HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental & Misc InfoCITY OF ITHACA
10Ei EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
F N 2 1 1988
7 L
DEPARTMENT OF
Glen Goldwyn Jan. 21, 1988
Community Development Administrator
City Hall, 108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CODE 607
Dear Glen:
At the meeting of the Conservation Advisory Council last night, we
gave_ unanimous, but conditional, approval to the negative declarations
on the EAFs for the city ,s sale of the City Hall Annex and of Fire
Station #5. The condition is that the following statement be included,
either with the neg. dec. at the end, or under item #5 (project descrip-
tion):
An EAF must be done on any proposed use, during the design review
process. �
-0, .4,— � 04--, a,,, k-7 uv-�_4
Our feeling was that, given the fact that under the B -3 zoning which
applies to both properties, parking and traffic have the potential for
having major impacts. For example, a 100 -foot structure with no off - street
parking could be permitted in an already congested area. This is why
we felt an EAF should be required as part of the neg. dec.
In reviewing the EAF s for the alienation process, we - -and Mr. Lockrow
from the state DEC to whom Helen Jones and I talked at length - -felt
that the EAF should state what alternative uses the various sites might
be put to, after the alienation. It was not enough to say that the
alienation itself would have no impact: this would not meet the H.O.M.E.S.
test of "taking a hard look" at potential impacts and identifying relevant
areas of environmental concern. At the CAC meeting last night we discussed
this, but since we did not feel qualified at this point to say what
uses would be acceptable, we did not include this in our recommendation.
However, the city probably does, have certain things in mind that it
feels would be acceptable 'potential uses for the sites, and perhaps
it would make sense to state what these are in the EAF s.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Betsy Darlington, Chairman
cc: Dick Bcoth
Carolyn Peterson
Mayor Gutenberger
-An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Allirmative Action Program-
CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
1. Project Information /to be completed by applicant or DroJect snnngn r_
_ 1. Applicant /Sponsor
I 2. Project Name CITY HALL
CITY OF ITHACA
SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY/ ANNEX
3. Project Location:
Corner of Cayuga & GReen Streets 123 South Cayuga Street
4. Is Proposed Action:
G New O Expansion O Modification /Alteration
5. Describe Project Briefly:
The project involves the City's sale of a single, four story annex to Ithaca's City Hall.
6. Precise Location Road Intersections, Prominent Landmarks, etc., or
Provide Map)
The property is adjacent to Ithaca's City Hall at the corner of Cayuga & Green Streets.
7. Amount of Land Affected:
Initially Acres or Sq. Ft. Ultimately Acres or Sq. Ft.
8. Will Proposed Action Comply With Existing Zoning or Other Existing Land
Use Restrictions?
Yes O No If No, Describe Briefly
9. What is Present Land Use in Vicinity of Project?
0 Residential O Industrial O Agricultural
Vacant, Most Recently
O Parkland /Open Space 0 Commercial XO OtheiOccupied as Public.
Describe: Most Recent Tenent Tompkins County DSS.
10. Does Action Involve a Permit /Approval, or Funding,-Now or Ultimately,
From Governmental Agency (Federal, State or Local)? G Yes *� No
If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit /Approval Type property is to be sold by the
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency through a disposition procedure to be approved by Common Council
11. Does Any Aspect of the Action Have a Currently Valid Permit or Approval?
G Yes O No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit /Approval Type
Ccmwn Council authorized the sale of the property at their October 1987 meeting.
12. As a Result of Proposed Action Will Existing Permit /Approval Require
Modification? None identified.
Yes No
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS
TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Glenn M. Goldwyn, Administrator
Applicant /Sponsor Name Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Date 1/15/88
Signature
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (SEAF
INSTRUCTIONS: -`
In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that
the
preparer will use currently available information concerning the project
_ -- and the likely impacts of the action.
- Environmental Assessment
I. Will project result in a large physical change to the
project site or physically alter more than one acre of
land? ...........................
...............................
Yes
2. Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form
found the
on site or to any site designated a unique natural
area or critical environmental area by a local
or state
agency? .......................
...............................
Yes
3. Will project alter or have an effect on an existing waterway ?....
Yes
4. Will project have an impact on groundwater quality ?.. ••••
Yes
5. Will project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites ?
Yes
...:.........
6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or
animalspecies? .................
...............................
Yes
7. Will project result in an adverse effect on air quality ?.........
Yes
8. Will project have an effect on visual character of the
community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to
thecommunity?
................... ...............................
Yes
9. Will project adversely impact any site or structure of
historic, pre- historic, or paleontological importance or
any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark
district ? .....................
