35 million plastic lids, 31 million diapers, 4 million razors and baldes, I million pens, and 0.7 million lighters. Instead of bans, however, waste reduction by the oeneral public should be encouraged by education and. awareness programs." (p. 21) b. It is needed to encourage sale and availability of recyclable food and beverage packaging. This, in turn, .will encourage development and stability of recycling markets for metal and glass containers. c.. It is needed to keep plastics out of incinerators, where they produce environmentally unsafe byproducts. Major unsafe byproducts are toxic emissions when the plastics are burned, and fly ash which contains toxins and presents difficult disposal problems. It is needed because other governmental programs and voluntary efforts by the private sector either are not dealing with plastics, or their methods are not producing a significant reduction in the amount of plastic being disposed. 3. Why is this not being done on a state or national level? Are any other cities doing this? This is being done locally, by Minneapolis and Saint Paul, because there has been no action to resolve this issue at state or national levels. If there were state or national action, local ordinances would not be needed. There are precedents for cities being able to enact restrictive legis- lation such as this (cite the Chicago phosphate detergent case). Already, other cities across the country have begun ,�ont ban Nrplastic food and beverage packaging. For example, in S_ urt y, is bva h are ackaged plastic ackaging at point of sale. In Berkeley, California fast food outlets and delis May not use plastic packaging. 4. If banning plastic packaging is a good idea, why are you concentrating on food and beverage packaging? r a. There are two main rea -stns for banning plastic fGOd and t'ev' of the plastic waste stream, and it is growing. For example, plastic grocery bags have been indicated to be 83% of all plastic bags. [cite additional Suffolk: County data) c:nd, reGulatinG food and beverage packagino is a type of re_vilation S_ cities are wc-11— equipped to do. Minneapolis arid Saint Paul both have requlated food and beverage establishments for many years. This ordir,ar,ce car, easily be intearated with the ongoing inspectic. r, pr oarar,s. of the two cities without significant administrative costs. ECONOMIC IMPACT QUESTIONS: 5. What will be the effects of this ordinance on food and beverage consumers? This ordinance will not have adverse effects either on tt,e availability of foods and beverages to the consumer or on the cost of food and beverage it erns, The key feature of the ordinance that prevents economic harm is limiting applicability of the ban to products where there is a cornmercially available alternative. For example, mustard is available now either in glass jars, which can be recycled, or in plastic bottles, which cannot 'be recycled. Mustard will still continue to -be available if recyclable packaging is required. On the other harrd, candy Gars are wrapped only in plastic, so the plastic packaging will continue to be permitted. One industry araument for lactic packaging is that it is cheaper to of pro uce. What this ar l _ 's idl r s,31i� waste is�osa1, which will soon make many more kinds or recycling economically feasible, without excessive governm_r,t or• industry subsidies. Manufacturers are not paying costs of disposal of their products or their products' packaging now, so they do not have the incentive to use.recyclable packaging. If manufacturers switch to recyclable .packagino in order.to comply with this ordinance, it may cost or the product. However, the arnvunt or this indeed increase the increase will be very slight, and it will be offset by consumers' savings on waste disposal. 6. What effects will this ordinance have'on businesses and industries that must comply with it and their suppliers? With the commercial availibility provision, the ordinance will h ;ve some initial effect on the purchasing practices of grocery stores, delicatessens,. and similar businesses, but will not restrict their ability to offer a full range of products to their customers. Nor will the ordinance unduly restrict industries that supply grocers. For exar,ple, the dairy industry initially had concerns about their ability to supply Minneapolis and Saint Paul under this ordinance. However, z:5% or groceries sold in the metropolitan area are sold in tt,e two cities, and 407 of milk sold is ir, paper half gallons. Unt i 1 additional options develop (e.a. greater availability of returnable or recyclable plastic containers) consumers in Minneapolis and �aint F'a��l can be supplied with paper half Gallons. Natic:nwide industries affected by this ordinance will need sor,,•e tine to convert th_ir plastic clamshell and other packag_s; adequ; "C 7. S. O -4— conversion time is allowed by not having the ordinance a year, However, some fast food chains have already nvir•onmentally sound packaging, and the others can use C as a marketing tool. take effect converted for to the conversion The plastics industry itself will not suffer undue hardship either. Industry representatives have indicated that new resins which will be recyclable are in the product testing and market testing stages, and enactment of this ordinance may actually speed up that development. QUESTIONS ON DISPOSAL (INCINERATION, LANDFILLS, ETC.) Does the disposal of plastic packaging pose any health threats to St. Paul's citizens and the environment? A number of health threats are created when plastic packaging is disposed of. These vary with the type of disposal used. When plilstics are landfilled, they run the risk of leaching into the ground water. When th-y are incinerated, they emit or ins into the atmosphere and leave more toxins a in in the incinerator ash. Now do plastics act in landfills? Landfilling plastics causes two types of problems. Plastics take up an inordinate amount of room in landfills. The amount of landfill space available to cities like St. Paul and Minneapolis for solid waste disposal is rapidly disappearing. Plastics tend to be highly resilient and do not compact as easily Although plastics or in landfills as other materials) astics account f' �•� �r tnr waste stream by weight, they account for 2 times that h level by volume. Because of this, they take up more of the limyted landfill space than other materials. Plastics also take up more room because they are Essentially non — degradable. The life of a landfill is. reduced when non — compactible non — degradable materials such as plastics are introduced into the system. The second problem involves the ways the chemicals in plastic packaging act when they are landfilled. Plastic p ac :aging quite often contains high concer, a f chemicals that leach out of the plastics and into the ground_ weer. These chemicals include the dyes used to color the plastics and plasticizers used to make the rigid polymers more flexible and easier to work with. Plasticizers are especially susceptible to leaching because they are used in extremely high concentrations and because they do not combine well with the plastic resins. Plasticizers are seen in polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, acrylics, and polyurethane The plastics industry often argues that plastics are safer in landfills than other materials. They argue that plastics leach less than other materials and. that the non — degradable nature of plastics is beneficial rather than harmful. It is generally agreed, however, that landfilling any solid waste is hazardous, and that any reduction in the amount of materials being landfilled will be beneficial. ur,at haooens when plastics are incinerated? - e J /1 —5— Incineration of solid waste, originally seen as the solution to the problems caused by the disappearing landfill space, has begun to raise a n,irr,ber of questions about its safety. As with incineration in general, a number of problems arise when you incinerate plastics. These include releasing toxins into the atmosphere, leaving toxins behind in the incinerator ash that must be disposed of later, and damaging the incinerator itself. Proponents of incineration argue that when incinerators are opperated at optirr,um, conditions, there are no toxins err,mitted, and that this is especially true of plastics. The tests used to support this argument have used labratory conditions rather than the conditions found at the safe when incinerated at proper incinerators. Elastics are rr,'�stly • temperatures by themselves. Problems arise when they are burnt at temperatures lower than those. required and when plastics are burnt with other materials. Many incinerators don't burn at proper conditions (Suffolk Record pp. 49, 64 -65) and plastics are always mixed with other types of waste. Toxic air emmisions have been a problem for incinerators in general, and are an even bigger problem when plastics are burnt. Burnina laatics releases chlorine, a chemical which com - S—with the products of partial combustion of solid waste to form dioxins, furans, and hydrochloric acid. Dioxins and furans are believed to be the most tonic substances known to man, and are hundreds of times more lethal than �trychnina. Exposure to even very small doses has caused ETFF defects, liver damage, cancer, and death in lab animals (Wirke 47). Hydrochloric acid is n intregal ingredient in the acid rain that has caused environmental damage throughout the northern United States. one study has shown that plastics were respon6ible for 52% of the chlorine produced in Brooklyn, New York's incinerators (Wirl:e 43). There are filtration systerr,s that. have been developed to remove many of the toxins created during incineration from the air em,increase.theThe problem with im, roved filtration toxicit of the incinerator (�uffolkoF;ecordYpfou4J; °There arebtwo tyFes� orodu of ash; bottom, ash and fly ash. The bottom ash is the material that is not combusted and collecththe° daonotfcombustnthatrarerfiltered fly ash are light weight particles out of the incinerator smoke. The fly a� 1 {heofuransedandeheavY topic K oi,s of the two. It is to ded with the dioxins, metals like lead, cadm broken d3w� bycincinerationRtetSm ,allrlevelseofsle3dd as such can not to miscarriages, liver and brain damage, and have been shown to cause sterility in humans. nsidered so toxic that recently the Congress Fly ash has been co ll l and considered a bill labelling atakenrwhen the ash iswdisposed of. requiring special measure_ to be The ash is significantly more tonic than the garbage that p oduces it. Storage of the ash is diffic,jlt because the ash is highl or as. to leaching.. Most i ncinerator companies dispose of Types tc-gether, diluting the more to fly ash but increasing the amount r, disposed of. While removin ics of igr,ly toxic ash that must be spg p from the incineration process will not completely remove the toxins from ash, it will reduce the level of ash toxicity. -6- --:` lea, caused by the incineration of plastics is the corrosion Another prat. the incinerators ca��sed by the hydrochloric ac' produced by �f ircir,erating p astics, era maJar Incinerator coa�pany recently requested that FDA nest laysee, its restrictions o the use of PVC in MPCA have packaging aggreed because of this (Worse p. 47)• Staff meaiber•s of the incinerators used in that hydrochloric acid d,)es damage the surfaces of M ta. QUESTIONS ON RECYCLING PLASTICS 10. Can't plastics be recycled? The plastic industry has been primary recycling for years. Primary recycling is the recycling of industrial waste, such as regrind, which is extra plastic cut, trimmed or otherwise generated in the fabrication �• f plastics products. Regrind, if clean, can essentially be used in place of virgin raw material. •-Secondary recycling uses recovered waste plastics to manufacture a product of lower quality than would be possible with virgin r-aw material s. post- consumer plastics collected are much more difficult to clean and must undergo a secondary recycling process. Even then a product of lower q��ality than would be possible with clean inplant scrap must be produced. For. example, recycled PET soda botTles end up as fiberfill stuffing for a jacket which will eventually have to be incinerated. I-- There are several reasons wily only about 207 of all plastics can be recycled. First, plastics will degrade with repeated heatings and others 01 will rat tolerate reheating. Bottles, films, coatings and other pacl.agir-1 applications each require str•inger,t technical specifications of the prim: virgir, re e sin from which they are made. Plastic scrap will los its ctren�7th, flexibility, clarity, etc. when reheated in the recyclil-9 prOceSS. AF'F< 'Iicati`-'r'` for recycled plastics . are further limited by U.S. Food and L,ru.a Ali inir,ist rat ior, (FDA) rules. If recycled rr.aterials will be used to pacI,ar,e fond, manfacturers trust guarantee they are free of contaminents. Plastics can no t be reheated to high- enough tem eratures for tG man��facturer uarantee that the recycled materi contaminents for food pac!'agin'a. z, Second, past- consumer, plastics are lit,ely to be contaminated by paper and metal used for labeling and closures, package contents and dirt. h r1 plastics contain chemical additives, which are sometimes toxic. Figments which are cadmium based and cannot be removed prohibit the plastic scrap froa, being recycled into products in which the additives would present a health hazard. (1 Finally, each Elastic teas different physical and chemical characteristics. Each has a different a,eltirn.1 point and reacts differently to reheating, mo,lastic resins together. making it difficult to recycle d' .. _ 11. Is the recycling of plastics eonomically feasible? i __ ;-F - -. —• rvrIinn industry is that the sera. value r processing the R1. California recently calculated the cost of reprocessing F•ET plastic beverage containers relative to the scrap values of ruaterials and found that the -actual scrap value would have to be increased by over 400 per cent- Mirka p. E•1). RaRisey County Staff calculated curbside _1 of plastic bottles would cast between 5100.00 to $700.00 per ton. recyclin -Their estimate was based on the additional cost of collection (from Cycle's pilot program in St. Louis Far'k), minus expected market revenues (from NAFCOR). Flnother problem facing the plastid recycling industry is the low density and high VClume characteristics of plastic products. In order to maH'e it cost— effective to ship plastic bottles to processors, they must be shredded or baled to condense their volume. Since densification equipment the retrofitting of trucks to haul plastics is expensive, plastics and systeR�s. Unless large economics Clf scale favor larger curbside collection softdr•iril' companies or other industry sources provide the equipment and financial assistance, subsidies would be needed for smaller programs to start up. 12. How far away is a truly recyclable plastic? With the exception of Dow Chemical testing a plastic product. made froR, a recyclable resin in a - pilot project in Michigan, printary recycling is only feasible for industrial plastic wastes that are clean and coR�posed of only one resin. Q-�.c�car�, 4 Gc,,�,,G-� C ":.,"C ! c (I � C.k (L`V )ding ;to Comm. ,�lic Hecring ;2nd Reading & Final Passage AN ORDINANCE of the CITY OF MI N N EAPOUS Date to Mayor Date Returned Date Resubmitted to Council Cramer, Coyle, Niemiec, Johnson, Hilary, Scallon, O'Brien, and Carlson the following ordinance. Amending Title 10 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances relating to Food and Food Handlers by adding thereto a new Chapter 204 relating to Environmental Preservation: Environmentally Acceptable Packaging. The City Council of the Ci?y of Minnecpolis do ordain as follows: Section 1. That the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances be amended by adding thereto a new. Chapter 204 to read as follows: "Chapter 204. Environmental Preservation: Environmentally Acceptable Packaging 204.10. Legislative Purpose. ..The City Council finds that discarded packaging from foods and beverages constitutes a significant and growing portion of the waste in Minneapolis' waste stream. Regulation of food and beverage packaging, therefore, is a necessary part of any effort to encourage a recyclable and compostable waste stream, thereby reducing the disposal of solid waste and the economic and environmental costs of waste management for the citizens of Minneapolis and others working or doing business in Minneapolis. The Council further finds that plastic packaging is rapidly replacing other packaging material, and that most plastic packaging used for foods and beverages is nondegradable, nonreturnable and nonrecyclable. The Council also finds that the two main processes used to dispose of discarded nondegradable, nonreturnable and nonrecyclable plastic foods and beverage packaging, are land filling and incineration, both of which should be minimized for environmental reasons. Chemicals hazardous to environment are present in believed to leach into the landfills, have been found burned in incinerators, an with ash residue resulting human health and to the safety of the the composition of plastic packaging, are groundwater when this packaging is placed in to escape into the air when this packaging is i contribute to environmental problems associated from the incineration process. The Council therefore finds that the minimization of nondegradable, nonreturnable and nonrecyclable food and beverage packaging originating at retail food establishments within the City of Minneapolis is necessary and desirable in order to reduce the City's waste stream, so as to reduce the volume of landfilled waste, to minimize toxic by- products of incineration, to make the waste stream less damaging to the environment, and to make our City and neighboring communities more environmentally sound places to live. 204.20. Definitions. As used in this Chapter, the following terms and phrases shall have the meanings as defined in this section: (a) "Packaging" shall mean and include all food - related wrappings, adhesives, cords, bindings, strings, tapes, ribbons, bags, boxes, coverings and containers; and shall further include cups, glasses and similar containers for drinking out of or for holding liquids, and plates and serving trays, but shall specifically e c� lude plastic knives, forks and spoons sold or intended for use as utensils. (b) "Environmentally acceptable packaging" shall mean and include any of the following: (1) DEGRADABLE PACKAGING: Paper or other cellulose -based packaging capable of being decomposed by natural biological or biochemical processes; (2) RETURNABLE PACKAGING: Food or beverage containers or packages, such as, but not limited to, soft drink bottles and milk containers that are capable of being returned to the distributor, such as but not limited to, dairies and soft drink bottlers, for reuse as the same food or beverage container use at least once; (3) RECYCLABLE PACKAGING: Packaging made of materials that are separable from solid waste by the generator or during collection and are currently collected for recycling in an organized fashion in a municipally sponsored program within the City of Minneapolis. Packaging made of either polyethylene terepthalate (P.E.T.) or high density polyethylene (H.D.P.E.) shall be considered to be recyclable if and when it is collected for recycling in the same manner as here stated. SPA i /1 t (c) "Food establishment" as used in this Chapter means a "food establishment" as defined in Section 188.10 of the Minneapolis Code of i' Ordinances. (d) "Commissioner" shall mean the Commissioner of Health of the City of Minneapolis or the Commissioner's designee. 204.30. Prohibitions. No person owning, operating or conducting a food establishment within the City of Minneapolis shall do or allow to be done any of the following within the City: Sell or convey at retail or possess with the intent to sell or convey at retail any food or beverage that is placed, wrapped or packaged, at any time at or before the time or point of sale, in or on packaging which is not environmentally acceptable packaging. The presence on the premises of the food establishment of packaging which is not environmentally acceptable packaging shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of intent to sell or convey at retail, or to provide to retail customers packaging which is not environmentally acceptable packaging; provided, however, that this subparagraph shall not apply to manufacturers, brokers or warehouse operators, who con uc ansac no reta� 00 o verage business. 204.40. Enforcement. The Commissioner shall have the duty and the authority to enforce provisions of this chapter. 204.50. Rules and Regulations. The Commissioner may, upon notice and hearing, promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Chapter and protect the health of the public, including the development of exemptions under Section 204.70 for packaging for which there is no commercial) available alternative and f flexible packs ing. In promu ga ng such ru es t e ommissioner shall consider the egislative purposes provided in Section 204.10 of this Chapter and shall consult with the operators of affected food establishments. 204.60. Advisory Comitee on Environmentally Acceptable Packaging. The City Council shall, by resolution, establish an Advisory Committee on Environmentally Acceptable Packaging. The resolution shall provide for the membership, manner of appointment, the Committee's charge and its duration. The membership shall be drawn from affected governmental units, business and industry, trade associations; general business organizations, consumer groups, environmEntal groups and others as determined in the resolution. The Advisory Committee shall include a member designated by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners from.outside the City of Minneapolis and a member designated by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. The charge of the Committee shall include the following: -3- (a) monitoring industry and governmental actions relating to environmentally acceptable packaging; (b) advising the Commissioner of Health on implementation issues; (c) advising the City Council on the feasibility of the effective date of this Ordinance and recommending whether or not the effective date should be extended; (d) assisting in efforts to expand the City's recycling program to include the collection of potentially recyclable materials not presently collected, including consideration of financial assistance; •(e) recommending actions other levels of government and industry can take to advance the goals of this Chapter. (f) assisting in the development and implementation of public education programs on recycling and packaging. (g) Encouraging adoption of substantially similar regulations by surrounding cities, particularly those cities with a border in common with Minneapolis. 204.10. Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, this chapter shall not -apply to: (a) any flexible packaging of 10 mils or less in thickness unless disapproved by the Commissioner pursuant to rules promulgated under Section 204.50 above; 4 "4Aj,,� b) any packaging used at hospitals or nursing homes; (c) any paper, cellophane or other cellulose -based packaging that is coated with plastic; (d) any packaging which is not environmentally acceptable, but for which there is no commercially available alternative as determined by the Commissioner 'E-y- rule promulgated pursuant to Section 204.50. In - determining whether there are commercially available alternatives the Commissioner shall consider the following: (1) the availability of environmentally acceptable packaging for affected products; (2) the economic consequences to manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and other vendors of requiring environmentally acceptable packaging when available; and (3) the c_tive effects on manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and other vendors involved in the sale of product brands or labels available only in packaging that is not environmentally acceptable packaging. Every rule creating an exemption under this paragraph shall be reviewed annually by the Commissioner to determine whether current conditions continue to warrant the exemption. -4 -- r 204,50. Penalties. Each violation of any provision of this Chapter or rr of lawful regulations promulgated under Section 204.50 hereof shall be a % petty misdemeanor, for which the maximum fine shall be $50.00. Each day on / which a violation occurs constitutes a separate violation. 204.90. License Adverse Action. A violation of Section 204.30 shall be sufficient grounds for the revocation, suspension, denial or non - renewal of any license for the food establishment at which the violation occurs. 204.100. Severability. If any part or provision of this Chapter or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstances shall be adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision or application which is directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered, and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this Chapter or the application thereof to other persons, entities, or circumstances. 204.110. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect July 1, 1990. The City Council may, however, pursuant to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee created under Section 204.60 hereof.and the Commissioner of Health, delay the effective date of this Chapter for a period not to exceed six (6) months. panel '_ OEtSES C 9111" wn�te owe �anSOn Saves 9stto� Ave I -4av I N.V. Tre vnTis N.V. -Not V A — MAR 19 PASSED.- APPROVED 19 NOT APPROVED VETOED ATTEST c,ry c :*m RECCRC OF CCU vra Suat Caun 4�em�et Cramer Scruwstaa }onnsw Pre, Painv We Aba, — AbWt ovro. - Voto to Ovanota -5- N.V I Sust - VOte t0 Sust2in of Council Meier ..3: What does this ordinance do? After January 1, 1990, restaurants and grocery stores in Minneapolis must use packaging that is "environmentally acceptable." This generally means packaging which is degradable, returnable or recyclable. In practical terms, most packaging made of plastic or styrofoam would not be allowed. Why is this ordinance needed? The disposal of garbage is a major problem. We are quickly ninning out of space in landfills and are leaming that incineration must be carefully controlled. Many plastics are not recyclable. When disposed of in landfills, they do not decompose and permanently take up valuable space. When incinerated, plastics may be a major source of harmful emissions. This ordinance is aimed at reducing the amount of plastics which must be disposed of. It is directed at the food industry for two reasons. First, food packaging is a major source of "plastic garbage." Second, most such food packaging is designed for one -time use and is the epitome of our "throw away" society. Who is affected by this ordinance? Retail food establishments are affected. This includes grocery stores (from supermarkets to convenience stores), restaurants (from fast -food to traditional) and any organization which serves food. Hospitals and nursing homes are exempt. What packaging is allowed under this ordinance? The ordinance does not mandate or prohibit specific materials. It requires that materials used in food packaging be degradable, returnable or recyclable. The ordinance gives the City Commissioner of Health the authority to determine which forms of packaging are "environmentally acceptable" and allows plastic packaging when there is no commercially acceptable alternative. Many altematives to plastic are possible. Meat can rest on paper -like trays. Wax coated paper cups can be used, beverage containers can be made of glass or aluminum. Many of the prohibited forms of packaging are relatively new. How will the ordinance be enforced? The ordinance will be enforced by the Commissioner of Health for the City. All establishments subject to the ordinance are routinely inspected by the Health Department, which would check packaging during periodic inspections. The Health Department would also inspect establishments following complaints from the general public. The maximum penalty for a violation would:be $50. Each day a violation persists could be treated as a separate violation. Shouldn't this type of action be done at the State or National level? It would be better if this type were done at a higher level. Florida is currently considering such legislation. West Germany, Denmark and Switzerland have enacted or are considering similar legislation. The City is allowed to take such action under its general health, safety and welfare authority. In the absence of state or national action, somebody has to start the ball rolling. By cooperating with Saint Paul, the affected market, area includes over 620,000 people. Have other cities tried this approach? Yes. Berkely, California; Seattle, Washington; and Suffolk County, (Long Island) New York, have a similar ordinances. Portland, Oregon, is considering an ordinances. Will certain products be unavailable ? There is the possibility that food companies would choose to not offer a few products in Minneapolis stores. But as more areas enact such restrictions, this problem should disappear. Will this put Minneapolis restaurants s and grocery stores at a competitive disadvantage? For "on -site packaging such as the meat department of a supermarket, this should cause little inconvenience or additional cost. Traditional restaurants will hardly notice the change. Some fast -food franchises will have to switch. Their central supply points will have to maintain two sets of packaging if they want to continue unacceptable packaging in the suburbs. This could lead to a slight increase in prices in Minneapolis, but it may become more convenient for those franchises to switch for the entire metro area. National brands which are carried in grocery stores are a greater problem. There are numerous alternatives to plastic. The ordinance allows an exemption if there is no environmentally acceptable acceptable packaging or no be marginally higher alternative. Some products may priced if the national companies choose to create a dual packaging system. As more areas pass similar ordinances, this difference should disappear. Are plastic utensils and s under this cups for home use banned ordinance? the ordinance, and styrofoam Plastic utensilscaUp es are prohibited only at food establishments. Can plastics be recycled? However, it is Some plastic can be recycled. e many types of difficult to distinguish among problems with the collectlo plastic, and nhand sale of recyclable plastic. Plastic may be re -used to make lower quality products such as fence posts or packing materials. This would not qualify as recycling under the ordinance. O Section by Section Analysis of the Ordinance (Chapter 204 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances) Title Environmental Preservation: Environmentally Acceptable Packaging 204.10. Legislative Purpose Makes whichgs that I for environmental reasons packaging nondegradable, nonreturnable or nonrecyclable should be reduced. The Council's concern in reducing packaging covered by the ordinance is to both minimize the total volume of municipal solid waste and the potential hazards of landfilling and incinerating such materials. 204.20. Definitions Defines "environmentally acceptable packaging" as "degradable," "retumable," or "recyclable' Also defines "retail food establishment" as restaurants and grocery stores and "Commissioner" as Commissioner of Health. 204.30. Prohibitions Prohibits the use of packaging which is not environmentally acceptable in retail food establishments. 204.40. Enforcement. Enforcement is the responsibl'ity of the City's Commissioner of Health. 204.50. Rules and Regulations Provides the Commissioner the ability to make rules to carry out the purposes of this chapter. 204.50. Exemptions Provides ed b r the able tra�+�eet coverings app Y Commissioner, any packaging used at hospitals or nursing homes, any paper which is coated with polyethylene plastic, or packaging for which there is no environmentally or commercially acceptable aftemative. 204.70. Penalties Violations are petty misdemeanors for which the maximum fine is S50. Each day a violation continues is a separate violation. 204.80. Severablllty Should any part of the ordinance be judged invalid by the courts, the remainder of the ordinance shall stand. City of Minneapolis Office of Public Affairs 323M City Hall Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 348 -2491 January 1989 Wild this put Minneapolis restaurants and grocery stores at a competitive disadvantage? For "on- site" packaging, such as the meat department of a supermarket, this should cause little inconvenience or additional cost. Traditional restaurants will hardly notice the change. Some fast -food franchises will have to switch. Their central supply points will have to maintain two sets of packaging if they want to continue unacceptable packaging in the suburbs. This could lead to a slight increase in prices in Minneapolis, but it may become more convenient for those franchises to switch for the entire metro area. National brands which are carried in grocery stores are a greater problem. There are The ordinance numerous alternatives to p ast allows an exemption if there is no environmentally acceptable alternative packaging or no commercially acceptable alternative. Some products may be marginally higher priced if the national companies choose to create a dual packaging system. As more areas pass similar ordinances, this difference should disappear. Are plastic utensils and sty of oa this cups for home use banne d ordinance? Plastic utensils are not banned by the ordinance, and styrofoam cups are prohibited only at food establishments. Can plastics be recycled? Some plastic can be recycled. However, it is difficult to distinguish among the many types of plastic, and there are economic problems plastic. ith the collection and sale of recyclable P Plastic may be re -used to make lower quality products such as fence posts or packing materials. This would not qualify as recycling under the ordinance. J Section by Section Analysis of the Ordinance (Chapter 204 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances) Title Environmental Preservation: Environmentally Acceptable Packaging I 204.10. Legislative Purpose Makes findings that lI for environmental reasons packaging which is nondegradable, nonreturnable or nonrecyclable should be reduced. The Council's concern in reducing packaging covered by the ordinance is to both minimize the total volume of municipal solid waste and the potential hazards of landfilling and incinerating such materials. 204.20. Definitions Defines "environmentally acceptable packaging" as "degradable," "returnable," or "recyclable." Also defines "retail food establishment" as restaurants and grocery stores and "Commissioner" as Commissioner of Health. 204.30. Prohibitions Prohibits the use of packaging which is not environmentally acceptable in retail food establishments. 204.40. Enforcement. Enforcement is the responsiblity of the City's Commissioner of Health. 204.50. Rules and Regulations Provides the Commissioner the ability to make rules to carry out the purposes of this chapter. 204.50. Exemptions Provides for flexible trampaFent coverings approved by the Commissioner, any packaging used at hospitals or nursing homes, any paper which is coated with polyethylene plastic, or packaging for which there is no environmentally or commercially acceptable alternative. 204.70. Penalties Violations are petty misdemeanors for which the maximum fine is S50. Each day a violation continues is a separate violation. 204.80. Severabitity Should any part of the ordinance be judged invalid by the courts, the remainder of the ordinance shall stand. City of Minneapolis Office of Public Aff airs 323M City Hall Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 348 -2491 January 1 °8g Sw; ► �l.ba ck�- R•o. w. / L �� 0 i Cy r�aKka�Q S(MCe�Q4S Memo to: John Johnson, Jon Meigs, Bill Gray__ From: Betsy Darlington - - Date: 1�8g - -- Re: Pri"y__sites along Six -[file Greek Cc: Peterson, Hoffman, Mulholland____ This will be on the agenda for P&D Committees Wed., Ine 28 On June 1, Dan Hoffman, Beth Mulholland, Carolyn Peterson, ana i waiKeo in along the Six-Mile Creek Wildflower Preserve Trail (the lower r.r. switch- back R.O.W.) from Hudson St., (next to Renzetti PI.) and checked out three sites: * Jean Apgar's three small adjoining parcels (below Pearsall Pl. and below the R.O.W.), one of which abuts the City -Town line; * the Somero-Pakkala triangle, below the lower switchback, very near the lower reservoir, and just southeast of the spectacular waterfalls along which the WPA built stone steps; and * the Sincebaugh parcel, above the latter. R R ro cv , We all agreed that these parcels were of the highest priority for City protection — either through purchase of the land or acquisition of con- servation easements on them. We think Ms. Apgar may be interested in working out something with the City. We know nothing of the inclinations of the other owners. All three sets of owners should be approached as soon as possible. The process could be for one of us to talk to the Planning Committee at their June 28th meeting and ask them to take the recommendation forward to Common Council for action. If the owners are unwilling to work out something, we feel that these sites are of sufficient importance to warrant taking them through eminent domain. The Sincebaugh parcel is large enough and in such a prime area for develop- ment that it may be impossible for the City to purchase all of it. In that event, we have identified a smaller portion of it to acquire. Ideally, the entire parcel should be acquired however. All three parcels meet the criteria we agreed on at earlier meetings, with Sincebaugh's being at the top of the list due to the likelihood of development in the near future. Specifically, each parcel is within 500 feet of the creek or reservoir (in fact, with the possible exception of one of Apgar ,s parcels, they all are within 1501); Apgar's and Since - baugh's have streams running through them, and the triangle has an especially significant stream adjacent to it; each has significant natural features worthy of protection. All three are in a prime development area. At P &D's meeting on June 28th, it is important that we outline the larger context of our concerns and show the broad area to be protected. Memo to: P &D Board and Dept. Arthur Pivirotto, 422 Taylor PI. -A BPW and City Engineer, Bill Gray Building Dept. Cc: Common Council and Mayor Conservation Advisory Council member From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair i Re: EAF for 84ot subdivision along proposed northerly extension of Taylor Pl. Date: June 10, 1989 The EAF subcommittee (Emilian, Hotchkiss, Darlington) reviewed the above EAF. Recommendation: Neg. dec. (no significant impact), provided that: 1. a satisfactory erosion and sedimentation control plan is provided and complied with (especially to deal with the construction period), and 2. a buffer of trees, at least as wide as currently proposed, is retained along the western border of lots 7 and 6, and northern border of lots 6 and 5, this border to be kept in its natural state. The wording of the conservation easement must be very careful on this: saying "except for normal maintenance" is not sufficient (as proposed in Exhibit A); one persons "normal maintenance" is another's total devastation. Any maintenance must be subject to prior review by the City (CAC perhaps ?). 3. Unless it already is clear to everyone but us, the wording about setbacks in relation to the easement must make absolutely clear that no building can take place within the 20 -foot border. (A 10 -foot setback from the property line otherwise could be interpreted as meaning such building could take place.) Comment: Mr. Pivirotto s new plan appears to address some of our major concerns as well as those of the neighborhood. Replacing the cul de sac with a driveway, and retaining a border around the west and north are both excellent changes. Comments on the LEAF: (Much improved over first submission.) ** Note to P&D * *: Please read and consider these comments. Shouldn't corrections routinely be made in the EAF�s before final approval is granted? PART I, page 3, B, #1-c: 0 acres to remain undeveloped? What about the 20 -foot untouched border? #1 -g: vehicle trips per day should be calculated for all 8 homes, not just one. (80 instead of 10 ?) #2: (how much earth, etc. will be removed) is answered "0 ", yet Part II, page 2 says over half an acre of topsoil will be removed. page 4, #7: (phases) Project really is multi - phased - -in fact, probably 8 phases. #9: (jobs) 0 jobs created during construction? #15, a - -e (solid waste and sewage): Yes to solid waste. Tk. Co. Landfill for former? d and e - No, we assume! PART II, page 2, #1: (Impact on land: physical change to site) Each checked threshold (slope, construction period, removal of veg. from over 112 ac., removal of topsoil from over 1/2 ac) should be in col. 2 since each will be met or exceeded. Also, will there be any cutting and filling for roads, � co� -� (4uxA >) etc? If so, put under "Other" and check in col. 2. page 3-4, #6 (Effect on surface or groundwater) Yes (all development does), and checked for the 4th threshold (effect on groundwat e-r7 and 7th (siltation, etc.). (Measures to prevent the latter should be carefully planned out.) page 4, #7 (Drainage, runoff, etc.). An earlier version checked 2nd and 3rd thresholds (erosion and incompatible drainage). Presumably the smaller scale of the project will help, but have other measures been planned to prevent these problems? page 5, #10 (Effect on plants and animals): 2nd threshold (removal of more than 1/2 acre of mature woods, etc.) should be checked in col. 2 (2.75 acres to be removed). (Requiring planting of trees by homeowners would mitigate impact.) page 8, #16 (Quality of life -- odors, noise, etc.): Last threshold should be checked in col. 1 (as in earlier form).- project will remove natural barriers to noise, esp. on east side of road. #17 (Health and safety) Last threshold - de -icing chemicals, pesticides, etc. will almost certainly be used by homeowners and DPW. page 9, #18 (Community character) "Precedent" threshold should be checked, at least in col. 1. Other developers are watching how this project is handled to help determine their own. Resolution and Statement to Common Council from the Conservation Advisory Council June 13, 1989, Regarding use of former sewage treatment plant site The Conservation Advisory Council understands and applauds the City's efforts to provide much - needed affordable housing. However, the CAC is concerned that other important needs will be overlooked. The denser the population becomes, the greater is the need for open space and re- creational facilities. If these needs are ignored, we run the risk of repeating mistakes made in many cities - -of producing dehumanizing, overcrowded conditions. Neighborhood parks can provide a critical element of relief. We have heard rumors that the City is considering giving up open space that it now owns (some of the old sewage treatment plant site and perhaps more ?), to Pogo Paolangeli for housing or parking. The Northside- Cascadilla neighborhood is park -poor, and has a large number of citizens without cars, many of whom are elderly or have low incomes. The neighborhood badly needs more park space, for both active and passive recreation. If housing is put on the "Pogo Parcel," this need will be still greater. Therefore, be it RESOLVED that City -owned land at this location be dedicated as parkland and not be transferred to any private individual(s) for housing or commercial development. This statement and resolution were passed unanimously, with one member (John Wertis) absent, on June 12, 1989. - - - -- DRAFT - - -- Please c&ff- 4e-wi�ctn your comments!