...............................
Yes
10. Will project have an effect on existing or future recreational
opportunities? ................... ...............................
Yes
11. Will project result in traffic problems or cause a major
effect to existing transportation systems ? .......................
Yes
12. Will project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare,
vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's
operation during construction or after completion ? ...............
Yes
13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety ?.........
Yes
14. Will project affect the existing community by directly
causing a growth in permanent populations of more than
5 percent over a one -year period or have a negative effect
on the character of the
community -or neighborhood ? ...............
Yes
15. Is there public controversy concerning the project ? ..............
Yes
X No
X No
X No
X No
X No
x No
X No
X No
X No
X No
X No
X No
X No
X No
x No
If.any question has been answered Yes a completed Long Environmental
Assessment Form (LEAF) i
Assessment
SIGNATURE: Glenn M. Goldwyn Administrator
TITLE: Ttha�a [[rhan RenesoI Agency
REPRESENTING: City of Ithaca
DATE: 1/15/88
CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
1. Project Information /to be completed by aDDlicant or nrniPrt cnnncnrr
1. Applicant /Sponsor
2. Project Name Fire Station
City of Ithaca
Sale of Surplus Property #5
3. Project Location:
136 West State Street, Ithaca, New York
4. Is Proposed Action:
New O Expansion O Modification /Alteration
5. Describe Project Briefly: The project involves the City sale of the above site.
6. Precise Location Road Intersections, Prominent Landmarks, etc., or
Provide Map) The property is located at 136 West State Street, on the north
side of the block between Cayuga and Albany Streets.
7. Amount of Land Affected: One building parcel.
Initially Acres or Sq. Ft. Ultimately Acres or Sq. Ft.
8. Will Proposed Action Comply With Existing Zoning or Other Existing Land
Use Restrictions?
Y� Yes O No If No, Describe Briefly
9. What is Present Land Use in Vicinity of Project?
0 Residential O Industrial 0 Agricultural
OParkland /Open Space Commercial 4- XO Other Most recently in Public
Describe: Use as a fire station.
10. Does Action Involve a Permit /Approval, or Funding, Now or Ultimately,
From Governmental Agency (Federal, State or Local)Th ,
roperty t6 be be sold by
If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit /Approval. Type
the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency through a disposition procedure to be approved by Carrion
11. Does Any Aspect of the Action Have a Currently Valid Permit or Approval?
G Yes O No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit /Approval Type
e Common Council has authorized the sale of the property at their October 1987 meeting.
12. As a Result of Proposed Action Will Existing Permit /Approval Require
Modification?
Yes No
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS
TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Glenn M. Goldwyn, Administrator
Applicant /Sponsor Name Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Date—* 1/15/88
Signature
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (SEAF
.INSTRUCTIONS:
In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that
the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project
and the likely impacts of the action.
Environmental Assessment
I.
Will project result in a large physical change to the
project site or physically alter more than one acre of
land? ............................ ...............................
Yes X No
2.
Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form
found on the site or to any site designated a unique natural
area or critical environmental area by a local or state
agency? .......................... ...............................
Yes X No
3.
Will project alter or have an effect on an existing waterway ?....
Yes X No
4.
Will project have an impact on groundwater quality ? ..............
Yes X No
5.
Will project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites ? ...:.........
Yes X No
6.
Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or
animalspecies? .................. ...............................
Yes X No
7.
Will project result in an adverse effect on air quality ?.........
Yes No
8.
Will project have an effect on visual character of the
_x
community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to
thecommunity? ................... ...............................
Yes X No
9.
Will project adversely impact any site or structure of
historic, pre- historic, or paleontological importance or
any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark
district? ........................ ...............................
Yes X No
10.
Will project have an effect on existing or future recreational
opportunities? ................... ...............................
Yes X No
11.
Will project result in traffic problems or cause a major
effect to existing transportation systems ? .......................
Yes X No
12.
Will project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare,
vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's
operation during construction or after completion ? ...............
Yes X No
13.
Will project have any impact on public health or safety ?.........
Yes X No
14.
Will project affect the existing community by directly
causing a growth in permanent populations of more than
5 percent over a one -year period or have a negative effect
on the character of the community or neighborhood ? ...............
Yes X No
15.
Is there public controversy concerning the project ? ..............
Yes X No
If.any question has been answered Yes a completed Long Environmental
Assessment Form (LEAF) is nec nary.