-I-o June 14, 1989 Dear Mayor Gutenberger and Members of Common Council: The CAC asked me to write to you concerning initiatives the City should undertake to help alleviate problems of global warming. There are a great many things we should be /, doing, but we have come up with a short list which we feel are most critical to implement soon. Although this is not in the form of a resolution, we hope that you will treat it just as carefully. a. Work with the County at coordinating traffic lights in order to decrease idling. Certain intersections - -e.g. along rt. 13- -are especially bad. b. Improve public transit: the City and County could have a much better bus system - -one that runs more frequently and more on time, and gets people where they're going, when they want to go there. Some ideas: i. the City and County should work together on this; U. pursuade Cornell, IC, TC3, and other major employers to subsidize the system. In the Amherst, Mass. area the five area colleges subsidize the buses, which are FREE to anyone; iii. have a system of private vans running all over the City. Cathy Emilian told us that in Latin American countries this works very well - -you can get just about anywhere, anytime. And it's cheap; iv. reduce the price of riding the bus; v. use small vans and run them much more often and on time. c. Pass the shade tree ordinance. d. Improve energy conservation in City buildings. Already, some things have been done, but we suggest that the heating /cooling system in City Hall could be vastly improved, and lighting could be reduced further. OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 PRESS RELEASE June 26, 1989 The Conservation Advisory Council is awarding its June commendation to Margaret Fabrizio who has worked tirelessly to protect the environment, both for our immediate benefit and for future genera- tions. Three examples of her efforts stand out: the beautiful garden she planted in the Ithaca High School courtyard, the concessions she and others negotiated with Mark Finkelstein on his Gun Hill project, and her work to protect Ithaca Falls and Fall Creek. Her dedication, commitment, perserverence, and tact should serve as an inspiration to us all. (Contact person: Betsy Darlington, 273 -0707) "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" r Memo to: County Planning Committee 'C E (Stuart Stein, Chair) From: City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council (Betsy Darlington, Chair) ' Cc: Andrew Mazzella, Finger Lakes Parks Commissioner Tony Ingraham, Finger Lakes Parks Naturalist Members of Ithaca Common Council Mayor Gutenberger City Planning Dept. City Board of Public Works County EMC (Don Barber, Chair; Jim Skaley, Coordinator) Date: July 11, 1989 Re: Need for a County Park System At recent meetings, the CAC has discussed the widely perceived need in the County for more park space. A recent newspaper article written by Tony Ingraham (Finger Lakes State Parks Natural- ist) pointed out that the State Parks are under tremendous pressure-- - not only from development along the borders but also from active sports interests needing more space. The State Parks simply cannot accommodate more of the latter without degrading the natural qualities we all treasure in these parks. Andrew Mazzella and his staff at the Finger Lakes State Parks do an excellent job, but they cannot do it all. Many counties (e.g. Onondaga and Westchester) have programs of active acquisition of parks, but Tompkins County does not. We would like to propose that the County Board look into the feasibility of setting up such a program, for both active and passive recreational use. Many large farms are selling out or being foreclosed. This is one example of a possible opportunity for the County to step in -- perhaps in cooperation with particular municipalities. Field areas of some farms could be readily converted to ball fields, while wooded or other natural areas that many farms encompass could either be left alone entirely or used for passive recreation (hiking, cross - country - skiing, etc.). Another area to look to for acquisition is along the borders of existing parks. Ingraham pointed out that in many cases, the State Park holdings are quite narrow. If these could be enlarged, they would be more valuable for both people and wildlife. The County is growing rapidly, but there has been no provision for accommodating the open space needs that go with this growth. We were fortunate many years ago to have forward - looking (and generous!) landowners who donated land for our State Parks. The CAC feels that we must revive such planning for the future. Otherwise the area could become a far less attractive place to live or visit. At our July 1 meeting, this letter was approved unanimously (Tripp and Wertis, absent). Memo to: Larry Fabbroni, Acting Supt. of Public Works From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Cc: Board of Public Works Common Council and Mayor Planning Dept. Laboratory of Ornithology Dorothy McIlroy 1, CAC members ` Re: Mowing at the Hogs Hole Date: July 11, 1989 At its meeting last night, the CAC discussed the situation at the Hogs Hole, and we would like to thank you for stopping the mowing on City land (the Festival Lands) in the Hogs Hole. It was just by chance that Aldermen Nichols, Johnson, and I happened to arrive while the mowing was in progress. We would like to ask the BPW to establish a clear and environ- mentally sound policy for that area. If any mowing is to occur (just west of the grassy area, where the natural vegetation begins), it must be in the very late summer or fall when birds and other creatures have finished nesting. A schedule of mowing every three years would be more environmentally sound than every year, if indeed the area should be mowed at all. (This, by the way, is the schedule and timing recommended by the federal governments Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, and Soil Conservation Service. Also, the State DEC and PSC discourage- -maybe prohibit -- early - season or more frequent mowing than every three years, on open lands such as along utility rights -of -way.) Perhaps people with more expertise than ourselves could advise the BPW on what the best long -term policy would be for that area. The Laboratory of Ornithology- -Rick Bonney, for example - -could provide sound advice. Or Dorothy McIlroy (probably the number -one expert on the Hogs Hole). If you would like our help in seeking their advice, we'd be happy to provide it. The Hogs Hole, including that vast "weedy" area, is critical to both migratory and nesting birds and should be disturbed as little as possible. We realize that the State Park staff probably thought they were doing the City a favor by mowing that area -- something they have done in the past. Fortunately, this time it was possible to halt the destruction before it had gone too far. Thanks for your help! July 12, 1989 Dear Mayor Gutenberger and Members of Common Council: The Conservation Advisory Council would like to suggest some initiatives that the City could undertake to help alleviate problems of local air quality and global warming. Major contributors to global warming include air pollution, loss of trees (which absorb carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas), and energy inefficiency. Enclosed is an article from Science News with suggestions from the EPA - -many of which are beyond the scope of Common Council. There are a great many things we should be doing, but we have come up with a short list of actions which we feel are most critical to implement soon. We request that Common Council refer these suggestions to the appropriate committee for further action. a. Work with the County and State at further coordination of traffic lights throughout the City in order to decrease idling and unnecessary fuel consumption. Certain intersections - -e.g. along rt. 13 - -are especially bad. b. Improve public transit. The City and County could have a much better bus system - -one that runs more frequently and more dependably. Some ideas: i. The City and County should work together on this. ii. Pursuade Cornell, IC, TC3, and other major traffic generators to heavily subsidize the system. In the Amherst - Northampton part of Mass., the five area colleges subsidize the buses, which are FREE to anyone (and are heavily used by the public). With such subsidies, the price of riding the bus could be substantially reduced (or eliminated) and buses could run more frequently, to more places. These institutions would benefit from lowered infrastructure costs and traffic congestion. iii. Have a system of small vans (privately and /or publicly operated), running on time and more frequently, all over the City and County. Many countries have transit systems of this sort that are accessible, inexpensive, and efficient; one can get just about anywhere, anytime. iv. Reduce the price of riding the bus, even in the event that further subsidies from major traffic generators are not forthcoming. c. Pass the portions of the shade tree ordinance that would apply to trees on private property. d. Improve energy conservation in City buildings. Already, some things have been done, but we suggest that the efficiency of heating /cooling/ lighting systems in City buildings could be improved. Sincerely, 71Js1 ��,�. Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Letter approved unanimously (Tripp and Wertis absent). Cc: City Energy Commission C slip - ?inis- after i has sd to ;care gyring still Jous cake ossi- ise it .ger," sks." 'lam ider the the .ing (ion the ne's hat Dn,,, 'ere first hey ink ind -ire ike ep- ilia 70 rtz .ny re- ;er rs, ed �s. is .e- st. :rs he se or T " ry S. ,d le h is at :o r- i- ss Revealing the finicky functions of fish oil Fats in fish oil exert varied and often conflicting effects on heart - disease risk factors ranging from clotting to cho- lesterol. At this week's meeting in New Orleans of the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology, scien- tists offered explanations for several of the oil's more peculiar properties. In a study of fish oil's anti - clotting action, scientists have now demonstrated in rats that the effect depends on the dosage of fish oil in relation to other kinds of polyunsaturated fats — not the absolute amount of fish oil consumed. If confirmed in humans, the finding may lead to recommendations on how much of the different kinds of polyunsaturated fats people should consume, say PrithlVa Chanmugam, Daniel H. Hwang and Mary Boudreaux, nutrition scientists at Pen- nington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La. In their work, the researchers looked at the interaction between omega -3 fatty acids — the active ingredient in fish oil — and omega -6 fatty acids, in this case derived from safflower oil. Research by others had shown that omega -3s may decrease the risk of artery- blocking clots by suppressing the synthesis of clot - promoting chemicals such as arach- idonic acid (an omega -6 fatty acid) and its metabolites. And Chanmugam says she and her co- workers had demon- strated in rats that higher doses of omega -3s enhance the anti - clotting effect if dietary omega -6 levels are held con- stant. In the group's most recent study, groups of rats ate diets containing three different levels of omega -3s for 16 weeks while their omega -6 intake was altered to maintain a constant dietary ratio of the two fatty acid types. Chanmugam found that the rats' blood platelets made similar amounts of anti - clotting chemicals. She suggests it may be easier to obtain a favorable ratio by controlling intake of both fatty acid types. Other work presented at the meeting begins to explain some of fish oil's odd effects on fat and cholesterol synthesis. Past experiments have shown that while fish oil seems to markedly decrease the amounts of triglycerides and very -low- density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol in human blood, it does not decrease the level of low - density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, the type linked to coronary artery disease. In fact, it seems to in- crease LDL cholesterol levels in some patients (SN: 11/28/87, p.342). This has puzzled scientists because LDL particles are derived from VLDL particles. But new data suggest an explanation, reports nu- tritional biochemist William Harris of the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City. His study indicates that fish oil speeds LDL synthesis by changing the size and chemical composition of certain VLDL particles made by liver cells. Liver cells make VLDL particles of varying sizes, and the smaller ones seem more readily converted to LDL. "We knew that fish oils changed the [overall] output of VLDL and we hypothesized that they might change the size," Harris says. He and co- worker Masahiro Inagaki gave six men with high triglycerides 12 fish oil capsules per day for four weeks, measuring lipid levels before and after treatment. The fish oil not only prompted a marked decrease in the patients' blood triglycerides and VLDL cholesterol, but also changed the size and composition of VLDL particles. Using a vertical column that separates particles by size, the re- searchers found that fish oil treatment caused liver cells to make fewer large VLDL particles and more small ones. Further chemical analysis revealed that the particles shrank because their lipid content had dropped by more than 50 percent, while their protein content stayed the same. Harris hypothesizes that LDL levels rise because the liver makes more of the smaller, protein -rich VLDL particles, which convert to LDL more readily than do larger, lipid -rich VLDL particles. — L Wickelgren EPA offers options to slow global warming The nations of the world could sub- stantially reduce the threat of global warming by instituting a range of policies that do not require a change in basic lifestyle, according to an Environmental Protection Agency report, released in preliminary form last week. "There are quite reasonable policy options available that do make a big difference," says Daniel A. Lashof, an editor of the EPA study. Congress, which is considering several bills to ease global warming, had asked EPA to examine policy options that would stem the atmospheric buildup of green- house gases: carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. Scientists have warned that these gases will raise Earth's surface tempera- ture, with adverse effects on climate, sea levels and health, and have offered sug- gestions for slowing that warming. But until now, no group had completed a comprehensive study on the efficacy of different policies, Lashof notes. "One of the major conclusions is that you don't have to sacrifice economic growth to make a substantial difference in limiting global warming," he says. To test the policy options, EPA as- sembled a computer model of human practices and natural processes affecting the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This model contained six elements plucked from models at several federal agencies and academic research centers. The EPA model showed that govern- ment policies play an extremely impor- tant role, and could either substantially decrease or increase global warming. No one action could stabilize the climate on its own. But in general, practices that reduce coal burning would make the biggest cuts in the growth of greenhouse gases. EPA's list of most effective specific policies includes: • improving energy efficiency in cars, home heating and industry. *developing biomass fuels, such as trees grown on special plantations. Wood MARCH 25, 1989 SC izV', C e- R e.W & from these trees could be gasified, then burned to produce electricity. This would not add any net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, since the trees would ab- sorb carbon dioxide as they grew. • introducing an energy- emissions fee that taxes fossil -fuel burners, with the heaviest taxes falling on coal burners. • creating reforestation projects to ab- sorb carbon dioxide from the at- mosphere. e completing a phaseout of CFCs and a freeze on methyl chloroform, both of which add to global warming and destroy stratospheric ozone. • developing low -cost solar energy technology. Such policies, along with others, would slow global warming to a rate of 0.6° to 1.4 °C per century — at least 60 percent slower than what would occur without any policy response —and reduce its total magnitude, the report contends. If gov- ernments want to stop global warming completely, they must take much stronger action, essentially phasing out coal use during the next century, EPA says. The model demonstrates that indus- trialized countries cannot stabilize greenhouse gases on their own; develop- ing countries also must reduce their emissions. It also shows that Earth would experience much more significant warm- ing if governments delayed action for 20 years. At a hearing last week, Sen. Max Baucus (D- Mont.) said, "The policy op- tions report makes a compelling argu- ment for action now. The question con- fronting us is, will we heed this warning ?" Baucus introduced a bill advocating some of the policies examined by EPA, such as raising energy- efficiency require- ments and banning CFCs by the year 2000. Missing from the bill was any mention of an emissions fee for fossil -fuel burning. Lashof says the idea of a fee is gaining some public support, while William Megonnell at the Edison Electric Institute in Washington, D.C., contends it remains politically unpopular. — R. Monastersky 183 Memo to: All recipients of the CAC s memo of July 11/89 Cc: Andrew Mazzella, Commissioner, Finger Lakes State Parks From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Date: July 17, 1989 Re: Mowing at Hogs Hole, on Festival Lands Contrary to my memo of July 11, the lush area of waist -high vegetation on City land at the Hogs Hole (west of Treman Marina, just west of the lawn area) was in fact mowed on Monday, July 10th, the day after the mowing was temporarily stopped. Finger Lakes State Parks also mowed their own land, north of the wooded area. Apparently, Andrew Mazzella at F.L.S.P. called Larry Fabbroni (Acting Supt. of Public Works for the City) to ask if they should resume mowing. Larry did not understand clearly what area Andy was talking about, and gave the go- ahead. The idea which FLSP and the City have been operating under- - namely, that the area should be mowed - -is a sound one. There has been a well- documented decline in field and meadow birds as open areas have either reverted back to forest or been develop- ed. (Meadowlark, goldfinch, song sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, field sparrow, to name a few.) We have an opportunity here to help reverse this trend. Now we simply need to refine the system so that the mowing is done at an ecologically sound time of the year. For many creatures, mowing in early -mid July is disastrous. For nesting birds, this timing is poor, but would have been even worse a month ago. I am hoping that well all be able to work together to come up with an environmentally sound policy for the area. It may be that a fall mowing every one, two, or three years would be desirable from all points of view, but we need advice on this from people with expert information. I think all of this demonstrates the need for a City Parks Commission, with members well informed on environmental matters. Memo to: P &D Bd. and Dept. William Lower: 433 Floral Ave. Jagat Sharma: 312 E. Seneca St. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC Members BPW City Engineer Building Dept . Date: July 18, 1989 From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Re: Maple Ave Apts. (39 bedrooms; east of Fairview Hgts., west of bike trail) Members of the EAF subcommittee (Farrell, Jones, Darlington) discussed the new draft of the EAF, recd July 12/89. We did not receive any new plats, so if there have been changes, our comments might not be relevant (depending, of course, on what the changes have been.) Recommendation: Negative declaration, provided that drainage problems and sidewalk/ roadway visibility problems are solved, and that adequate erosion/ sedimentation control plans (esp. for construction period) are presented and implemented (see memo of June 24 with June 27th addendum). We are glad to see that natural gas rather than electricity will be used for heating. Comments: 1. We continue to be concerned about the trees on the bank owned by Fairview Heights. The driveway will go right next to these. Will they tolerate the soil compaction and changes in drainage, or will they die -- either immediately or over the next ten years? 2. We also are concerned about visibility from the driveway, especially of the sidewalk. Will Fairview Heights trim their shrubs and trees? Specific comments on EAF ,s: 1. We ignored the SEAF since it was not required, this being a Type I action. 2. Part I, page 3, B-3: (Veg. to be removed) "None" answer is inconsistent with answers given on page 1, A -3. B-5: (Plans for reveg.) Why "N/A" (Not Applicable)? (And inconsistent with plat.) B-2: (Material to be removed) How much earth? page 4, B-9: (Jobs created) No maintenance workers? page 5, B-19: (Noise) Will this be undergrad. housing? If so, there will be noise! (Stereos, parties, etc.) 3. Part II (Please note that if a threshold might be matched or exceeded, check goes in column 2, and further explanation is given in Part III.) page 2, #1: (Slopes) 1st threshold in col. 2 8th threshold (veg. to be removed): col 1 or 2 page 4, #7: (Drainage) last 2 thresholds: col. 1 or 2 page 6, #11: (Views) 2nd threshold: col. 1 (from bikeway) page 7, #16: (Transportation) Yes (as indicated by response to last threshold) page 8, #17: (Health and Safety) Yes. Last two thresholds: de- icing, and 'other" - sidewalk visibility rr- n d of U ,170A J Memo to: P &D Bd. and Dept. Ithaca Town Board & epte. -a4" ce, TQ6Jr 1 �4Kn...q lkSOa+A Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC Members BPW City Engineer Building Dept. Date: July 21, 1989 From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Tslz�s� Council Chair Re: EAF for South Hill Recreation Trait--portion in the City The EAF Subcommittee (Farrell, Waldron, Darlington) discussed the above EAF and reached the following conclusions: Recommendation: Positive declaration unless certain conditions are met and certain information is acquired. Comments: The CAC has always supported the idea of some improvements to the existing trail. Also, we are very glad to see that the Town has reduced the width by two feet (to 0 and eliminated the paving from most sections. Our major concerns are: - 1. Unresolved questions about the use of bottom ash. By Tuesdays meeting, these answers may be in hand. Barbara Blanchard pointed out in her statement (with the EAF) that "not all`the answers are in,' and that use of bottom ash is quite new. If it is indeed entirely safe, using it makes sense from a number of points of view, including environmental ones. If, however, there are possible risks, the City watershed is not the place to experiment. Also, we are not spre that the proposed use fits any of the 3 uses allowed by the DEC (listed under Barbara's #4), but this too, we hope, will be resolved by Tuesdays meeting. Finally, the depth to the water table is given as 2.5+ feet (Part I, page 2, #5 -c), and Barbara's statement indicates (page 2, #6) that use of this material where a water table is high could be precluded. What s the story on that? 2. Width of trail. Although 6 feet is a big improvement over 8 feet, and should help appease some of the concerns voiced both by neighbors and others over any widening of the trail (from its current width), we still feel that 4 feet makes more sense, given the setting. Also, we hope that the 11 feet of cleared width (average) is just for the construction phase, and that it is not intended that this width be maintained. 3. Easement. The terms of the easement were not included with the EAF, but we have been told that they say the easement is for this or 'other municipal purposes." While it is true that if a road were proposed along this stretch at some future date, environmental review would have to take (over —>) place, we have not yet seen an instance, at least locally. where an environmental review stopped a project. Thus, we continue to be concerned that the easements conditions open the door to such a future development. Governments change, and therefore the conditions of the easement seem to us to be important considerations. 4. What post- construction maintenance activities can be expected, and will these affect the answers to the EAF? (For example, will 11 -foot width be kept trimmed, and what vehicles will be used ?) 5. Are the two trees, slated for removal at Crescent Pl., covered by the new Shade Tree Ordinance? 6. Will bollards be placed at entrances to discourage motorized vehicles? Specific comments on the EAF: (By the way, this was much more carefully filled out than most of the EAF's we have seen - -as reflected by the small number of our comments.) Part I, page 2, A - -14: small tributary streams of Six -Mile Creek cross the site. -16: also P -1 zoning page 3, B-1 -b: .5 acres initially and ultimately? (developed) (inconsistent with A -3, {gage 1) page 4, 15-a: What will be done with such things as old culverts when new ones are put in? 22: Zoning - and P -1 23: DEC permit needed for the bottom ash? Part H: page 2, 111: Based on answers given in Part I, first two thresholds and the fourth one should be in col. 2, since the thresholds are equalled or exceeded. page 3, #5: Six-Mile Creek could be affected if bottom ash proves to be unsafe or if erosion occurs during construction. What erosion and sedimentation control measures will be implemented, esp. where slopes are 15%? #6: (Same comment, 3rd and 4th thresholds) page 6, #11: (Aesthetics) Going from a narrow, wild trail to one that is 6' wide, with 11' of clearing, seems like a substantial change. A Memo to: P &D Bd. and Dept. Ithaca Town Bd., Planing Bd., and Planning Dept. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC Members BPW City Engineer Building Dept. Date: July 23, 1989 From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Re: Use of bottom ash along South Hill Rec. Trail I talked to John Martin, Sr. Extension Associate in Environmental Research at Cornell about the use of bottom ash for the bike trail. Here's what he said: 1. He is not an expert on bottom ash and we should check with DEC about its use in this situation. (Peter Weed plans to call Tom Male on Monday.) 2. It is thought that harmful materials are pretty well bound up in the ash and are unlikely to leach out, at least under the conditions proposed here. - 3. The potential for problems arising is greater in situations where large quantities are used in one place, esp. if there is high ground water - -e.g. under the proposed skating rink. 4. The amount to be used for the bike trail would be so small that it shouldn't pose a hazard, and even if some materials did leach out, it would be so diluted as to be undetectable. 5. Re another use being made of bottom ash, I asked him what he thought of using it as a traction agent on icy roads, and he said he felt it was preferable to salt. Assuming that everything checks out with the DEC, it seems that the use of bottom ash for the bike trail would be perfectly safe. In case anyone else is as ignorant about bottom ash as I was, it turns out that cinders are bottom ash. Memo to: ILPC members Leslie Chatterton (Preservation /NeiQhborh000 PiLinner) Cc: Common Council and mayor P &D Board BPW Building Dept. - Eric Datz CAC members Ralph Naeh, City Attorney Re: EAF for Cornell Heights designation as a historic district (local designation) From: Betsy Darlin ton, Coneervetion Adv. Council Cheir Date: .August 1, 199 EAF Subcommittee (Wsildren, Wertis, Darlington) reviewed this EAF. Recommendation: Negative Decl& ration (No significant imnaet) Comments: Two minor corrections: Part I, page 4, 14 -b: Fall Creek should be checked Part II, page 10, #19: (Type) Change "enhance" to "inhibit." �j Memo to:Members of Common Council and Mayor Cc: County Board Conservation Advisory Council members From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Date: Aug. 9, 1989 y Re: Siting of baling station I heard on the radio this mornin- that a meeting is planned for next Monday, to override the vlayor's veto of Councils resolution re the baling station. The CAC has not yet discussed the site, since we plan to do so after the DEIS is out. Therefore, the following comments are my own, and I have no idea how the other members feel. I would not send you this memo before our discussion of the DEIS, had your veto override not come up. (For one thing, I might change my mind, in light of the DEIS.) 1. After hearing Barbara Eckstrom, Ken Teter (sp ?), and Tom Niederkorn's presenta- tion, and barring things I haven't thought of that might come out in the DEIS, - my major concerns have to do with possible ground water pollution; loss of permeable surface in a flat, poorly drained area; and the ability of the wastewater treatment plant to handle the liquid effluent that is to be taken to it from the site. 2. These concerns would be common to any site the County selects. 3. I understand that the County E1iC supports this location, barring unforeseen problems that the DEIS might turn up. (I think they also have concerns like mine, in #1, above, but also realize these would apply to all sites.) 4. The airport site is a major breeding ;round for woodcocks. This is a spot where males father for several months each spring to do their spectacular aerial courtship displays. I have led trips there every spring for perhaps a dozen or so years (and others led such trips in previous years), to the delight of the many people who have come. Furthermore, there is an important wetland nearby, to the south, and I am almost certain the site drains into the wetland - -not only a concern regarding possible toxics but also in terms of changes in drainage patterns.-IPS C40 a,ti,wQo,^�aw -�- s��c -�o,- VI.." 5. Judging from the presentation given the CAC by the County, I think the merchants' fears are, for the most part, unfounded. I think this will be a well -run, carefully planned facility. Especially with Barbara Eckstrom at the helm, I have confidence that it will be done right. 6. As someone so aptly pointed out at the last Common Council meeting, the establishment of at least one nearby protesting merchant is a major producer of solid waste. The same could be said about a number of other businesses along the road. Producing waste is fine, but processing it nearby is not? 7. Proximity to the railroad could prove, in time, to be extremely important. Recycling is only just getting started. The railroad could be indispensable to meeting the County's goal of recycling 40% of our solid waste. 8. I am sorry that Common Council has not had a recent presentation by the people who are doing the actual planning for the facility. 9. While the County probably should be investigating other sites at the same time, I think it is premature - -and probably inappropriate - -to vote on this site, at this time. J sc S7 r� Memo to: P &D Bd. and Dept. (esp. Peter Weed) r Francis J. Paolangeli, 129 W. Falls St. ) Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC Members BPW City Engineer Building Dept. Date: August 28, 1989 From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory -� Council Chair Re: EAF for Subdivision of "Pogo Parcel' into 22 house lots The CAC's EAF subcommittee (Tripp, Wertis, Darlington) met this morning to review the "Pogo Parcel' EAF. Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Comments: 1. The project could be greatly improved by arranging the lots so that the open green space would be along Lake Ave. This would be especially nice, combined with turning Lake Ave. into a greenway. We understand Mr. Paolangeli and the Planning Dept. are working hard at doing something along these lines. This would also help mitigate impacts on Cascadilla Creek, a lushly vegetated and scenic resource. 2. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be required before any construction begins, esp. in view of the proximity to the creek. Given the flat terrain, this should be relatively simple to achieve. 3. The applicant seemed to be unclear as to whether the EAF should address simply the subdivision, or the development that would result from subdivision approval. He had no way of knowing that it must address the latter. Many of our specific comments on the EAF reflect this difficulty. 4. One impact of the project will be the elimination of scenic views across the now -empty site - -to Cascadilla Creek from one direction, and to West Hill from the other. The height and number of buildings, and their arrangement, will determine how large an impact this will be. 5. Since this is a Type I action under SEQR, no Short EAF was required so we did not review it. Specific comments on the LEAF: Part I Page 2, #5b: depth to bedrock should be given c: depth to water table is given as 10 ". Is this a guess or has that depth been determined by testing or other means? (We would guess that the depth is highly variable at this site.) #11: (Currently used for recreation ?) Yes #12: (Scenic views) Yes (to creek and to surrounding hills) Page 3, fla and b: (Acreage to be developed- -100 %, and to remain undeveloped - -10%) are inconsistent (though we understand what is meant since the intent is to leave 10% as green space). f: (Off- street parking) How many proposed? g: W vehicle trips) An estimate should be given. #2: (Soil, etc. to be removed from site) Would excavated material be used on site to raise the current level, or taken off the site? (Not knowing how big the houses would be nor if they'd have basements means applicant probably cant estimate how much material will be removed. Are basements even allowed in a flood plain ?) Page 4, #15a, b, c: (Disposal of solid waste) Yes -- County Landfill. e: (Disposal on site ?) No (We realize applicant didn't understand the question; he made clear in "e" what the intent is, however.) #16: (Pesticides) Homeowners are likely to (although perhaps less likely than in suburban areas with huge lawns). Page 5, 419: (Noise during construction) Yes 421: (Water usage) Estimate should be given (wed guess maybe 3500 -4000 gal. per day). (70 residents x 50+ gal. per day) Part R Page 2, #1: (Large physical change to site) 5th threshold-- constr. for more than one year or more than one phase we think should be checked (given the present information). Last threshold (other - -flood plain) should be in col 2; mitigated by compliance with laws for building in such a zone. Also under 'other ": certainly putting 22 buildings on the site will be a "large physical change" to site. Page 3, #5: (Effect on water body) 3rd threshold (Cascadilla Creek) should be checked in col. 2 and 3. (More human disturbance, more runoff, loss of views. Rearrangement of lots and green space should help mitigate the impacts, as would erosion and sedimentation controls during construction, and closing off of Lake Ave.) (Of course, reducing number of lots also would mitigate impact!) #6: (Effect on surface or groundwater) Yes. 4th threshold (ground- water) should be checked in col. 1 - -all development affects groundwater. Last threshold -- siltation, etc. - -in col. 2 and 3. (Control measures during construction would mitigate the impact.) Page 4, #7: (Drainage) Yes. Under 'other ": change from permeable to impermeable surfaces. Page 6, #11: (Views, neigh. character) 3rd threshold- -elim. of views- -Col. 2 and 3. Arrangement, number, and height of buildings could mitigate impact. Page 7, 713: (Open space, recreaction) 1st threshold (permanent foreclosure of rec. opportunity) - -Col. 2 and 3. (Mitigate by putting green space in better location.) #14: (Transportation) Parking, already a problem on narrow Lake Ave., could be worsened. Page 8- 9, #17: (Chemicals) Last threshold (de- icing, pesticides, etc.) - -Col. 1 #18: (Community character) the "visual blank" under 'other impacts" is the open space that allows for views of surrounding hills and Cascadilla Creek. (End of report) Memo to: P &D Bd. and Dept. J Douglas G. Look /Holt Associates, 217 N. Aurora St. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC Members BPW City Engineer Building Dept. Date: Aug 28, 1989 From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory (� �• Council Chair Re: EAF for Center Ithaca expansion into space under parking garage The CAC's EAF subcommittee (Wertis, Tripp, Darlington) reviewed the above EAF today. Recommendation: Positive declaration (could have a significant impact) Comments: 1. Safety for pedestrians, especially at night, is our major concern. Even if well lit, the lack of visibility of the alley behind the project could make this an unsafe place. Three possible mitigating measures might be considered: posting an all-night security guard; having a second arcade (or passageway), to line up with the existing N -S alley; and installing a "Blue Light" alarm system like Cornell ,s. Having some entrances to businesses be in the back might also help. The problem of J- walking across Green St. we felt would probably be no worse than it is now. 2. A second concern is with the replacement of 55 ( ?) parking spaces with businesses that will increase the need for parking. Perhaps the parking garage has sufficient capacity to deal with this? 3. We feel it is important to design both front and back as aesthetically as possible, and to use a lot of vegetation. A second passageway- -from Green St. to the alley - -might help break up the potentially dull Green St. facade. Specific comments on LEAF: Page 1, A -3: SG. ft. figures don't add up, and are inconsistent with those given elsewhere. Page 2, #4: (Drainage) 100% poor. (Zero infiltration of the soil - -it ,s paved.) (Applicant probably meant man -made drainage.) Page 3, B-1 -g: # of vehicle trips per day should be estimated. Page 4, #11: Parking will have to be relocated. (Page 5, #19: (Construction noise) (Already changed to "yes" by Peter Weed) Part II: No comments beyond those made by Peter Weed Part III: Good comments by Peter Weed! (Pg. 2, No.l, and Pg. 8, No-17): -+ further mitigations -- entrance doors on backs; passageway from Green St. to the alley; installation of a "Blue Light" system like Cornell's; Secwy,�,j (Pg.7, No.13, Mitigation) Do you mean constriction? (Not construction) (End of report) CITY OF ITHACA l oe EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Sept. 3, 1989 Mark Finkelstein State St. Associates 304 E. Sate St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear I'Vark.: For the first time in a long time I just drove past your Gun Shop 'Hill project, and noticed the fine job that has been done on the steep bank next to the parking lot on the north side of Lake St. I wanted to thank you - -and cornrnerd you!- -for this. That steep, deeply eroded bank has been a troublesome spot for years, and it looks as though the problem has finally been corrected. The trees along the rim, in addition to helping slow runoff, should also eventually form a good screen for the parked cars. Seeing this gives me confidence that, once all the work on the buildings on the south side is completed, that bank as well will be rehabilitated. By the way, I like the looks of the buildings- -for once, something that's not made of "Sharma - block ", and that has some architectural interest. Sincerely, _3z.Asy Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair Cc: Common Council and Miayor CAC members f� fi r t TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 } d� Memo to: Board of Public Works and DPW Cc: Common Council and Mayor Planning Board CAC From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Date: Sept . 5, 1989 Re: Satellite dish in Stewart Park �,I Why has a huge satellite dish been installed on public land, near the water to the west of the Boat House at Stewart Park? 1 2ESOLUTION TO COMMON COUNCIL FROMI { CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL REGARDING TRANSFER OF FESTIVAL LANDS TO STATE Sept. 12, 1989 WHEREAS, a large portion of the Festival Lands provides a critical resting and feeding area for many species of migrating birds and butterflies, and an important and accessible place for humans who wish to observe these species, and W 7 development associated with expansion of the Treman iviarina would convert that area into a mowed lawn, thus eliminating its value for wildlife, and Wi iE.REAS, expansion of the :diarina would eliminate the buffer between the marina and the Hogs Hole Wetland, a tiny but valuable vestige of the vast wetland that once lined the southern shore of Cayuga Lake, and Wi EREAS, nontidal wetlands nationwide are being lost at a rate of 300,000 - 500,000 acres per year *, and the Federal and New York State govern- ments have programs to protect and expand wetlands, and —MEREAS, the plan proposed by the Finger Lakes State Parks director for development of a road, parking lot, comfort station, and new picnic area adjacent to the riogs' Tole could significantly reduce and degrade the wetland, and WHEREAS, the development plan would preclude eventual expansion of the -logs Hole, and WHEREAS, the Festival Lands, State -owned lands to the north, and the marina already are enjoyed by many people for their beauty, quiet, abundance of wildlife, and absence of cars and asphalt, and are used as a living laboratory by college classes, and Vi: ic.REAS, the proposed alterations would irreparably damage the delicate balance that currently exists between active and passive uses, now therefore, BE IT :tESOLVE_D, that Common Council of the City of Ithaca retain full ownership and control over the Festival Lands, and BE IT i~ U RTI-.E < IZLSOLV ED, that Common Council send a strong message to the New YorK State Office of Parks, Recreation, and i- ;istoric Preservation, opposing the plans for marina expansion and associated development next to the l;o�s' Tole. * Aug. 11, 1989 article in Ithaca Journal by columnist, i'leal Peirce (Resolution approved unanimously, all members present, on Sept. 11/89.) OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 September 12, 1989 7 TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 Commissioner Orin Lehman Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Agency Bldg. 1, Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12238 Re: Wetland, Festival Lands, Dear Commissioner Lehman: Treman Marine Park development At its Sept. 11th meeting, the Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to oppose the transfer of the Festival Lands to the State. The Council feels that the proposed expansion of the marina and the park development plan could have a significant impact on the critical wetland known as the Hogs Hole. Everything must be done to protect- -and indeed, enhance and expand - -the Hogs Hole. Furthermore, the aesthetics of this currently lovely park would be irreparably damaged. The marina expansion would bring the marina up to the edge of the Hogs Hole, but more importantly it would also put the western boundary of the marina right next to what is now a seasonally wet field of great importance to birds migrating along a major flyway. The proposed road would pass along the far side of this field from the marina, and the field itself would be turned into a lawn. The precise boundary of the Hogs Hole is open to debate, but those who are most familiar with it tell us that, in terms of bird life, the brushy areas, wetland grass areas, and field are the most critical. Miuch of this area is not currently within the artificial 'boundary line recently drawn by FLSP. It is true that the field has, at one time or another, been filled above its natural level, and it would certainly be better to restore it to its former glory as a wetland. ; iowever, it nevertheless has significant value for many migrating bird and butterfly species. The same is true of the State -owned field farther to the north which also is to become another lawn. The whole area is a popular birding spot, and is used as a living laboratory for college classes. These are valid and valued uses of the part:. There is some dispute over the actual boundaries of the -togs Hole ;wetland. The road and one of the new parking lots 'etc.) would be right next to the Ho -s' tole, as defined by F LSP, and through parts of it, according to others. In any event, the proposed development would undoubtedly have a significant Impact on it - -from more noise, people, trash, and pollutants from cars. In addition, installation of the nevi, An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program facilities would preclude eventual expansion of the wetland into some of its former range. 'We urge you to reject the expansion of the marina and associated develop- ment proposed for the Hoos' Hole area. We look forward to discussing the issue further with you. Sincerely, Betsy Darlington, C AC Chair (This letter was approved by unanimous vote, all members present.) Cc: FLSP Director, Andrew ix4azzella Assemblyman martin Luster State Senator James Seward DEC Commissioner Thomas Jorlin; Governor Mario Cuomo Charles Smith (Cornell Lab. of Ornith.) Herbert En7man, Tk. Co. i✓iv1C Richard Bonney, ornithologist, naturalist Dorothy MicIlroy, ornithologist John Confer, ornithologist, biology professor Robert Dirig, lepidopterist, naturalist; Bailey Hortorium (Cornell) Ithaca Common Council tviayor Gutenber er Rep. Miaurice l-finchey Margo Clynes, FLSP Commission Stuart Stein, Tk. Co. Board Don Wilson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Doria ;i ;-ins, Citizens to Save Our Parks Richard Evans, ornithologist naturalist, teacher -Tov%� 71Y, v-u ,A,, TLS? ti4ALra�k4 ' W" -1 map �e� Biology Department Ithaca College Ithaca, N`{ 14850 Sept 14, 19.8.3 Commissioner Orin Lehman Office. of Parks, Recreation and Historic Pneservatior, Agency Building 1, Empire State Plaza Alb any„ NY 12238 Dear Co mmi ssi oner Lehman, I am writing with regards to the proposal to expand marina facilities at the Treman Marine Park. I am asking that the natural ecosystem of the marshy Hog Hole and the integral area around the wetland be left in its natural state. Much of the wildlife that uses the wetland is quite secretive and requires a buffer from human disturbance. Other forms of wildlife in the vicinity of the Hog Hale use the buffer itself, and are rarely found elsewhere in the City of Ithaca. The proposed access road (Preliminary Development Plan, revised 11-2 - 58) depicts several changes that would greatly diminish the value of this area for wildlife, for those who wish to observe and study wildlife (a quite abundant cliental in the Ithaca area), and for those who seek peace and tranquility in a natural area. The current proposed new road (11 -2 -88) and conversion of a rarely -mowed fields to lawns, and the proposed new parking lot would largely destroy the value of this area for wildlife. Let me give you a few of the many specific examples of the loss from this proposal. Last week (9- 12 -89) 1 took: my ornithology class on its first field trip to the three best areas near Ithaca that 1 know abou to show a variety of birds, including the Hog Hole as one of these areas. We observed two Great Blue Herons and a Black - crowned Night Heron- The Great Blue flushed out of a roost tree near the Hog Hole as we approached the proposed road from the South more than 100 yds from these_ The night heron was spatted at a considerable distance, and since we did not approachs it remained perched over the Hog Hole. These birds, especially the night heron, are usually quite why, easily flushed, and usually not found near areas with human disturbance. That is, they require a buffer zone. The proposed changes Yould eliminate this buffer. Exactly at the location of the proposed road is an area with a broken, on partially open, forest canopy. The ground cover in this area is quite dense, which encourages man,: species of bird=_ and discourages random entrance by picnickers. At this spot I was able to show the class a pair of Carolina Wrens, two Cardinals, and a Pileated Woodpecker. If this tuffer area around the Hog Hole were "cleaned up" or converted to a r o,7--d the hEror:=_. would be gone tide to disturbance and the _.then t•iyds would be gone due to loss of habitat i While the proposed new read would bring much more traffic and human pressure on the wildlife in the Hag Hole, the proposed new parking lot and comfort station would directly eliminate one of the nicest spats for wildlife in our immediate area. The latest dredging of the inlet Creek channel created a large marsh with considerable wildlife until the dikes were disrupted. Remnants of the marsh still support +-seer, Heron, Belted Kingfisher, and numerous frog specie=_-_ Common Snipe, Woodcock, Mallard, and teal occur in migration, and certainly Mallard nest there. I think that construction of the parking lot in the proposed site may violate our state wetlands act. Has it been documented by wildlife experts of the DEC whether this area is under the protection of the wetlands act? Wouid'nt it be appropriate to determine this before one state agency violates a law enforced by another- agency? In addition to the wetland wildlife, numerous sparrows, Savannah, Field, and Song, nest in the unmowed fields in the vicinity of the proposed parking lot. During fall, flacks of sparrows occur in these fields, and swallows aggregate along the south end of Cayuga Lake. On cold, days the swallows feed on insects above the seldom m- -.Wowed fields, but do not aggregate over- nearby mowed fields which seem not to provide a food source. Accipiter hawks are mane commonly seen have than is normal, partially because the habitat attracts their prey, and because the geography of the lake shoreline focuses their migration over this area. In addition, with the rise and decline of rodent populations, there are some fall seasons when the area attracts Rough- legged and Red-tailed Hawks, which stopover for 1 months during fall migration_ Within the City of Ithaca there are several areas which provide pleasant- picnic sites. Examples are Stewart Park, the share of Inlet Creek along Rt. 8S, much of Treman Marina, areas along Cascadilla Creel-: and Fall Creek, and Iowan Buttermilk Falls State park. Nearby, there are additional state parr: lands, idyllic campus areas (especially the Cornell Plantations), and other areas with public access that provide extensive open areas with mowed lawns. On the other hand, the fwnmwrly extensive wetlands and other wildlife habitat around the southern, and of Cayuga Lake are nearly gone. Fuentes Bind Sanctuary once included the site of our _junior and senior, high schools as well as a portion of Rt. 13. Some springs this area is referred to as the goose pastures because of its wet nature and previous wildlife populations. Arthur A. Allen, some t. i mes de_.cn i bed as the first Professor of Ornithology, got his doctor- &tE st!:.