Glenn M. Goldwyn Administrator
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: TITLE: Tthaca iTrhan Renewal Aa ncy
REPRESENTING: �j�¢ DATE:1/15/88
a
INITIAL APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION OF
PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ITHACA
Applicants shall submit.this completed form, together with all other applicable'supporting
information called for in §31.24 B through D, to the Board of Planning and Development not
later than ten days before the date of a regular Board meeting, in order for consideration
- - - -of Conditional Approval at that meeting.
1. Name /address /phone number(s) of owner(s) or property /properties to be subdivided:
J6/HA) C 1 /11/a2G,92E'7- / C<.y/,) ES 07 z73 h�3a 5
_304 '4 �'1 S7 _Z7__/101/9C109 /\/ • Y / y' 8S o
2. Location /street number, assessment parcel number, and present use of properties
to be subdivided: I- != B vo
Y9C9Af7- Pd96pE27-v
3.. Reason for subdivision (check one):
Adjust lot line with neighbor.
Permit additional building on existing lot.
Create one or more new building lots.
Other: SALE of V/�C/dAST F�igbPE27- y
4. List any special feature of properties as existing (steep slopes, views, streams,
trees, buildings or other improvements); how will subdivision affect them?
5. Describe how subdivision will affect adjoining properties:
9.p%7_61JUfhjC Prtvn�52TJES Al 2E 2 IF- SJQFJ7iq�
6. Indicate intentions for use and development of the properties involved, and any
permits now pending for the same. ?if /S /,i r , S.91, f PuQ�oa �f_S
7. Describe any work the proposal will require from the City:
8. Attach a map showing the proposed subdivision of the properties involved, to
reasonably accurate scale, on 81 x 11 paper. Show property line dimensions
and area (acres or square feet) for existing and proposed lots. This map is
not required to be as accurate as the Preliminary Subdivision Plat called for
by §31.24, but it may be a reduced copy, if readable.
I hereby certify to the Board of Planning and Development of the City of Ithaca that
the above information, and supporting information submitted with respect to this
application, is true and accurate, and that the Board will be informed of any changes
thereto in a timely fashion.
Notarized signature of applicant:
Date: �Ait/ Zd /y8k�
�w =Y i
Tc:r.: Doc. 21, 19 ��
Fri
'JAN 2 01988
CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
1. Project Information /to be completed by aoolicant nr nrniar+ ennn�.,M
-- 1. Applicant /Sponsor
2. Project Name
T a,q N C, c L N /n/E S
C 4 Y n/�FS s 16
3. Project Location:
A1,9 1_4 F 2 .QL ✓ D .
4. Is Proposed Action:
New O Expansion O Modification /Alteration
5. Describe Project Briefly:
3.St V�c�•�T hiC.�ES ,
6. Precise Location Road Intersections, Prominent Landmarks, etc., or
Provide Map)
7. Amount of Land Affected:
Initially 3.S Acres or Sq. Ft. Ultimately Acres or Sq. Ft.
8. Will Proposed Action Comply With Existing Zoning or Other Existing Land
Use Restrictions?
Yes O No If No, Describe Briefly
9. What is Present Land Use in Vicinity of Project?
Residential O Industrial 0 Agricultural
IeN Parkland /Open Space 0 Commercial O Other
Describe: 1% -O Al 'L.5
10. Does Action Involve a Permit /Approval, or Funding, Now or Ultimately,
From Governmental Agency (Federal, State or Local)? O Yes No
If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit /Approval Type
11. Does Any Aspect of the Action Have a Currently Valid Permit or Approval?
CG Yes No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit /Approval Type
12. As a Result of Proposed Action Will Existing Permit /Approval Require
Modification?
Yes No � ��._I_, .
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IW U JAN 2 2' 1988
TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Applicant /Sponso ame JQ1/A/ C, C4 }yN�S Date
Signature
r
INSTRUCTIONS:
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (SEAF)
In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that
the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project
and the likely impacts of the action.
Environmental Assessment
1. Will project result in a large physical change to the
project site or physically alter more than one acre of
land? ............................. ............................... Yes X-No
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
I
a
Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form
found on the site or to any site designated a unique natural
area or critical environmental area by a local or state
agency? .......................... ............................... Yes No
Will project alter or have an effect on an existing waterway ?....
Yes
Will project have an impact on groundwater quality ? ..............
Yes
Will project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites ? .............
Yes
Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or
X
animalspecies? .................. ...............................
Yes
Will project result in an adverse effect on air quality ?.........
Yes
Will project have an effect on visual character of the
No
community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to
i(
thecommunity? ................... ...............................
Yes
Will project adversely impact any site or structure of
operation during construction or after completion ? ...............
historic, pre - historic, or paleontological importance or
13.
any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark
Yes No
district? ........................ ...............................