�y a ng m.-rshiand wildlife in what is no" Stewart. Payk7 which no longer- has a marsh. The City of Ithaca has lost most of its open areas with natural habitat that surpant a diversity of wildlife. Hog Hole, its buffer =pace, the marshy areas of the proposed comfort station and parking lot, and the ,.seedy fields in this vicinity are.-bout the list. remnants of w i l o lands. The proposed marina exoansion and its attendant changes in this area would destroy Most of the 1 i t t I remaining net _. `l n E-Z r, _ _ .u`_ :. don't do that. , CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Sept. 15, 1989 Franklin P. Cism, Jr. RR 2 Harpursville, NY 13787 Dear Mr. Cism: Thank you for your kind letter. I'm not sure just what information you would like about Ithaca's CAC, so I'll just give you a general idea of what we do. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me again. One task we have been assigned by the City's Common Council is to review all the environmental assessments that are done for projects in the City. For each assessment, I ask two other members to join me to do the evaluation. We go through each assessment carefully, and make recommendations to the lead agency, both as to whether we feel a positive or negative declaration is called for and as to specific areas of concern that need attention. Beyond that, we advise Common Council (or any other individual or body we choose) on any environmental issues we feel should be addressed. We have written articles (e on pesticides - -esp. lawn chemicals), started an environmental hints cartoon in a weekly paper, and made recommendations about legislation we felt was needed in the City (a smoking ordinance, conservation overlay zones, and so on). %hen a particular action is contemplated in the City, we take a stand on it if we feel there could be significant problems. Common Council permits us to act freely. We are under no pressure -- either by Council, the Mayor, or any department in City Hall - -to take stands in one direction or another. Since we are purely advisory, anyone we give advise to can take it or leave it. The Council has 9 voting members, up to two of whom may live outside the City of Ithaca. We have liaisons from (and to) a variety of other groups: Board of Public Works, Planning Board, Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, Recycling Task Force, and Six - ;Mile Creek Committee, for example. v" e meet once a month, and have field trips when we need to see what's up. The current membership is active and enthusiastic- -which makes the Council fun to serve on. Kest ywishes, BetsyiLarlim,ton, hair 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program N TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 i✓emo to: IURA Plannin- Board and Dept. Planning/ Environmental Research Consultants, 310 West State Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BP`W and DPW Building Dept. Date: Sept. 15, 1989 Re: EAF for Third St. Industrial Park (access rd.autilities, grading, landscaping to serve potential new industrial sites). From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair The CAC's EAF subcommittee (Tripp, Broberg, Darlington) met Sept. 14th to consider the above EAF. Recommendation: Positive declaration. (Project could have a significant impact and a dEIS should be required). Major concerns: 1) Increases in surface runoff (from loss of permeable surfaces) 2) Potential for greater flooding of adjacent sites during a flood, resulting from the proposed increase in elevation. (it'ater which would have spread over a larger area, at a shallower depth, could concentrate on the adjacent, lower -lying properties.) 3) Potential pollution of ground and surface water. Loss of permeable surfaces would mean pollutants flowing directly into waterways without the beneficial effects of filtering through the soil. (De- icers, biocides, pollutants from cars, e.g.) 4) Possible air pollution - -esp. of concern for nearby residential neighborhood. 5) Traffic problems at 3rd St. and t. 13. at. 13 may already be at near - capacity. Adding 240 employees to the site, plus the inevitable truck traffic throughout the day, could create greater problems than the report indicates. (Although at very end - -p. 45 - -it does acknowledge this.) 6) Without having a copy of the covenants, it was impossible for us to know what sorts of problems (e.o. air duality, life safety) could come with industries that located here. 7) This project was perhaps planned at a time when unemployment in the City was higher. Given the current labor shortage, will there be job training programs, for local under- or un- employed persons, as part of the "deal" for a company moving in? If not, wont the industries have to pull in workers from other ;daces, increasing our problems with traffic, conhestion, and housing? The beneficial increase in the tax base from the new industries could be eroded by expenditures for copin, with the added problems. This aspect was not touched on in the report, but should be in the dEIS. 8) Throughout the report, there were a variety of inconsistencies, contra- Li length in written report. (Col. 1 ( ?) under 'other impacts ") Although the written report says the effects will be beneficial unclogging of existing drains increases in runoff, alterations of flood waters, and increases in impervious surfaces could all have an adverse impact. #8: (Air quality) Yes. Depends on industries that locate there. Third impact (emission rate) and 'other impacts" should be checked in col. 2. (Unless covenants would prevent potential problems.) #10: (Non- threatened species) Yes. First threshold (interfere with ... any wildlife species) - -col. I. A huge rabbit population lives on the site. (Maybe they would say this should be in col. 2f) Page 7, #13: (Effect on open spaces, rec. opport.): Yes -- "Other impacts " - -col. 1. Impact on Community Gardens. Report does not fully describe the changes. Will they be moved? Restricted to a smaller area? '-;ave all members been given a chance to comment on the changes? (We found the reports many disparaging comments about the current site to be inappropriate.) #14: (Transportation) Yes. Col. 2 for 2nd (traffic problems) and 3rd (10 or more large trucks per 8 -hour period) thresholds, and 'other impacts" (rt. 13 congestion). 240 more employees, plus added truck traffic, could indeed have a potentially large impact. #15: (Impact on energy supply) Yes. lst threshold (5% increase) -- col. 2. This will depend on what industries locate here. Page 8, #16: (Odors, noise, glare, etc.) Yes. Col 2 for 2nd and 3rd thresholds: (odors and noise). Possible impact on nearby residences should be of special concern. #17: (� iealth and safety) Yes. Col. 2 for 2nd threshold (hazardous ernissions, risk of explosions), and 4th (use of de- icers). Use of biocides- - perhaps col. 1, not 2. #19:(Controversy) tiho knows about it, other than City iall insiders? (This comes up numerous times in written report as well.) Pawn III (written part of report): Page 4, para. 2: Prior to construction of rt. 13, the area had a long history of public use -- Steamboat Landing, e.g., was a focal point of activity for many years. Page 5, para. 1: Proximity to a residential neighborhood should be mentioned as well. Some houses are as close as - -and maybe closer than - -the bowling alley, for instance. Page 6, #2, para. 1: ow visible will the site be from the water and from rt. 89? #3: (iviitigatin. measures) V hat do the covenants say? #4: ( "...no adverse impacts" on land use) See earlier comments, 5 impact? Page 24, 4-a, b, c: (tval. of traffic impacts) As already stated, we feel the impacts could be significant, and adjusting the turn signal and timing of lights could alleviate, but not eliminate, problems. d, e: We feel that an increase in traffic problems is indeed contrary to local needs and goals. Re controversy, who knows about it? (Page 30--extra page) Page 32, 4: (Eval. of impact of electric lines) Since the report says the effects of exposure have not been determined, we feel that a conclusion that any impacts "are not important to the City" is unjustified. Page 34: (Community Gardens) 'Will they end up with a smaller area? Page 37, top of page: Derogatory statements here and elsewhere are inap- propriate. In fact, one might argue that there are nearby uses that are more unsightly. Page 42, 3-a: (Relocations of plots) 'What relocations? None were mentioned earlier. 3-c: Vie would like to know more about calcium chloride for this use. 'What pollution problems might it cause? Page 43, 3-f: Do all Garden members know about the proposed changes? Page 44, Table of impacts: Although improvements will be made with the drainage swale, overall impact on surface water could be "moderately adverse," not "beneficial." Flooding also (not "none ") (to adjacent sites). Page 45, 2nd para.: Beneficial impact on surface water ?? Miuch more is involved here than simply getting the water off the site as quickly as possible. Page 45, 4th para.: Despite the conclusion on page 24 of no sign. impact on traffic, here the report says a "moderately adverse impact is foreseen." We agree with the latter. - -- End of Zeport - -- Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. The CAC's EAF subcommittee (Tripp, Broberg, Darlington) met Sept. 14th to consider the above EAF. Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Ronald and M argaret Amici, 313 Dey St. Cc: Comrr:on Council and Mayor CAC members BPW and DPW Building Dept. Date: Sept. 15, 1989 Re: EAF for 307 -309 Dey St., creation of two lots from one From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation - Advisory Council Chair The CAC's EAF subcommittee (Tripp, Broberg, Darlington) met Sept. 14th to consider the above EAF. Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) 2e-Tre*A, t(a.rtv" ACV �Wtla?AAA, %'- Hammond HIll Read Brooktondale, NY 14817 Sept 24, 1389 Mayer Gutenberger and Members of the City Council, Dear Folks, Recently some o Hole were conveyed to that letter. Also, I the wildlife that can during a 1 -hour walk the area of Hogs Hole F ray concerns about alterations to the Haas you. I am writing to correct an error- in thought you might want to see a sample of be seen here, which I observed Sept 24 around the area. The birds observed within were as follows. Great Blue Heron 4 American Robin 3 Mallard 2 Red -eyed Vireo 1 Cooper's Hawk 1 American Redstart 1 hawk (unidentified) 1 Common Yellowthroat 3 Ring - billed Gulls 1-200 Northern Cardinal 2( + ?) Herring Gull 1'10 Song Sparrow 5( + ?) Belted Kingfisher 1 Purple Finch 3 Northern Flicker 1 House Finch 1 flycatcher (unident.) 1 American Goldfinch 1 Blue Jay 2 European Starling ^10 American Crow 31 Black- capped Chickadee 4 ( + ?) Tufted Titmouse a There are few places nearby which, on a cold, windy morning, would shelter as diverse a mixture of wildlife. Earlier, I described a wet land which supported nesting mallards and a diversity of migratory ducks, which is proposed to be converted into a parking lot. This wet land has been filled with dirt and the dike which retained moisture has been removed. This loss of habitat for wetland species seems to be the culmination of a City practise. The City once created the Fuertes Sanctuary encompassing a large, vernal, swamp - forest. Most of this was subsequently converted into Rt. 13 and the junior and senior high schools. Much more recently, sludge from the dredging of the boat channel created a very large marsh. The City bulldozed the dikes around this marsh, which drained most of it. This area was large enough that it might well have qualified for state legal protection as a wetland. Individuals then obtained City permission to restore part of the breached dike and help retain some of the moisture. It is this smaller area that I described which supported nesting ducks. On my recent trip to this area, I found that the wet depression has been filled, and former duck nesting habitat is now mowed lawn. It is interesting to compare these events to the efforts of others. The President has declared that as a national policy we shall have no further loss of wetland, while the City bulldozes dikes. Our continental waterfowl population is about 60% as large as it was a few decades ago. Consequently, the US Fish and Wildlife has initiated a progam to restore wetland habitat which will require many hundreds of millions of dollars, while the City fills in ponds that had nesting ducks_ New York State passes a wetland protection act. The City considers plans to make roads and pour more asphalt in the buffer zone around our remnant wetlands. Administrators of Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge, with public and private funds, are attempting to triple the refuge size to restore waterfowl nesting habitat while the City spends money to drain them. City actions affecting our wildlife should not be contrary to the spirit of state and national policy and laws. Hogs Hole and the surrounding buffer are just a little piece of marsh habitat, but its just about all that's left around the south end of the lake. Won't you please protect it? Sincerely, hn L. Confer Pte✓ TO-LI: a-.%, ev-e-41 Jt4L'+ -k Wt's demo to: Larry Fabbroni and BPIF/ Cc: CAC members ) CO�W14-� %ow -LQA k o From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Re: CNG pipeline across City watershed above Burns Rd. Date: Sept. 27, 1989 The CAC was never asked to be involved in a review of the CNG plans, and beyond hearing a brief report from me on it, has not taken part in the negotiations. I, however, have been following their proposal, and attended one of the public hearings (as did John Sowell from the EMC). I am reasonably well satisfied that the DEC is providing competent oversight of the project, and that it will be carried out in an environmentally sound manner. The reason I -,ot involved in the first place was because I wrote to them many months ago, asking if they knew their plans called for crossing City land. (I had seen a legal notice of the project, and the City was not mentioned in the listing of municipalities.) (They had not Known, it turned out!) My letter got me on their list of involved parties, so I've read their reports and made a few comments. The main concern that I think the City engineers may want to keep an eye on is treatment of the bank along Six - ile Creek. Their description of how this might be done was beyond my own ability to evaluate. The plans sound good (to someone like me who is ignorant in this area , but I d be happier knowing that Bill Gray or others with the necessary expertise approved of there. One other question remaining in my mind is how much they will compensate the City for the taking. iViemo to: Common Council and fiayor Tompkins County Board of Reps. Barbara Eckstrom, Solid Waste Coordinator City Planning Board and Dept. City Board of Public Works CC: CAC members Tk. Co. EN-iC Date: Oct. 1, 1989 Re: DEIS for Baling Station (CPF) From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair The CAC's Environmental review subcommittee (Jones, Tripp, Darlington) met Oct. 1st to consider the above DEIS. General Statement: The proposed CPF, we feel, is an essential environmental effort, given the growing solid waste crisis. The facility will be breaking new ground, both technically and attitudinally, and it may take some time, after operation begins, to work out solutions to problems. (This would be true regardless of the site chosen.) -Nlhile there are some details in the dEIS that need amplification, in most respects the dEIS seerns to be a thorough study, and the chosen site may be appropriate. e hope that the County follows through quickly on source reduction and recycling measures. Disposable diapers, plastic and Styro packaging, and use of plastic utensils and packages by eating establishments should all be banned, and recycling of all recyclable materials instituted as soon as possible. Several of our comments would be relevant to any other project proposed for the same site, whether it be housing or commercial. Similarly, many of our comments would apply to a CPF at some other site. Outline of principal concerns: I. Water and soil issues A. Groundwater, floods, site drainage, soil type D . Erosion and sedimentation controls during construction U. ,Management issues A. Non - authorized waste B. Worker safety C. Oversight of facility D. weekend operation E. Site cleanup F. Yard waste operation M. Odors IV. Noise A. Vest ; :ill B. Journeys End C. Yardwaste chipper V. Plants and birds VI. Site choice i 4' r Discussion: I. Water Issues A. Groundwater, floods, site drainage, soil type: Wastewater management practices and site drainage, both inside the building and around it, need clarification. The site is nearly flat, and groundwater is only 1 1/2 to 3 feet below the surface. Is it perhaps even at the surface, after heavy rains (e.g. the weekend of Sept. 23 -24)? If hazardous substances are eventually collected on the site, an accidental spill might quickly reach groundwater without the benefit of filtration through the soil. What response systems will be in place to prevent this? (It should be noted that the various nearby car - related businesses also pose some risk of this type.) Can the process for analysis of hazardous components in the baling leachate be more clearly defined? One load of garbage with hazardous substances mixed in could pose a real risk to the WWTP. The section on leachate needs amplification. In order to keep the leachate relatively nontoxic and to protect the Waste Mater Tr. Plant as well as the landfill, we feel there should be provision for removal of hazardous materials coming to the site mixed in with regular garbage. IvVe would like the fEIS to provide more detail on hazardous wastes, re handling of materials mixed with regular trash and a future separate collection operation. The Eel Series silt loam soils are described as being suitable mainly for forests and agriculture. The soils report (Appendix) says, "Its susceptibility to flooding limits its use for many nonagricultural purposes." While we are concerned about this, we don't know how to evaluate it, esp. in view of the fact that most of downtown Ithaca probably is built on similar soils, and certainly the nearby businesses are as well. In the fEIS we would like to see more discussion, of the question. Would housing or commercial uses be any less of a prolem on this site? ��'ould replacement of so much pert -neable surface material with impervious material increase floodinj on adjacent sites? Is the drainage sufficient? What contingency plans are there for a major flood - -for instance, one that broke through the levee? Is there a levee inspection and mainten- ance schedule, and if so, what is it? ','chat provisions are there to prevent encroachment of floodwaters? (See p. 1 -26) Would the leachate collection basin be built so it could be plugged in the event of a flood? And will the emergency plans provide for rapid removal of other hazardous materials? We couldn't make head or tail of the flood maps (fig. 7 and 8). (Surely the 15- 100 -year flood plain doesn't include most of West and South i- iills!) In the fEIS we would like these maps to be improved. B. Erosion and sedimentation controls: during construction (wherever the balin- station is built) we recommend that additional erosion and sedimentation control measures be mandated during the construction phase, specifically, cleanin.y of mud from truck tires before they leave the site, and stabilization of exits from the site. 01Iud leaving construction sites on truck tires can be a significant problem: from the road, it washes directly into storm sewers, and from 2 there, into waterways. This seems to be an almost universally overlooked concern, and the CAC has been recommending control measures on all con- struction sites in the City for some time.) H. management issues A. Non- authorized waste: Is there provision for a secure area for storage of non - authorized waste that is separated out after arrival at the site? B. "`Yorker safety: What provisions will be made for protection of workers in the CPF, from noise, air pollution, and handling of contaminated or hazardous materials? 'gill there be protection from exposure to aerosols over the sorting tables? C. Oversight of the facility: 'i'Ve recommend that there be an oversight group, outside of those in charge of the site, to monitor its operation. iealth Lept., e.g.? Perhaps with reps. from local businesses? D. Use of facility by private, open pickup trucks on Saturdays needs further information in the f;~IS. mill the facility be in full operation, including cleanup of site at end of day, and baling and transfer of the trash? Blowinc7 trash from these trucks could become a problem. E. Site clean -up: dEIS says litter will be picked up at least 2 times a week. Shouldn't this be done every day? How will rinsing and cleaning; be handled during freezing weather? now will dust and blowing dirt from the yardwaste and chipping, be confined to the site, if the operation is outdoors? F. Yard wastes: we would like to see a more complete discussion of this aspect of the operation. How long will yard waste remain on -site? III. Odors journeys End Aotel is the main business which we feel could suffer significantly from the Baling Station, both from garbage odors and from truck noise and exhaust. Is there any, plan for compensation of, or lowered taxes for, businesses that do sustain losses? To test for odor problems resulting from void zones or inversion caps, couldn't particularly obnoxious (but safe!) odors be released at the site during times when the forecast might predict such phenomena, to see if, indeed, there could be a problem? Ve would like to see any such testin¢ include receptor sites on N /est 1 Lill and in Southwest Park. Would the existing woods in S,,V Park form an adequate odor buffer for possible housing or recreational uses there? IV. Noise A. ;Jest : -:ill: For the f.IS we would like to see some noise testing at sites on .Vest I Lill. -Residents of West E fill are already bothered by sounds from Wickes Lumber and, farther north, from 1Jallace Steel. B. journey ,s End: We are not convinced that the added traffic congestion on rt. 13, would be any more significant than from most other uses to which the site might be put. „owever, trucks waitinJ in line - -esp. near the motel - -could be a problem, especially during the early AL-,V. deliveries. C. Yard waste chipper: ; iow noisy is this? If loud, could it be enclosed in a building? ove.Y 3 L V. Plants and birds Would the heavy screening. proposed for the north side of the site have an adverse effect on the hackberry trees there? We would like to see a more detailed analysis, by an ornithologist, of the impact on bird life. VI. Site choice: Vie do see proximity to the railroad as an important consideration. We would like to know why the northern part of SW Park was eliminated from consideration. Some minor errors we found in the dEIS: Page 3 -8: According to the plant survey appendix, hackberry trees are found along the western side of the site, not the west side of the creek. P. 3 -13, end of last para.: Sensitive receptors-- 3.03(f), not 3.02. P. 3 -16 to 3 -17: 2000 gal. water per day, going into the site, is g.iven on p. 3 -16. But only 500 gpd of wastewater is listed on p. 3 -17? Is this an error? 500 gpd sounds much too low. Clarification- -maybe correc- tion--is needed. P. 3 -19(a) (visual) - -2nd sentence: Appendix P., not Q. P. 4 -12: We don't understand the last sentence of ;/2- -noise from trucks must be "weighed against" noise from the CPF itself. Shouldn't this say, "...added to" noise from the CPF? G7 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 October 6, 1989 PRESS RELEASE The City of Ithaca's Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) awarded its Sept. -Oct. commendation to Todd Petrocelli, an undergraduate student at Ithaca College. Last spring, Petrocelii initiated, designed, and implemented Ithaca College's office paper recycling program. In addition to finding an appropriate vendor, he worked closely with the many participants, and developed promotional materials. Petrocelli has also been the student representative to the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council. The CAC thanks Petrocelli' for his many contributions to the community and his dedication, energy, enthusiasm, and good will. Note to recipient of press release: we would appreciate it if you could make more of this than usual since he is a student and since students so often get a bad name. Thanks! Contact person: Betsy Darlington, 273 -0707 "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14950 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL 13u s&,% 6 LA-e y try a�t �-&c-tI Ny S 7�c �y r5a0 4 ,, h,ll - o- Y's. L.ac.l, �r,s � o TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 l . Co � : -1 s s o 0 6 - N Y S � G - T-�•a Ca = F.rs�- S-� 2. `75500-7 - Ny SEA, �. Co -1 ss 0 0 V - N y SF- 6 - -14, c." — w" , Cow S'0 04 vt, 4L cl l . Co � : -1 s s o 0 6 - N Y S � G - T-�•a Ca = F.rs�- S-� 2. `75500-7 - Ny SEA, �. Co -1 ss 0 0 V - N y SF- 6 - -14, c." — w" , Cow S'0 04 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL r TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 Statement regarding Treman Marine Park Development Plans, for the Public Meeting of October 17, 1989: At its October 16, 1989 meeting, the City of Ithaca 's Conserva- tion Advisory Council voted unanimously to approve the following statement: "The Conservation Advisory Council recommends unanimously that the State of New York forego its plans for further development of the Allan Treman Marine Park. We are not convinced of the need for an expansion of the marina, new road, parking lot, comfort station, shelter for 150 people, and additional picnic facilities. "We feel that the area is important as a wildlife refuge, and as a readily accessible resource for humans who enjoy experienc- ing open space and natural areas. "The entire area west and north of the marina provides a different park experience from any other we know of in this region. The proposed development would diminish the value and appeal of this park, making it not much different from any other lakefront park -- noisy, crowded, filled with sounds and smells from cars and barbeques. We hope that New York State is big enough for one little park where cars do not dominate the scene, where people can get away from cars and roads and hordes of picnickers, and simply enjoy the peace and beauty of nature." Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL President James J. Whalen Job Hall Ithaca College Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear President Whalen: Oct. 19, 1989 At the Conservation Advisory Council s October 16th meeting, we voted unanimously to seek Cornell and Ithaca College's help in solving some of the traffic and parking problems that beset our City. Ithaca College and Cornell spend vast sums for parking areas, thus encouraging the use of automobiles. If both schools diverted some of this money to a free bus system, available to the public throughout the areA, problems both on campus and off would be alleviated. In Massachusetts, Smith, Amherst, Mt. Holyoke, the U. of Mass., and Hampshire College subsidize an area wide bus system that is free for everyone in the area. It is heavily used by the public. We also urge Ithaca College to help finance park - and -ride facilities in areas some distance from campus - -e.g. in Varna, South Hill (in Town of Darby or Ithaca), West Hill (in Town of Ithaca or Ulysses), and Lansing. TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 Not only do all the cars generated by Ithaca College cause a problem for the campus, but also to the surrounding neighborhoods, downtown, and nearby towns. Are urge IC to work with the City, Town, and County to find - -and finance -- solutions to this critical problem. In addition to congestion, and replacement of open space with parking lots, automobile exhaust is a major source of local air pollution and global warming. Every responsible party - -both individuals and institutions - -must work to relieve these major threats to our quality of life. take. We look forward to hearing from you regarding what action IC will Sincerely, Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair /g9) An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program. /iL iLet �� ;LC.. 3S Resolution to Tompkins County Board from Conservation Advisory Council on Relieving traffic congestion October 19, 1989 WHEREAS, traffic congestion and parking in Tompkins County have become major problems, and WHEREAS, every community bears a responsibility to reduce the causes of global warming -- brought on in large measure by automobile exhaust; and WHEREAS, there are several v.,ays the County could relieve these problems, therefore BE IT RESOLVED that the County adopt a multi - pronged attack on these problems, including the following specific suggested solutions: 1. the County urge Cornell to charge students for owning cars and put the money collected into a fund for subsidizing a free bus system for all members of the public; 2. the County work with the various municipalities to immediately start working on ways to improve mass transit, including looking into costs and feasibility of light rail systems; 3. the County encourage Cornell, Ithaca College, TC3, the hospital, and other large traffic generators to construct park -and -ride facilities in Varna, on South Hill (in the Town of Danby or Ithaca), in Lansing, and on West Hill (in the Town of Ithaca or Ulysses). 4. the County urge the large traffic generators to subsidize a public transit system that would be free to all and would run more frequently, to more places, and at predictable times. (Cornell could, for example, divert the huge funds proposed for new parking lots on or near campus, to the public transit fund.) 5. the County work with municipalities on setting up a ride -share program. Comments: As we delay, congestion, air pollution, global warming, and loss of space to parking lots only become worse. It should be noted that Mt. Holyoke, Smith, Amherst, Hampshire College, and the U. of Mass. jointly subsidize a bus system that is free for anyone, provides service within and between the five towns, and is heavily used by the public. (Resolution approved unanimously, October 16, 1989.) Memo to: IURA Planning/ Environmental Research Consultants Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members Planning Bd. and Dept. BPW Building Dept. Date: Oct. 22, _ 1989 Re: Response to Niederkarn's response to CAC s comments on EAF fcr 3rd St. Industrial Park From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation ` Advisory Council Chair , The CAC s EAF subcommittee (Broberg, Tripp, Darlington) that reviewed this EAF has reviewed Tom NiederkornIs response to our comments on the LEAF. In most instances we are satisfied with the explanations given. In some cases, there simply is a difference of opinion which is probably unresolvable. There remain just a few areas we feel still need to be addressed, though perhaps doing so is beyond the scope of the consultants" contract: 1. #1 of Niederkorn "s response: just as "residential' is included in the description of the area around the proposed CPF, so should it be here. In fact; we believe homes are closer to this site than to the CPF. People living in these homes would be impacted by noise, odors, traffic, if these were a problem at the site. Rte. 13 may form a psycho- logical barrier but it is not an adequate buffer. Therefore, "residential' should be included under #9 of project information sheet. Otherwise, in planning for the industries that might move in, the proximity of homes could easily be forgotten and not taken into account. 2. Point #7 of our EAF review was not addressed, probably because it is beyond the scope of the consultant "s contract. Nevertheless, we feel it should be addressed by somebody- -IURA, P &D Board or Dept. perhaps? (This was the question as to new industries, local labor shortage, training of un- and under - employed people now living in the City, etc.) Will there be some program with the companies to train local people, or will they simply pull in trained people from somewhere else, thus increasing the burden on local services (housing, tFansportation, etc.)? If there were an active program of job - training for local under - employed people, the park could become a real asset to the community. But lacking such a plan, the benefits of the project could be nil (or even outweighed by negative impacts). This is the question that gives us the most concern. 3. #16: will a prohibition on biocides be incorporated into the deeds? 4. #18: (Odors) What sort of safeguards are built into the City ,s performance standards? Also, odors that are characteristic of industrial zones could still be a significant change in the present condition and also a significant nuisance to nearby residents. Since we don't know what the safeguards are, we merely raise the question, and hope it will be addressed. (It should be noted that at the Cherry St. Park, to which this is compared, there is at least one industry that uses highly odor- (over) iferous, toxic materials, but on Darlington's one visit to :tt• she could not smell anything outside the building.) (Also, will there be safety controls for workers inside thi? buildings ?) 5. Part II, page 2, #1: (Phases) EAFs are supposed to address not just the immediate, narrowly defined action, but also the longer -term actions that will occur because of thz initial action. Hence, our statement that this was multi - phased. 6. Page 4, #7: (Drainage, etc.) We are not qualified to evaluate this, but would just comment that engineers don't always work the miracles hoped for, and also they sometimes define the problem to be solved as a narrow engineering problem without consideration for other environmental impacts. Has Bill Gray approved the drainage plan? 7. #8: (Air quality) What controls will be in place on this? 8. #14: (Transportation) Cant truck traffic be estimated by looking at the Cherry St. project? 9. #16: (Odors, noise, glare, etc.) What will the performance standards be? (Again, we hope the nearby residences will be kept in mind.) 10. X617: (Health and safety) What controls will be imposed on the indus- tries (both for workers and the City)? If there are hazardous materials, then there will be risks. 11. (Page . 5 of Niederkorns) Page 8, # of acres of impervious surfaces: There will be more runoff, less percolation through the soil, more pollutants. Niederkorn may be correct that these would not be significant impacts, however. 12. (Page 6 and 7 of Niederkorns) Page 10, (b): response is contradicted by response given on next page, under 113-b:' (First, infiltration into the soil by pollutants is said to be bad, and later, beneficial.) 13. (Page 7 - -N's) Page 11, para. 2: what controls will there be on use of hazardous materials that could get into the surface - or ground- water? 14. (Page 7 - -N's) Page 12, 2 -e: Soil Conservation Service says that dirt leaving construction sites on truck tires is indeed a significant problem. Conclusion: We hope that the City will exercise tight controls over the types of industries that mcve to the site, as well as on their opera- tion. Also, we hope for some answers to our largest concern (662, above, and 667 of our earlier review, having to do with job training). If these items are not dealt with properly, the supposed benefits of the project could prove elusive. Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. INHS /Mutual Housing: 520 W. Green (Attu. Dennis Will) Trowbridge Associates (Attn. Kathryn Wolf) Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW and DPW Building Dept. Date: Nov. 19, 1989 Re_ EAF for Mutual Housing project on Floral Ave. (14 units) From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair The CAC's EAF subcommittee (Broberg, Hotchkiss, Darlington) met today to consider the above EAF. Recommendation: We would normally recommend a DEIS for a project of this magnitude. However, the report is already virtually that, and we feel that just a few matters need to be addressed further. Comments (in addition to Peter Weeds comments and corrections): 1. Our four major concerns have to do with the SE area of the site, the stripping of vegetation and regrading of the steep east bank, the 1 -2 -foot depth of water table, and the proposed sidewalk to Chestnut St. We do not see the need to strip and regrade the entire east bank from the new road to Floral Ave. In the S E corner in particular, we would recommend going back to an earlier plan, calling for a retaining wall around the parking lot and the upper end of the new road. This would also avoid potential problems with bedrock and the cliff (which, by the way, we do not see drawn in on the diagrams). In that area, the retaining wall should not need to be high. We would appreciate a walk - through with the architect unless the plan goes back to having a retaining wall for more of the SE section. We encourage the retention of as many of the trees as possible. There is, in fact, a nice mixture of species, esp. in the SE portion of the site. It will take a long time for new vegetation to reach this level of maturity, and in the meantime the site will look stark. We are glad to see that as many hackberries will be saved as possible, and young ones planted on the new banks. 1 -2 feet is given as the depth to the water table, but reaching the water table is not mentioned in the test boring logs. During today's site visit, we noticed that water was running near the surface in the old field drain. What are "the implications of a high water table for the proposed plans? 2. It is unclear from the diagrams (greatly reduced) just where the drainage Swale will enter the woods (S. side of site) to drain into the creek, and how much bulldozing will be required there. Significant trees should be protected - -e.g. two large black cherries and a hackberry. We urge that the least destructive Ove-r route possible be taken. 3. The Site Section map is unclear and cut depths aren't provided. What's the scale? Some dimensions would help in understanding the map. 4. In selecting trees for revegating the bank, we encourage use of the City s Shade Tree Guidelines. 5. Why is the proposed sidewalk to Chestnut St. through the woods thus requiring removal of a lot of trees, instead of through the open field to the south? We urge that this be changed? Specific comments on LEAF (in addition to Peter Weed's comments): Pact I 1. Page 2, #9: (site features) Ravine should be mentioned. 2. #10: Near Cayuga Inlet (as mentioned later by Weed) 3. Page 3, #3: .80 or .27 acres of trees to be removed? (We hope the latter.) 4. Page 4, #16: (Use of biocides) Answered "no ": will this be in deed restrictions? 5. Page 5, #20: What type of heating fuel? Natural gas? (We hope so, since it is less polluting than electricity.) Pat II 6. Page 4, #7: (Erosion) Col, 3 is answered "no ". Should this be "yes "? 7. Page 6, #11: Views from the site as well (affected by removal of vegetation) 8. Page 7, #13 (Effect on future open space uses) Yes, 1st threshold, col 1. 9. Page 7, #14 (sightline problems from parking spaces) We think this will not be a problem - -esp. if people back into the spaces. Part III 10. . Under "pg. 2, no. 111, 3rd item: Mitigation given for con- struction involving more than one phase needs clarification. 11. Page 2: 2nd item, under "mitigations ": as much protection as possible of "mature environment" on entire site. 12. 3rd item: "...views toward and from "Jest And again, under mitigation, remove as few trees as possible. 13. Final para., page 2: we urge that vegetation not be cleared to provide solar snow melt for parking lot nor to provide totally unimpeded view from parking lot. The corollary of the snow - melt idea is that in summer it would be a much hotter, less pleasant lot. Also, cars can back into the spaces if visibility should be a problem (which we think it will not be). That bank is going to need all the vegetation it can get. Finally: We appreciate the care and thought that has gone into both the planning of this project and Peter Weeds review of it. -7 r. . orb nj ;,r;tr�l Y °cLs�C:• :.�F'�. ,(•r ^F "siY *z3�i. .i 1-.ht i n D N lie ,t • 8r ,Nn.vf -Y,,, e,r D, 19.j9 l'hc rcvi2ed. rr .kn Of thG proposed .mot t£IltiCi,. '�`?'?c t,.rE2 of, the Hog z =4 IoerC n c t .r *.Lrc3e 4t th, C ent1re cheat 1 h,,% v c ouslln •d In rP; the �Inlmiiq'l eno! C -C -a Cuny of thc? development of Allen A". h� :s been braueht to my le: delineated on' the s,:P .;;yes :; that should be ;:roteetcd . erea nec; jed, chi the fr1Cif. -E47 t 1110 r..r S !;or fis::ea wi -n pnilcd to P. imuoh lc rgor :,rc : of Wet; : CC!a ; tI, l t :hEre? j , crttrxi3 , fir-vsez nnd low shrnh,z, with uS;M- rnri fist area -s Pt "Low water. ikivah of t.` s r - -res lift `a been alirvtn-sted by dredEe spoil from S;ct ar��•f on-d is now zr, irrge rowed l.wn. I ti ;;ve i C42 cs.c- qu`lnte. wlt't�, 1101C rz F e;;eCD -91 arevq for birds three 17 t<T2! 1: rip'Ll ?tn 1-)27( 5f:3d !.9 %:"} wrkrer- �� r;.rvt;.� :: i,,�r� 1t� �y1 � Y � I t T rl ,c a_.��. r sl r c t,rEC:. x.,t" rin Ic ja ono of th -1 -r- few Y`L'ms InI g undevel -ped nre sr.f,-5e � for - re;E -VIrr' r n-31_. ids? ::;1 };A•' y :*.Izzr c4,I rr 1':1rdg In sprIng rin. f!ni ; syju F. 1 ?!.k . It '? c Fkliso by r1frstirt,7 1a1s'::' • a -Inter residents. 3o eneurc rF''S.T::.mv.L iWt�xrlw,.;rc := ;.y pcc)olr t =rrl ;tots there s -hould be f: buffer :-ct e- wit"n 1:ctivity ot :ts1le the ;Rat Hole: nrca A have v: ,r%rd. I r:: re very r;1sr :::d tc Fee that the loc t,ion of the ro:osc -d r;,,C, I Z'.^x r :.�+ .'i =3;)v } li'c. 7f�a been, Oo'1ang � +yli�roa! close to the L1�i': 1: t: ()1e 4o the we. a�-`t e"-li �. :�` of i :fkrit3 �? :}� �i i��r-1 e rr !.,! e t. `'•�"') js Iti n ?z:vjor improvement nt In the bc; i,.ulfte 1 •? C;CluOled tbeC anu t,b c if e O t c H'o :7 14- ol'.•', it•> fi ^: Int rgrF:1 1:,nrt c- the n urnl brabit t, a s't ach-+. illy uned .L11iiT l: �--er. tav aches ro, -i t[ the dredgln vpo-11 s'iri :ii : 1 „allt, 1 s. 1* ae pieced for the uor th End of the ro <.3 to r? -ce OL. the *;r! %,Je of ;thf;,, spoil zrouri.l. This '411,11 Ehcul d bt re- P :tvi: becvuze i, blocked the originvI drni:�p� sp�_tErr. At Into thl rsr. fro; the zr7sll s tre u, ir. ePrine rz: ir:s r- Inog w� s t•o t��E stre r -. ost. c �' i thf ier,. tst aS� i:� `0�-. f- a.ir•'_ is -on nnI owned by t.ho. City of l re f:crv,F �', S ^?i4's F ;i out tbv, i�in F; 't.`ii^ P. [',�L7 Y L�i7JtITl (J .3 t' :C I!, A in . ?,c 4Further'• h.gbltnt for ducks Is geed,- :, only r. tr:tad f,Ftt v rear; f . -ter nti ore t.hs',n two Incltee deep. %iben t:;ie E_et. -1, r;: �,,sinE fc: rEd� -.e s;��iI wtrrcz be1-[1-T used, rnixrry *62, ' :; 4 r•i�'5 iii :lrsd xr.*- the less F, ::i BtIrd's :: �nl: i -pares.) r1:Lred1RtiP1y used thaw, brietifl.yj/ during- T-, r fr *art: la>to J; ly to October ".t c- On, V !,.u4j.'Ict arens now p-v.-Jr-.b1ki. are thc-- vary narrove c-dE,(-'O of the - --trevr when lahe 3 V" le 10w. v inc seez t h G d v- n rr e E:. c �_ :°r:- a s z- k lu c"erator enused when dlgglur, the excnvntlon vvd bznc!- fill uther our house wv,-A bulit, 1 vLm concerne'-ft "Ehat a sz.uch lar u F_pr nrev tear, the Proposca pond gill be by vectiss or cnrc- less uje of, tl,,Ae 1,4cr:tvy Gquln.ment uved in crp.F,tjnt7 that Barad. in vAdition, 1 do not know 1ho owns thle -t-ioode wczt of the vmnll stretim, but thn' wcxlv bet: ren the atmav- vm,5 the v%ccesO rond to the coli'vtcrcs iF- tin 1n1%1.G[,vm1 p, ,Akrt of Itteite H-ong Hole h,". it�A' as alope*.nd cllffb between Ithfil; accoso rQvd, and Fricute shou'll be consideret-1 nxrt of tbe- -rc- -t&cted Cron. I hoz)a you will Incorporvite Chess imall bolt 1r,'.per'6rvn1%'O In rj thic flr.