Yes
X
No
X
No
X
No
11.
X
No
K
No
Yes >( No
�C
No
i(
No
10.
Will project have an effect on existing or future recreational
opportunities? ................... ...............................
Yes
11.
Will project result in traffic problems or cause a major
-4—No
effect to existing transportation systems ? .......................
Yes >( No
12.
Will project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare,
vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's
operation during construction or after completion ? ...............
Yes No
13.
Will project have any impact on public health or safety ?.........
Yes No
14.
Will project affect the existing community by directly
causing a growth in permanent populations of more than
5 percent over a one -year period or have a negative effect
on the character of the community or neighborhood ? ...............
Yes No
15.
Is there public controversy concerning the project ? ..............
Yes i< No
If•any question has been answered Yes a completed Long Environmental
Assessment Form (LEAF) is essary.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: TITLE: 6W V6-2
REPRESENTING: A— DATE: JqA/
fl [ j U JAN 2 21988
i
:r
a
o
O
J
- a, --Li
k
0
� w
tr
00
V V
• r ��
"e s
.d
iota
T
V
t
y �
c
• sir
�'�`�.
� 0
yam°'}
C
K�
.►
�'L�+
I�
z • �
a=
o.
i
t
c
�I
y �
c
• sir
�'�`�.
� 0
yam°'}
C
�
.►
�'L�+
I�
z • �
a=
o.
c
�I
c
d
•
g
'r
\
r
h � �
Q°
b
QC
Q
.n
c
a
c
to
" J
s -
.3 � �{t+.p'h'�ii�RS rx
•j�� "; �.3i1
AL
Q
y
K
e
w
b
iL
� v
IV
Q9\
O
r
4.'d
/tom_
h � �
Q°
b
QC
Q
.n
Ott C3>
cn
0
m
ow 0
> kit q
m
M
VI n
c
'J
Z
k
u j it
70
ri
CN 1 -4
0
A
0
n 0
-n cn
m
m
tt 4
0
it
m
it
Az�
Qh- - - - - - -- - - -
11 J,
0- e
L L
T
o NYS ROUTE 13
(D
10 G 0
G)
4 z
IT: 1'r'-
v k,
in
oi ;< iii kit
At ri
C
Kit
Qj
V 9v t? 4 '1 i k '5�' D) � i 1� I
k'� N�
4 kit —,A
L
kit
4
q i7� su
m
yg kil
;6 14, it
4
1-k L'l m
-J` cn
Ixt
L
t lit,
AA
-z!
O
T Oa CONTINENTAL
zx z o
Mz JOURNEY'S END M OTEL
"a r CONTINENTAL JOURNEY'S OURNEY'S END DEVELOPMENT CORP. A DELAWARE C
r, 67 YONGE ST., SUITE 602, TORONTO ONTARIO MSE1J8
>
om:z
01
M
A;
rn
49%
m
m
o
o NYS ROUTE 13
(D
10 G 0
G)
4 z
IT: 1'r'-
v k,
in
oi ;< iii kit
At ri
C
Kit
Qj
V 9v t? 4 '1 i k '5�' D) � i 1� I
k'� N�
4 kit —,A
L
kit
4
q i7� su
m
yg kil
;6 14, it
4
1-k L'l m
-J` cn
Ixt
L
t lit,
AA
-z!
O
T Oa CONTINENTAL
zx z o
Mz JOURNEY'S END M OTEL
"a r CONTINENTAL JOURNEY'S OURNEY'S END DEVELOPMENT CORP. A DELAWARE C
r, 67 YONGE ST., SUITE 602, TORONTO ONTARIO MSE1J8
>
om:z
INITIAL APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION OF
PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ITHACA
ortin
Applicants shall submit this completed. form, together with all other applicable supp g
information called for in §te of a
through
Board meeting, innordernforeconsi to the Board of
the date deration
-----later than ten days before the
of Conditional Approval at that meeting.
1. Name /address /phone number(s) of owners) or property /properties to be subdivided:
Bill J. ManiiaS, 357 Elmira Rd., Ithaca, NY 14850
Continental Journey 's End Develo ment Cor . A Delware Corporation
Yonge St., Suite Toronto, Ontario, M5E1J8 resent use of properties
2. Location /street number, assessment parcel number, and present - to be subdivided: 356 Elmira Rd. Ithaca N.Y.
125 -01 -03.3 Part of 125 -01 -3.22 Part of Restaurant 126 -01- 2-
3. Reason for subdivision (check one):
Adjust lot line with neighbor.