�l -5evelct-meat. I-Azwn. 'I nceraly youru, w A. Dorothy W. 14'ellroy F� 101,419�1 S7/-47C--Al 'M"'7- + I LA to 1, ri/ CAI All A 1.� ` .•� � / � _,._•!'1••- - Q ©u'' J�l' •�l.lrwewrMi rrl � wN�•lr �J�{I �� {• �' •_ .�-� ••' _•� 1Mw � ww wuuur, �4Nq, fArL.u'W�in�Nr� rr t �:r.o. -r a. +rcrow 9 MAN STA rf HAP /NF AU U 6 A +.. * * + 'T SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN i_ I N LET :....• ..�:�: , Figure 2. i E 1;1 y ^_' 0 7 7 FD i -c o •- •�. L N n -h y A In 4d ''• Dr N n rt U tj n •'..t• y y y n 7 .' r+ y p to m C O m 0 ". p a .- t0 0 1 U O? m C C" v 1 rt n rt •-• 7 U 1 rt 7 •• 1 r J rt C a n 1 m m? 21 V i rt n r. 1 _• •� In T rt T 0 n m •• rt '• m m 1 •-• �❑ '< 7 m 1 � n U 7 3£ •-+ rt m m c 1 <. 2, c 7 i 7 N Y 1 rt 7 Dr l V y rt I U 6 N O m 7 i to ••. •' y 1 -� 0 _ T m In ry 7 v : '1 0 D 1 rrt m Y m Y 7 -t. 'm •' 7 Cl _ :7 rt7Nrtvva <y �m11f m7 < mo& rT -1 r+ m '.❑ ? In 7 rt• rt In U a •" 1 ri m < DI n m n 1 rt• In �+. '• r �� 1 ;: T M1 „-.... T p y tJ 1 o r_ ••. .; , In y m _ = CT a 4• 1 C G+ n - I '1 y < y< I❑ m 7 3 (D ”" m y_ m � l < � Q r !a0 n T m 0 m 7 e y N U y 1 N O to "' �+ N O DI �•' - I• rt 7 -i• a= ID 7 m 0, a m rt D m m •r• rt 7 1 �❑ 1 .! m m M.3 m 1 C tp rt M1I R 1 In - ry 1 •< y 7 y F r 1 y a ''• 1 n In m ^� In a _ p T rt '< m rt rt y. rt rt 4� D y rt ♦J O D+ y ... p n rrt - ID n a In ! N v DI 7 7 n ._' m .'. to 7 rr a 1 D ..• 7 m m O _ n DI m 7 In M 1 r• r+ m .O 0 '-' rte 7 i m rt n w z r. y F a s •' iI In K 7 1n 7 y 0 n 7 ID a -Ol a y O rt r+ < a y m rt In -1 rt! 7 0 £ m In n 3 n= Iq ;� R n n 1-1 rt" 7 u' a m In 1 r •-• [ In n? m 0 IJ ? ! 0 _ Cr • m 0 m y 7 3 ••. 7 r-' 1 _4 _ l y T a m n In .y- •• 71 0 .1 D -_- ,� 0 .. 2' n< v❑ m� 7 �0 N In 7 y U 1 7 m 7 r In 0 n �. 1 1-1 O= ❑' T :n .'. rt 1 rt 7 0 T N m D, rt ... r0 7 y -0 0 7 rt n rt= ry T p rD .r V m _ n - 0 1; r O m a 7 a n rt rt r r a 7 m T. r* 1 rt n n -- r, - •' 7 p'1 7 rt in y rt 7 In In u 7 0 m" in _+ •� 3- -+ < -I. r 7 m m U •• 0 ID U 7 U m w 7 y tD 7 G -w T U. . n - m 'L O -'• n '- 3 y 0 y r .- s m In m rt I f- C y In 1 ,. _ �_. n .- 7 f. m 1 3 •'. 7 n 'O T N N r m iy .• M n m y 7 S y n 0 7 1 r U N 0 '-' 0 TJ -1 n , a_ .- 0 y L- m M u ry to rt m 0 G m m 0 7 m �• '_' Y y r y a<: 7 T 1 • 1 In a m n M 7 to rt �_ .. Q In m 7 7< U 7 In ... m r- n rD i� p IC U ^- " - •• m •• 'O m •❑ 3 0 �❑ ? ". m 7 ! O m n I,I p ...... In S I n m •- m n y y, C 7 p - ... n - a rt ... ^ y r_ c 7 -A O 0 7 In n 1? m 4 rI In ? RI £ < In T R ry m y 7 C -< U DI a ID In ID T . 7 0 y n a 'o '•. 1 rt m 0 J 2' O. In R• n C a 1 1 r N y 1 T Z. T n a In f0 •' - '� m C _ .+ .� rr v `+ i .. `- a m 7 N -- " 0 rq N n a n < 7 In O T In r -« n J 0 - m c m In 0 rJ * 7 T _ O m ED £ y< 13 N 0 0 I-' - m m m r y rt r+ m m m l: Y ill 7 m r: '" ,ri z X010 aM 17m1n aT +r-) T -- w In T .- y ] �• n y m .. In In Q S - L DI Ilr �. 7 m, r .-. T ID in y O In r n n t - n ........p .- TJ m .- in a 0 _ m n -_ y_ .. r' r T- 1 7 a; ''- y c 7 In In m a a m N m _ • art = n T O T '- D' T T qI m 7 2 ✓. �. - R, w ? , r n a y r a y m ". In n. .- .. T ❑ G ^ in to 1 •a. -.p rt 0 - N ,< "J •N .y-m In r In . p 1 y 1 7 T p •" in h m m DI y m 7 R.❑ a s 7 o m m ' 1 . n a rt c -- -• y .... •-. r0 _+ m O y '• N n m O 7 O G In n O .T-. _ • `. L. n j rt n 0 0 .n 7 1 r C U 1 y 7 r+ D: 7 y T rt = V= :D v I•. r C O, T Z. C, R it _ '' 7 7 7 r 1 m 0 m y al 7 a 0 y In O In 1 a U 7 7 D �+ 0 .< 0 U? r- .. y n y rt y 7 ..... In rt m r ti• -2i 7 7, r. IM1 ID +. ro R VI + 7 to 7 m o n -❑ m y 1 rt U 1 a y m In T 7 p r rD m a CL r -+ Ulm I]:n -+ On Ong 1 In - ,a ?, 3 1 3 C C ^' 0 7 N y IJL .. ... 1 J lu 71 in r N - v + In `- '❑ n1 m m -^ M m In 111 1 l 1 � f n Lam-- n n n N i CL RI 30 2. y T r y - O In r O 3 _ In - _ T O n_ 3 0 D 3 7 y U m 7 In U) la !R m in ^' T - n I, -r 1 1; I❑ n= rt< l a M .3. r V ^' O rt n n n O .* m m In C 0 m 7 m O Ul '- m r ❑ 1 .- 1 y 7 7 71 m I 7 -i n? n Ir r 11 - In ] i •• 7 rJ l 7 to LI IM m •• T m 1 U7 m< m y m N rt N 3 a v T ? •il n C T R G^ 7 m1 12 o N- - 7 7 rt m N 7+ a _ = a 1 l' 1 ^ 7 y y 7 Ip In l m y y 1) 1 m o l • lIn r rt G ry 1 0 a m 4• 0 rl rn 1 Ul S 1 m£ m U m T U 1 0 Y U ar r n- Cn 7 < y - - m a <m U N 8 1 S -1m rD N _ v p 1 y t0 '" C 0 C to 'a TI j v nn-. 7 7 1 T N to y In 7 in in 'Q III nym 0. in T ..�..::�� T '+� n DTaO ^+ h In 1 ". m tp - "T '13 a m _ In n a _ U �. m -1 •+ - m -IyI o 1 ry ,• m a1 r' - '�' 7 1 r 0 1 ' �J T r= m I 1 r 7 F m^ i0 In n 7 m 3 a a r: s cn a Iv 7 y y In - 1 to 7 rt 0 n �. 1 .. p 11 D a p 2 It, - U r.. T rtC y m2 i rvti ,m in r, f 7�n^ In T �7 s :ate O LN r'" .7. m m Dr N -n U -DT 2'r 1 n r rt ID rT 0 0 7 trl n, 7 0 1 V 1 3 y 7 -1 r C T 9 _ _ y -1 6• DI art U 7 n f• m m m m - - m 1 II' 1+ m In In < nm= ; O 11 1f1 L 7,70 -.0 .. ? T C m 1 I1D rt +e n I,- 1 _ 1 n 1 r 1 m m In m N . 0 0 m II 0 C Co Z F l 0 1 . . . . . . . . 3 3. . . . . . . . . . 3. .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r..I . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. . . . N. . . . . . . . . . . In cv T T T D D D D D T R -' I (TI m 7) c)m - 0 i D mm T T T T TOO e. ,l T n 1, T :. T -i -!Tr z -1 -lm m m m m❑❑ rjMC) rrlm ^ T Z Z --IZ -� -i mm0 n mm m mm mm - T TTD rr' - • - ' nT T.__ D= - m T x o m mm�n -4 111Grn; Zx TfrlDmO 3p r, �., -1•, -i D � -D nmrto TGTma r Ofrtm S' ^m3 TTD-4m I ZC)O-4 (- �r = -+=i.. m7m- iDTm7-•m I Z i rrlr- m in TOTxr -.T r*t0T T _, r. • -. 0 ITT- 4• -.C"mv I Z n r D rlI j: nT r- nIr n r n r-..r D_rDZ D m r -+ n -111 n 1 m in Ty v T m r� N - n -1 m <= - m nt ', in r iv r+ z1x T T T T 7; T T T T TT T Tnr vrn 0 7 cno w 0 - m 0 0 ❑ m 7 -n❑ ❑ n r m n �n 1t o-r Inr<nrltrmrTxzTm R.� _ 1 Rr •' 1 7 7 m m 0 0 0 m 1 il m r Ill .r r ~ 0 1 N &M y n- 7 'n -1 In R, r Cl. Cl 1 y i r m rt O 7 7 1 1 O '-• 7 '0 to In :1 U in •-' n n, r'0 7 7- 3 IT) m a 7 0 m m r+ m- 7 T 0 "- to y R, n w Z Z l I r+ f n T m 1 .. .. •r , ... .w 7 "• 7 7 l 7 y .0+ rtm I rt � "7 y rP Rr O O r 0 o 1 v .v In .n R• r,•, 1�a r+ S In m r. In 1 n y In " b V v £ n CO 0. - m C n. Rr In (i) 1 C l 1 -1 +. r0 In to In y & -i n C 0 'M m •'. n 0 In K to y n m m a. a In in it - G) •' n 0 1 'C n 1 T 0 .. z D D t r+ < D m in 1 m T 1 7 T- 0 :.. 0. 1" '1 v SC -w1 'O 1 G1 .. y .. ] m r...1 1 to 'O 91 N 0 U- n o c m < m . • z r_n rr 7 1 7m m _'r m I r m In O R' 1 t1 1 v -D a �n7 3 o- It n 7 In -m ❑ z m EL m In _ z m n m a nn 3n ❑: r In o ' zc rz 7 7 C m z r` mT no 0 0 13 7 D i' z-+ v m p 1 7 = 7 y y r D jm o,. D + r mm� v m n n - rtrt - z m Iz m In � y n z { In 0 a v° - a in n to r+ 7 7 n_ T n 0 y It ° -. 4 o M "I In 1 + S r T r+ 7 y Zm R. -10 II m N - •m Dm In T Z -{ z z Lf) Z m m y 0. v DD _ - c 1 a rT!n . . . . . . . . 3 3. . . . . . . . . . 3. .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r..I . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. . . . N. . . . . . . . . . . In cv T T T D D D D D T R -' I (TI m 7) c)m - 0 i D mm T T T T TOO e. ,l T n 1, T :. T -i -!Tr z -1 -lm m m m m❑❑ rjMC) rrlm ^ T Z Z --IZ -� -i mm0 n mm m mm mm - T TTD rr' - • - ' nT T.__ D= - m T x o m mm�n -4 111Grn; Zx TfrlDmO 3p r, �., -1•, -i D � -D nmrto TGTma r Ofrtm S' ^m3 TTD-4m I ZC)O-4 (- �r = -+=i.. m7m- iDTm7-•m I Z i rrlr- m in TOTxr -.T r*t0T T _, r. • -. 0 ITT- 4• -.C"mv I Z n r D rlI j: nT r- nIr n r n r-..r D_rDZ D m r -+ n -111 n 1 m in Ty v T m r� N - n -1 m <= - m nt ', in r iv n Inn n vrn 0 r, cno Do m 0 0 ❑ DD❑ -n❑ ❑ no- r -I r r II r r --1 T r- r r R1 C F C c C C D C C C C ❑ ') 3 m 3 3 in 3 3 3 N 3 3 T -- w Z Z Z Z Z m❑_ c` - m z m m o Ulm V P n CO a m r 1 C l .� �., .. n. ... v r) . .. .. z D D m T a T D n <.r x r z T azrJ o c m < m . • z r_n m s r 3 ❑ n 0 nm n -1 i 1 v -D a 3 o- It mx p m ❑ z m T _ z ❑ z nn 3 r v D z zc rz D r m xw m z a? c o mT no r vy D my z-+ v m ,� c-� m aD+ 7 r r D jm • DZ C t7a z - z z-4 Iz m n z { m a v° .,o u; n T n It ° -. 4 o x z r T m :nn Zm m -10 II m N - •m Dm In T Z -{ z z Lf) Z m m y a DD c mDD a rT!n fox cra r a m m N °n zn n r In .,`v T TI c O❑ m Tr*I D e 0 7* .7 m °T m m£ it II 3 '.' Z '.' n �T .n-. U) 0-r Oz m -1 D i n O M x n ❑ N D❑ n ul -4 3 n x-n 11 N in _q x-_4 mD❑ n - O To ❑� -1 Z -.1 -4 T m' T x r n En In a = m 1 m In m C z ❑ n 3 D D •- 03 L h 11 '+ D D r -1 In r11 fit z z m m m n-4 r cm rt �_ r m m x -1 n e n z o U) M tr o n r ..1 -4 < r z o n m_ s G) ..o 0 0 {o 11 A .D C Z D .'0 3 z I" n m D ;n T r • m r cn z a t� ri c s s F O �ti S 0 i> R s f t.• r� r .............. ................•.........I.... . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . • • • . . • . . • . • • • , . . • . . . . . . . . . . ti . . . . . . . . . • . • . • • . . . • . • • . • • . • • . . • • . • • . . • • . . . . .>R. r❑ m ..a rf . -A m • -4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . . . Z�cmxmmmmmmmmro - oaaawmmmmNoommmmoTnzz0In- -1 -lTao �omm�nm'np n nr, I,1 >r- r,DavD�mr'cmmmcoonnnrc•- •nncmD- •- •Dxmm•- •vr- mromoo r� 'r _ in z zTn�Trn TT T-n r r o o o C7 T g O D D n l7 z m G7 C O D D z r n D n0DOo D5n0 x-- �rm-n - i- nnGn- nov- +- +- iu),.mmcc7x <mms %rr- +r -rrtn- mfn< -T •Tm • • - • - .m mr- • DD Dr mm mm m r7 T7JTT In DOo Dm DD - m -lmrn• ` =zr1• = m• <T mZZMnTC Dmzzrr +T I m nTT=r7rn 71 D mTrArilfnxmm• D2 TUT• - rmnmr7Dn- a "• ncm-nri• OS rmmmmG< FD =nr0- a r• TOn Nnr__•_T ID ^o7 133, m o- PT:PDmm - mm T - omTz nDm zc Inm0D = 7.1 --1 1 T o r- -- -17 0 x`rr rzammc� =ac zm, Tm ^z omm�J� 'n -.A X11 in 7''' •-+ � -TD mnaND I m z 1 O - r I, E J P'.' 1 nrn n <Tnx Dn -Imn o oIn -iz TD o�E7 n i 7 m •_ -4 '•N-4 D mO0 Dam c zTmm •-•N D _ T _Rir -� -,., rn= = trt 7313 T3 1 1-. Tn n.-• -IZZx T { I -7 T:zz z DD S min �� - n �`� ;`n n nom oc rri -z m mT mn - i nm v zzz 7 T vz rm T - Inn T rn G) z r 7 in n 7 r n fn m n r n 0 In r o - I m m 7 T C D H r m CU . c . . . . . . . . . c . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -� . . . . . . . . . . . N . . . . . . . ...I. . . . . . . . . . in . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . . T T T. T. T. D. T. . D. . T: I'. - y, .. y r Y K a y i +k ac a. • aL x • +I • x ±F x • x • +r x -! • x • • • • • • x .. . �n r-• " U) m U) 7 If. U) T m U7 N •P. in --4 n n£ N m z f^ {{ D , T T T T n n" 0 N T T T :1 IT -I n -� T n T r -_�= DrDDD DDD D COO T DD•-• mm<� -•rr r- r- TOO D 0 D 17. 01 -.= oL - - __ -z zoz07 zrzrrora000DOCr- r -• �. TF ^h�7 ^moo ^007 zza`oororrnrc < < < Trarrrrxin no)�D T U).- -W73- rn7 oomCmmmmm• x••• [_i :n T.�r)nn .-. ... .:. -.: .; ..: .: ... .:T - '�--I- ITS-•. -. --I .. _r-im T]J ?T T.• m-- .., <n _.. • T T T TTT,T'P 'PTrTO m TT Trr m• D_C < T •<� Z ^) 13 - nnnl mmrn mRlmmminm m— rmm mmm T N3 r ..•_�rmm T n_ X11 *1 r. In r'.-• ^ TnT TT T T T T M U max TT x 0 m D Tmr IT Dm m T Dr' m 3 I -• r in -• Tn• Mnnr- Z mT .. '7 r- U; n: Inn T- T r r Z N T C+ m c U) N T U) n 2 n 3 T m- S m i rn -_ 13_ r --I r C rn D = m m m C r 0 T O O r 0 z T m. D 7) .^ O .m " .T, T n -- ••• a m a U m z r 0 r m T n MD T I r z o.T D i nrl- T- �T -�N -4 •^ 017•-• D-4 • - •NmD r mr m - -O( -7 i I -1m r07rn -amm < D z � -IIn Dz aG)m `r T n 'fin i� -?_> ^ I T F mT I TD z Um Dm-i DOr m z n ,� ^, m FU17r zr O TTm -Irr _ - r- - Ri r C 3 T 0 m m m ;rii rr T D z7 C rn r ) rn �4 m In rl n o n _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N • N . . • . . - •...•...... D T . T ... D D D D T D D D T F r T T � w y r k iL Y if +! +! +. • x • • • . . • x x . • . x x . . . x A. x • x M • • x y x 4 .,. • , a. + . r.000000000nn00 T aU•-I- I- I- I-i- IG). -. GIOG)nnnnNG)"I -I• n'an'= „ - - - -'n -Txa rz�r ££ssccoorcommmmmmc�ccccccccccr- j rOpO�JTpn` C.- SG, rr= rrrrrrrnn «NT<TTTT����rrrrrrr�rrr 7�TrnmOxMzzzZ nrinnin n °O ° °NOOIjn��ix _ oo• Tm:., T.. . A I• R,7. H Tr?tnrmr _4 -1 In Rl rn in rm r rr_-i m rrl "m-' -0 x Z U) r ti+ " N G') m o O O T- m w r 'n D n n N a T +nr m n rxn •-' n_ 0 •-• T I> n•in nN- -I- n_n•nnn00sTT0Z:0'0OmU) cnrm rmOTODD.. C T= S m F' - - T fn Rl RI •-• x 'P .'r -4 T m T -4 £ D -I 3 -G Kr C n r Z n N 'UTj nl 3 T T m D C rNf1 r fl !'I fn is ill RImI :Im - `--I -I r-•O Z -Inm D" �?Or -S TTT-n TTT:P •-• I m 1 R)mU Rxl- �-{�zr DZ� • mn Zama+ -•� ^. i. p. - U3n TmD T I r r•-' •0 "r R+C Cn•+T ? -NDrNm r-'^' -� n PrJ ?1 .. ryl-iY 7 m T'pT In o Z m Z s N D z 1 a) M m r m r r- rmmmT< nT I H Q� Ir' m I' '1' n.r fl ..rr- nI`m`- 0r77rr 3Nm0 x r ')'- n 0mt r - -�:•M :.nrnT "1'L �cU t piTr)ZI �r r n ,.. r� _, m 3• z- rn %. ;, x m ;� m r r m In IT •I 1 rm U G)D tv S mrh = x 1 i mUU Nn F T n i rC •-.m , m m- n ^ ; rrnh o a T , r- f•, .-. n D f7 7 In r ...................................................... • Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . z . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . Z. Z. C. . . . . . . . . . CC. C. . . . . . . . . . . r c p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ri . . . . . . . . fl). . . . . U) . . . . . . . . . U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . • J> D . . . . . . . . I.. T, . LC) r,,l --4 T --i -1--I < rn 2: Cl 77, Z Z r Z E n Z z -4 n n :o nn :1 in In rn in rp :z r 7 -n -0 a: 0 1 :-L Z: :E M r M Z X T 71 T �n . V C C - = :C D M T D 1, :[> E E Z: E: a,, r- r -I13 75 x T in c in 1, z z m in in in in m --i l-4- - < o o a) -< -< D DD D 1, T Op {" l rz (z c: c: q 71 in D -q m o z z z z z in = m a n n in z: z -b - • r- r- r- I- r- --f - n - m rD li r TDD07-z. .. r r- r-, r - - zr -- T in -., in in in --4 -4 C D D- �Wn00000z -nD- 7.1 lil Dm-oD- a:mmmmn•a C!'• 01702 or C a T T 71 Z 7 tz) Z C X mmoEnmrom -< :7. • - M C I'l -i -n 11 fri 01 m -17 M TO M M --4 W 0 N3 :1 :E 71 r- IV n T z --I C: z T:-:" 7 7 I rl 0 111 1! 1" T T T 7 0 T 11 in T C 0 a: Inj M M r- -U E T -1 :1 - :D V r- D 0 71 T in M -1 r7 _r 71 J: 7.1 - 0 X M C T W 0 nn T - Z T in -1 1.5 D in ro r- r.'l 7 :.�, M ill n I in :11 -< r:l Z E - r:j M 0 r Z I Z 71 -4 M, r- 113 111 r,-, rr. r- z'•nr _D F'j /j z D --A Tn n --f --i In I in D z -4 1 -4 71 11 z I 'n 171 --1 -, r 7 ul < 7: - -- - p2 in r n-• in In in in (1 111 M in in m rl in f�l - T, in �,-n in C 7, t 1 71 ?:1 D - - :r T 'n in m z T M 0 n mm r- I r- z 0 in ul D in T rl 0 TT m D --i T t� T. T� t7 In in T C in < in --I t:) in r-1 in 0 c rl M frl . . . . . . . . . . . . . :1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . C: . . C . . . . . . . . . . . . • . C - - - - - . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T, T, T T) . . . T. . . . . . . . . T. :r Il T rl', 0.-1 -4 -4 0 E: E m E E E E E E Z: E E S: E E E: Z: E 1: T U -r r:,, 1, -7 - _:, T) 1> 1, T D 1) 1, < 31 11 :' - -171 Z Z -ITTM , 'r � I 1 --4 -4 in T m Cl x x m Dn m m x 73 T m m in rl D 'D 1. -4 12' T tV r M M Z Ml W 'V - r- 0 - . r --j r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r- r r F r- r r- r- r- C, ri'm rl v r r r i- n.0 'D r �n r 7: 1.-. 1,1 Il rl 11 mmm- MMM--l--i-MMDMMMMMMMMMrrfmmmmmmmDmmmmlrI , . 7 . 7 T T X M X X T ;n �n -.U.T �n :.: :!- :� :T7 :r m �j T T :n = X i . -.n ;Q �-1 7.1 X -n - ui - r m . . . x . . . x :Tl 0 - -4 . . ... . . -7 T.3 m r -n C C: m m D m !ji In r- U) !E 3: 0 2 n 7 in Ul s 'v:i T -< w v:r" w -< til n a n -< c z ro --i r, ril (z a D - 0 D o c in m o T D r in r p D T - in r r r M r p 5 = in T 5 x m 0 7 r 1 0 JIA r- 0 --1 C Z TO 2 D T D 11 z r D D D r D 7 ED M r -4 In D -0 -C- lil -1 -4 71 :x f D Ul t:l * T- 2 -4 m n a n i m - in r nn n r n in z in r x; z H - in 0 T m - 1-1 r- rri 00 in c:: r z I -T 7.1 -1 r- - Ir X 0 � -, O. - 0 -1 0 rq < rl In in I m. - 7- -n 1-1 TT :, Z M '1 0 r) m0•-• I in T T - ET I I S: 177- Z Z: T - m tri Z: D 0 in in I C --i --i 1 -4 D - C z - I in I -4 M 0 z _2 D z n D D in :x a - --q --lo D z z r D --q x T m T T D 7 6 in s z -f- Z: :i n in z P:) r- Ln T z X .11 c T I M T M -0 0 rl ,g -4 0 C: •M Z D 1 -4 T• -'0030 in Z in 1, M 0 D 11 D T D 0^ D z -4 -4 in -4 Z fTl D Z -< :r --4 m in rl M in rrl M 0 0 0 G tl M G-) :7.1 T r M D c: M < in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :3 1 . . . . . z . . . . . . . . . . Z Z . . . Z . . . . . . . Z . Z Z . C• C• 00C• . tj a a . • . • . C• d C00 t+7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . I In U) . . . Ul . . . . . . . . . . . DD. . . . . . T• . . . . . TD. . . Ej) G, G) m u) :r T n n 'Ti 'n m a o n a) :1 a w w w r c� in in tn ui ii) In tn m tn in En in rr u) in Ln in in T T T m T 0 -u r r in in r 0 a 0 C-10 T•0 -.0 T T T T T T T '13 c T T 71 T Twain ol o o x "i x T. n mn 6 n G G n o -4 m n x 3 7 -v x 'o 'I) -v -4 r:Ll 7, TTTTTT 0 in z r- r ml T� - MMM'.urwbizzw-ZT • 00000000000ozoob r r -- D. - um— r•-ZG,)c r r 7: T �7 • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 x x d TTDDT.T.• TO X n • oc c:7:) - zo OT n • U, o in Z 0 0 u) -v -nx n :5 o zr,�DmmE-ooXMM:Vp!rm- C<Ml,M3,3z.TMr- lT03T-< T OD I ,j) M C :1 - U M X -4 -4 .1 T n U) In .naMM MZ:[,,E::,C:MZ:Inril E: 7 in Cl Itl 0 u M in T Z 0 U) r in r -< - M in T 0 TT c r- (A 0 73 1 - <0-4-1 ( 2) Mtn I I r 1 -0 m T LOT U - in X - Z ZO -n-4 z -4 L) il 11 in C) I M E in in 4 m x . T, In -L, :z UCCA Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Ithaco, 735 W. Clinton St. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW and DPW Building Dept. Date: Nov. 19, 1989 Re: EAF for Ithaco expansion From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair The CAC ,s EAF subcommittee (Tripp, Emilian, Darlington) has considered the above EAF. Recommendation: Negative declaration (no sign. impact) Comments (in addition to Peter Weed's): 1. Cherry St. Industrial Park is mostly quite attractive, and much effort has obviously gone into this. The current Ithaco building, and as far as we can tell, the proposed addition, are in contrast to this. We hope that efforts will be made, at the very least, to paint the old and new buildings a more attractive color (dark brown? tan? e.g.), and to landscape the edges of the property along Clinton and Cherry Sts. with large trees. City's Shade Tree guidelines should be used in deciding what species to plant. 2. This site is highly visible from the Inlet, the proposed bikeway along the Inlet, Floral Ave., and - -in winter -- Chestnut St. This fact is not acknow- ledged in the EAF, but is significant for it points up the importance of doing everything possible to improve the appearance of the site. 3. Plantings (large trees in particular) would help mitigate the potential noise problems that are pointed out in the EAF. How much noise, by the way, is anticipated? Enough to disturb residents at the trailer park? Specific comments on the LEAF: 1. #17 (page 2), last line: instead of "disposal' should it say "hazardous ?" 2. Part II, page 6, #11: Should be "yes " - -col. 2 and 3. View from Inlet, proposed bike trail, and West Hill; mitigate by building an attractive building and landscaping heavily. 3. page 7, #13: (Effect on quality of existing open spaces) Yes, "other"- - effect on view from Inlet and future bikeway. See above for mitigations. 4. page 8, #16: noise during or after construction? If after, planting lots of trees would help. 5. page 8, #17 (inadvertently left blank; check "Yes" 6. page 9, #18 Yes. (Check threshold re setting precedent- -see comments on #11 and #13) Memo to: DPW, BPW Cc: Common Council and Mayor P &D Bd. and Dept. CAC members Building Dept. Date: Dec. 3, 1989 Re: EAF "s in general S llc�dsa, S� From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair I think there may be a reluctance in the DPW to doing environmental reviews, and I would like to see what we can do to make the process easier. I feel-that the main value of the environmental review process is to identify potential problems so these can be prevented or minimized before a project is undertaken. Prevention is a lot cheaper and easier than remediation. It,s a rare project that gets stopped by the environmental review process. The CAC has seldom recommended a positive declaration, but even when we have, and when the lead agency has agreed with us, that simply has meant that a DEIS must be done, not that the project must be stopped. The more usual result of our reviews is a negative declaration, conditional upon incorporating measures to prevent or mitigate potential problems that we've identified. On large projects, it is important not to prejudge whether there will be a significant impact. Reaching this decision should be done by conducting a fair and honest environmental review. The fact that a project may be worthwhile and of benefit to the community does not mean it may not also have some environmental impacts that should be accounted for. The CAC tries to work fast. We often meet on Sundays to do the reviews, and there has never been a case where we have caused a project to be delayed because we haven't gotten around to looking at the EAF. We are trying hard to be helpful, not obstructionist. Peter Weed and we often come up with the same recommendations on Site Plan reviews, but just as often one or the other of us has thought of something the other didn't. By having more people looking at a project, from different perspectives, the City gets a better project. It is important to do the env. review early in the process so that delays can be avoided. The Hudson St. reconstruction and relocation is a good case in point. It is a large project, not just a simple repaving (as I and at least some on Common Council had thought). Our local environmental review ordinance certainly does not put it into a Type II category (with no env. review needed), but it also does not seem to fit neatly into any Type I category. This makes it an Unlisted Action, requiring env. review. Of course, it may also be subject to Site Plan Review, which automatically involves env. review. (I would not have known about the extent of the project if a citizen hadn't called me.) I feel it is important that the City itself follow its own environmental regulations. We expect it of developers and other private parties, and the City opens itself up to criticism (at least!) if it ignores the very things we demand of the private sector. If there is any way I can help, I'd be happy to do so. For example, if the form itself is a stumbling block for people in the Department, I would be happy to meet with them and explain it. -1R,,_. e^a �- p��..� c+�. fl-0 / $1 46 LLO . ;.. np.�pi�•'+ i ,Jf Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members BPW and DPW Building Dept . Date: Dec. 3, 1989 Re: Construction fences, erosion and sed. control plans From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation (�s� Advisory Council Chair I would like to suggest that two requirements be added to all projects seeking City approval: 1. A construction fence around every work site, and routine (weekly? daily ?) cleanup of fugitive materials; and 2. Submission of an erosion and sedimentation control plan (esp. for the construction phase of a project), and later follow -up to be sure it has been implemented. 1. Construction fence and routine cleanup: Every work site generates debris, some of which is easily blown off -site. Even with a fence, some material will be blown (or tossed ?) over the fence, so frequent cleanup outside the fence, by the contractor should be required. Plastics and insulating materials seem to be the worst culprits, but workers soda cans and other lunch debris can also be a problem. 2. Erosion /sed. plan: Any project that will disturb the soil has the potential for causing sedimentation of streams (and the lake). Except on flat terrain, erosion can also be a problem. Submission of satisfactory plans to prevent these problems should be a routine requirement. Perhaps the Soil Conservation Service would be willing to review such plans to make sure they are sufficient. Also, after construction starts, it's important that there be a mechanism to assure that the plan is actually being followed. (During Building Dept. inspections, perhaps ?) PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Agenda Item 16.2 Common Council December 6, 1989 RESOLUTION Designation of Hog Hole WHEREAS, the Hog Hole is a wetland inside the City of Ithaca, and nationwide, urban wetlands are becoming increasingly rare; and WHEREAS, the Hog Hole is visited by numerous species of birds, including several on the endangered, threatened, rare, and special concerns lists of NY State; and WHEREAS, the Hog Hole is a critical resting and feeding point for migrating birds on the Cayuga Lake flyway; and WHEREAS, the Hog Hole is valued as a natural area by many citizens, both for its wildlife and its scenic beauty and serenity; and WHEREAS, the Hog Hole is used by college and university classes as a living laboratory; and WHEREAS, in addition to the above benefits, wetlands serve many functions, such as flood control, erosion and sedimentation control, and filtration or neutralization of pollutants; and WHEREAS, agencies of both the federal and NYS governments have determined that loss of wetlands is a significant problem, and furthermore that our long —term goal should be restoration and expansion of existing wetlands; and WHEREAS, the Hog Hole needs greater protection if it is to flourish NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Common Council request that the NYS DEC designate the Hog Hole as a Class I wetland. O— a— HogHole.Res � LPQ� Memo to: BPW & DPW Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members P& D Bd. and Dept. Building Dept. Date: Dec. 10, 1989 Re: EAF for Hudson St. restructuring From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair Ix�c� The CAC's EAF subcommittee (Tripp, Farrell, Darlington) has reviewed the above E AF. Recommendation: Negative declaration provided the plan incorporates the following mitigating measures: 1. Stop sign or traffic light at new C oddington- Hudson intersection; 2. Seeding of Oak Hill Manor slope with a quick - growing grass, as soon as possible after soil has been stripped of vegetation, and, after construction, planting of as large trees as possible. Discussion: 1. The goal of the project is to improve safety. The project has been given careful thought by DPW, and has included several meetings with the residents of Hudson St. However, the proposed changes will only accomplish real safety improvements if measures are taken to slow down and reduce the volume of the traffic. Cars already travel through the area too fast, and the volume of cars is projected to increase (30% ?). A case could be made that a stop sign or light is needed now at that, and perhaps other, intersec- tions. It is predictable that, as the curves are made easier to negotiate, cars will travel even faster than they are now (although the road will by no means become straight). The presence of South Hill School makes it even more important that the street be made safer for pedestrians by slowing down the traffic. In addition to putting in a signal of some sort at Coddington, we urge the Board to consider stop signs at other intersections, and a traffic light at Columbia. Columbia is a difficult street from which to enter Hudson, and it is fairly heavily travelled. We believe a woman (Mrs. Brentlinger) has contacted you with some suggestions for that intersection. Since she lives at that corner, we are sure you will consider these. Reducing the volume of traffic on Hudson would be desirable, both for safety and to retain the neighborhood character of the street. Since through traffic on Hudson eventually meets up with Aurora St. anyway, we feel it would be helpful to shunt as much traffic as possible over to Aurora at the top of the hill - -e.g. with a left -turn arrow for north -bound travellers, as suggested by residents of Hudson St. It's possible that a stop sign would be better than a traffic light (except that this would preclude a left-turn arrow). The disadvantage of a light is that when it's green, people won't slow down - -in fact, some will speed up to beat it. 2. Rapidly establishing vegetative cover with a quick- growing grass, on the Oak Hill slope, will help prevent erosion during construction. We talked to Tom West about this, and he agreed that it was a good idea. Other areas (such as around Therm) should be given the same treatment. For the project as a whole, erosion and sedimentation control must be a high priority item. % r 3. Aesthetically, the biggest impact will be in front of Oak Hill Manor, with the loss of several large oak trees. Could the road be moved less far to the west so more of these could be saved? Could the safety improve- ments be achieved by changing the road's banking and by reducing the speed of cars? The major visual obstruction from the hillside appears to be in front of the house, and the NE corner of the main Oak Hill lot, just uphill of the school. Would grading just that area to a lower level provide sufficient visibility up and down the road? Aside from the visibility problem, is the major safety hazard of the present curve due to its banking? If so, perhaps that could be improved without actually changing the curve. Combined with a stop sign or light at Coddington Rd., (and maybe at Grandview) might this not accomplish the desired level of safety? It will take at least 100 years for replacement trees to reach the grandeur of the ones to be removed. Esp. at Oak Hill Manor, we hope replacement trees will be good specimens, and as large as feasible. If work on the water main is necessary at this time anyway, and the trees would be lost because of that, then making the road improvements as proposed does make sense. 4. We are also concerned about the loss of trees on the north side of the street, just east of the intersection with Aurora, at the foot of the hill. This area lost several trees a few years ago, and it will look quite bleak without any there. (It will take on the aspect of parts of E. State St.) Is there any way to revise the plans to protect that area, or is widening the road essential for safety? 5. At the intersection of Giles with Hudson, we are told by a nearby resident that cars on the east side of Hudson often park in such a way that if the new intersection isn't designed very carefully, visibility around the parked cars will be worse than it now is. He felt that this would happen if Giles St. were moved too far up the hill. In looking at the site, we think he has a point. It appears that Giles should enter Hudson where there is some curve in the latter, so that cars entering Hudson from Giles will be out beyond the parked cars. Is this the plan? 6. The improvements near Therm appear to be good ones, both for safety and- - because of the introduction of more trees -- aesthetically. (Provided that a light or stop sign is put in at C oddington.) 7. We understand that the budgeting for trees may be on the basis of "anything that remains will go for buying trees." We hope we misunderstood this, and that buying at least as many trees as are removed will be mandated in the budget. Hudson is one of the City's most attractive streets. Increases in traffic could easily degrade it, and plenty of trees will help, not only aesthetically but also in terms of dust, air pollution, and noise. We appreciate the effort DPW has put into the tree aspect of the project, and hope these efforts will not be undercut by an inadequate budget. 8. We are happy that tree guards will be required around all trees that are to remain, and urge that, wherever possible, these be located under the drip -line of the branches. (We realize that in many cases this won't be possible.) 3 9. And we are pleased that dust control will be required. The one thing that concerns us is the possible use of chemicals. What chemicals? Are they non - toxic? 10. We wonder if there might not be cheaper solutions to the safety problems. We question spending $1.5 million to accommodate more and faster automobile travel, thereby adding to problems of congestion, noise, air and water pollution, and even safety. The safety problems on Hudson certainly must be addressed, but if there is any less costly way to do this, we urge the Board to take that course instead. If the State does not permit stop signs and traffic lights to be used to control speed and volume, perhaps we need to be urging some changes in the law. (Or are these just State guidelines, not laws ?) How about rumble strips, if we can't have signals? The idea that only major, costly changes in a road can be used to improve safety, and not simple measures such as stop signs and lights, makes little sense to us. Comments on the LEAF: In filling out Part 14 the instructions state that one must check in column 2, any threshold that may be met or exceeded. (Thus, for example, if bedrock is at 2 feet, the threshold that addresses this should be checked in col. 2.) If any impact is checked in Col. 2 and answered "no" in col. 3, then Part III must explain why it is not of importance to the City. Mitigations for those answered "yes" are also put in Part III (as was done for items a- %SwereS "yes' �-j 4,.. r-eviewee). In a project of this sort, one might also ask what the environmental impact of doing nothing would be. We already know that safety is a problem, so one could argue that leaving Hudson St. as it is would have a significant impact. So, the only real question is what the best remedies are. P A RT I (this part is not the evaluation of impacts, but more like an application, to explain the project's site characteristics, etc.) Page 1: A -3: Total area is given as 5.6 acres, yet just below this, the columns add up to 11.2 acres. Also, under "other," it should read, "lawn, trees, shrubs" (not just 'lawn ") Page 2: #5 -c: Water table is 3 -10 feet. What happens if you hit it? # 10: Yes (Six-Mile C reek) #11: Yes (Wildflower Preserve, South Hill School) Page 3: B -1 -a, b: 5.6 acres is given as area owned by City. Does that mean that 5.6 acres will be "taken" (to make up the remainder of the 11.2. acres)? B -3: This is applicable (acres of vegetation), and should be answered Page 4: #8 (blasting ?): If bedrock is at 0 -10 feet (see #5 -b), won't some blasting be needed? If so, will any of it be within 1500 ft. of the school? #11: (relocation of any facilities ?): "Portions of the road" should be added to the items listed. #15: (solid waste): Yes. And where will old pavement, trees, rocks, soil, and other materials be taken for disposal? Page 5: #18: (odors): Yes, during construction. (From equipment and materials.) PART II (evaluation of impacts) �t j (TC-r4 T— Page 2: #1 (Physical change to site): Should be answered Yes. 1st threshold: Col. 2 (since threshold is met or exceeded) 2nd " C ol. 1 4th " C ol. 2 8th and 10th Col. 2, if more than 0.5 acres of vegetation or topsoil will be removed. (What's the story ?) (By the way, if the answer to either of these is Yes, the project is a Type I action, under our local EQ R ordinance.) Page 3: #5 (effect on body of water): 3rd Threshold (6 -Mile Creek): Col. 1 or 2. (Siltation, possible pollutants) Page 3-4: #6 (Effect on surface or groundwater): Yes 4th threshold (groundwater) Probably Col. I. What if you hit the water table? 7th threshold (siltation) (see above -45) fat- I Page 4: #7 (Drainage, runoff, etc): 2nd threshold (erosion): Col. 2 (esp. in front of Oak Hill Manor) (Mitigate as described above.)(A.A U A SJL 91CIt ?) "Other": Col. 1- -major changes in storm sewers Page 5: #10 (effect on nonthreatened species): Removal of large mature trees - -Col. 1 ?) Page 6 #11: (Effect on neighborhood character) Yes. "Other:" Col. 1 or 2: "change in character of the road, speed and volume of traffic, loss of mature trees, increases in air pollution" Page 7: #14 (transportation): "Other :" Col. 1 or 2: likely to be faster traffic, and greater volume, which, if not controlled, could offset the gains in safety from the road improvements. Change in traffic flow at Coddington - Hudson intersection (probably improvement, however). Page 8: # 16: (odors, noise, etc.): 1st threshold (blasting within 1500 feet of school): ?? 2nd it (odors): col.1 or 2 (during construction) 3rd It (noise): Col.1 or 2 (during constr.) #17: (safety) "other:" Higher traffic speed and volume: col. 1 or 2. (Miti- gate as described above) Part IQ: This is for BPW to determine. It appears that many of the items in col. 2 can be mitigated, and in some cases at least, there are plans to do so. Although the slope itself can't be changed, the problems caused by it can be mitigated - -silt runoff, for example. M Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Flynn Battaglia Architects, 181 Brantwood Rd., Buffalo, N Y 14426 Robert Blakeney, Project Manager, Humphreys Service Building, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, 14853 C c: C o m m on C ouncil and M ayor CAC members BPW and DPW Building Dept. Date: Dec. 10, 1989 Re: EAF for American Indian Program House, corner of Jessup and Triphammer Rds. (and a sorority house at a later date) From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council ChairN The C A C's EAF subcommittee (E milian, Tripp, Darlington) considered the above E AF. Recommendation: Negative declaration, provided Peter Weed's concerns are adequately addressed. Com meats: 1. We recommend that tree guards be placed around any trees that are to remain. These should be located under the drip -line of the branches. (This is critical for the oaks since oaks are especially vulnerable to root damage from soil compaction, dumping of earth, etc.) 2. Where will earth removed from the site be taken for disposal? 3. What landscaping plans are there, and what trees will be saved? 4. If applicants do not know the depth to bedrock, can they be sure there will be no blasting? (Part I, #8- -page 4) 5. Has Cornell decided not to use biocides on the site, as indicated by answer to #16 (Part I, page 4)? If so, we applaud the decision! If not, the question should be answered "yes." 6. We recommend seeding bare soil with a quick - growing grass as soon as possible after it is bared, so as to reduce erosion and sedimentation problems. Also, stabilizing site entrances and cleaning of truck tires before they leave the site. 7. We recommend a construction fence around the site to contain debris generated by the construction, and frequent cleanups outside the fence to remove materials that get past it. 8. Does this approval include approval of the sorority house? Part H, page 2 #1: Since depths of bedrock and water are not known, perhaps these two thresholds should be checked, since the answer is "maybe." page 4: #6 (effect on surface or groundwater): 4th threshold (groundwater): column 1, if intent is to use de -icers or biocides on the site. page 8: #16 (noise) Landscaping with trees and shrubs would help as a noise screen. Part III We don't understand what is meant by the mitigations under "pg. 7, no. 13." Memo to: N Y S DEC--Brad Griffin and Pat Reixinger - J From: Betsy Darlington, Chair of City of Ithaca's Conservation Advisory Council Date: Dec. 12, 1989 C c: Ithaca's Common Council and Mayor Last night the CAC voted unanimously to send you the following comments in support of Ithaca Common Council's resolution requesting that the DEC list the "Hog Hole" as a wetland of unusual local importance, and incorporate it into the DEC maps of regulated wetlands: We feel that the Hog Hole is of unusual local importance for the following reasons: 1. The Hog Hole is the only remaining wetland of its type along the southern shore of Cayuga Lake. While it is different in character from the two designated wetlands located somewhat to thesouth of the southern shore of the lake, it forms an important biological reserve in conjunction with these two wetlands, the Cayuga Inlet Valley, and the lakeshore itself. 2. It is in a city, and urban wetlands, nationwide, have been diminished and degraded. Its location next to Cass Park, the Treman Marine Park, and State Rte. 89, make it an important scenic element, and easily accessible to the citizens of Ithaca, the surrounding area and tourists. 3. It is recognized by the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology as of unusual importance for birds. Attached is a list, compiled by David Nutter of the Lab., of birds found in the wetland and adjacent fields. It includes a number of endangered, threatened, "special concern," and declining species. It is of critical importance as a resting and feeding spot for migrating birds, as well as for breeding, nesting, and feeding by resident species. This past season, three pairs of willow flycatchers - -a species that may be declining nationally -- nested in the young cottonwoods along the southern edge of the wetland. At least five great blue herons are regular visitors to the slow- moving stream and area of open water along the western side of the wetland. While not a rare species, it is a thrill for people to see them right in the City. 4. It has been used for many years by college and university professors, both for their classes and for research. 5. it is an important recreational resource, especially for birding and photography, and is recognized as a "birding hotspot" by local birders. The Cayuga Bird Club frequently leads field trips there. 6. It is an important resting and feeding area for various species of butter- flies during migration, according to lepidopterist, Robert Dirig. 7. In the late 1970's Dr. Edward B. Brothers, then a professor at Cornell (and currently a fisheries consultant), found (with his classes) young wild rainbow trout, evidence of spawning, in the upper reaches of the Hog Hole, below the first impassable barrier of Williams Brook. To his knowledge, it has not been checked since. 8. It filters out pollutants and silt from runoff, including that carried by the slow - moving stream that passes through the wetland and that carries part of the drainage from West Hill. Enclosed: David Nutter's bird list, Robert Wesley's plant list, letters from Dorothy M cIlroy and Prof. John Confer. J '1T - r Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Rosanne and Henri Vichier - Guerre, 129 Kline Rd. C c: C o m m on C ouncil and M ayor CAC members Building Dept. BPW Date: Dec. 12, 1989 Re: EAF for minor subdivision at 129 Kline Rd. (one lot into two) Fro m: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair The CAC's EAF subcommittee (Wertis, Emilian, Darlington) considered the above E A F. Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Memo to: Planning Board and Dept. Jason Fane- College Ave. Associates, 323 N. Tioga St. Cc: Common Council and Mayor CAC members Building Dept. BPW Date: Dec. 12, 1989 Re: EAF for minor subdivision at 405 -407 College Ave. (A 10 -foot wide strip would be added to Collegetown Plaza property) Fro m: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair The CAC's EAF subcommittee (W ertis, Waldron, Darlington) considered the above EAF. Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact) Memo to: Common Council and Mayor From: Conservation Advisory Council Date: Dec. 12, 1989 Cc: DEC Commissioner Thomas Jorling a /��clre Iiazzcl�a Re: Lead agency status for environmental review of Treman Marine Park development plan We received a copy of Andrew Mazzella's letter regarding the Finger Lakes State Parks' desire to be lead agency for this environmental review, and we hope that the City will .not give in. It makes no sense for anybody other than the City to be lead agency. We would not let a developer be the lead agency for the environmental review of his subdivision, nor should the state review its own development plan. The potential for abuse of the whole review process would simply be too great- -like having the fox guard the chickens. Moreover, the impact of the State's plans will be felt primarily by the citizens of the City of Ithaca, so it is only logical and fair that the City be lead agency. CAC 1 d .j II/I ny as 33 (�, ��' Ge _ e4- ;mot �r%- yon -t?cQ 2C.- OFFICE OF CITY CLERK CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 December 13, 1989 Mr. Bradley Griffin Department of Environmental Conservation P.O. Box 5170 Fisher Avenue Cortland, New York 13045 TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607 Dear Mr. Griffin: Attached you will find a resolution passed by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York at their meeting on December 6, 1989. Background material will follow from Betsy Darlington, Chair of our local Conservation Advisory Council. Very Truly Yours, Callista F. Paolangeli, City Clerk CC: Pat Reixinger, Chief Wetlands Specialist DEC - Albany, New York "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Designation of Hogs' Hole By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson WHEREAS, the Hogs' Hole is a wetland inside the City of Ithaca, and nationwide, urban wetlands are becoming increasingly rare; and WHEREAS, the Hogs' Hole is visited by numerous species of birds, including several on the endangered, threatened, rare, and special concerns lists of NY State; and WHEREAS, the Hogs' Hole is a critical resting and feeding point for migrating birds on the Cayuga Lake flyway; and WHEREAS, the Hogs' Hole is valued as a natural area by many citizens, both for its wildlife and its scenic beauty and serenity; and WHEREAS, the Hogs' Hole is used by college and university classes as a living laboratory; and WHEREAS, in addition to the above benefits, wetlands serve many functions, such as flood control, erosion and sedimentation control, and filtration or neutralization of pollutants; and WHEREAS, agencies of both the federal and NYS governments have determined that loss of wetlands is a significant problem, and furthermore that our long -term goal should be restoration and expansion of existing wetlands; and WHEREAS, the Hogs' Hole needs greater protection if it is to flourish; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council request that the NYSDEC add the Hogs' Hole wetland to the States regulatory map as a wetland of unusual local importance according to authority provided by Section 24- 0301, Subdivision 1 of the Environmental Conservation Law an 6 NYCRR Part 664.7, Subdivision C. Carried Unanimously STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS SS: CITY OF ITHACA I, Callista F. Paolangeli, City Clerk of the City of Ithaca, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and exact copy of a resolution duly adopted by the of said City of Ithaca at meeting held on the day of , 19 and that the same is a complete copy of the whole of such resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the Corporate Seal of the City of Ithaca, this day of , 19_ .... ............................... City Clerk 0 f the City 0 f Ithaca