Permit additional building on existing lot.
Create one or more new building lots. X
Other:
4. List any special feature of properties as existing (steep slopes, views, streams
trees, buildings or other improvements); how will subdivision affect them?
None
�
g
5. Describe how subdivision will affect adjoining prop erties: None
6. Indicate intentions for use and development of the properties involved, and any
permits now pending for the same.
81 Unit Motel
7. Describe any work the proposal will require from the City: Sanitary and
water line extensions to pro ert line. Fire hydrant laced on NW end
of site.
8. Attach a map showing the proposed subdivision of the properties involved, to
reasonably accurate scale, on 8} x 11 paper. Show property line dimensions
and area (acres or square feet) for existing and proposed lots. This map is
not required to be as accurate as the Preliminary Subdivision Plat called for
by §31.24, but it may be a reduced copy, if readable.
lanning and Development of the City of Ithaca that
I hereby certify to the Board of P
the above information, and supporting information submitted with respect to this
application, is true and accurate, and that the Board will be informed of any changes
thereto in a timely fashion.
Notarized signature of applicant:
Date: Jan. 22, 1988
[JAN 2 21988
CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
1. Project Information /to be completed by applicant or
� .IAN � 21988
J 1-'
I.- Applicant/Sponsor 2. Project
Continental Journey's End Development Corp.
Continental Journey's End Motel
3. Project Location: 356 Elmira Road, NYS Rt. 13, Ithaca, N.Y.
Is Proposed Action:
New O Expansion O Modification /Alteration
5. Describe Project Briefly: Demolition of the existing "Talk of the Town"
(Restaurant) structure and erection of a new 81 unit motel.
Precise Location kRoad Intersections, Prominent Landmarks, etc., or
Provide Map) gee 3 above
7. Amount of Land Affected:
Initially 1.8755Acres
Ultimately 1.8755 Acres oT`ssq: -fit:
8. Will Proposed Action Comply With Existing Zoning or Other Existing Land
Use Restrictions?
V Yes O No If No, Describe Briefly
9. What is Present Land Use in Vicinity of Project?
G Residential O Industrial O Agricultural
OParkland /Open Space Commercial O Other
Describe:
10. Does Action Involve a Permit /Approval, or Funding, Now or Ultimately,
From Governmental Agency (Federal, State or Local)? Yes J No
If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit /Approval Type
Subdivision approval - .Building and Demolition - curb cut permit
=As spect of the Action Have a Currently Valid Permit or Approval?
O No
If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit /Approval Type
12. a Result of Proposed Action Will Existing Permit /Approval Require
Modification?
_.! Yes x, No
FApplicant/Spolnsor CERTIFY THAT
THETHE
BESTINFORMATION
KNOW�EDGED ABOVE IS
TRUE TO
Name Continental Journey's End Motel
Date Jan. 22, 1988
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (SEAF) �� JAR 2 21988
INSTRUCTIONS:
In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed tiat a_ u.
the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project
and the likely impacts of the action.
Environmental Assessment
1. Will project result in a large physical change to the
project site or physically alter more than one acre of
land? ............................ ............................... x Yes No
2. Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form
found on the site or to any site designated a unique natural
area or critical environmental area by a local or state
Yes x No
agency ? ......................... .............................
3. Will project alter or have an effect on an existing waterway ?.... Yes x No
4. Will project have an impact on groundwater quality ? .............. Yes x No
5. Will project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites ? ............. Yes x No
6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or........ Yes x No
animalspecies? ........... ...............................
�. Will project result in an adverse effect on air quality ?......... Yes x No
8. Will project have an effect on visual character of the
community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to` Yes x No
rthe community? ................... ...............................
9. Will project adversely impact any site or structure of
historic, pre- historic, or paleontological importance or
any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark Yes Yes x No
district? ............. ...............................
10. Will project have an effect on existing or future recreational Yes x No
opportunities ? ................ . ...............................
11. Will project result in traffic problems or cause a major Yes x No
effect to existing transportation systems ? .............. ..'.•..,.
12. Will project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare,
vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's
operation during construction or after completion ? ............... Yes x No
13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety ?......... Yes X_No
14. Will project affect the existing community by directly
causing a growth in permanent populations of more than
5 percent over a one -year period or have a negative effect.. Yes No
on the character of the community or neighborhood? ........ ••... �_
15. Is there public controversy concerning the project ? .............. Yes x No
If•any question has been answered Yes a completed Long Environmental
Assessment Form (LEAF) is necessary.
�; '�j-�S TITLE: Sr. Partner
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: ,u�w u
REPRESENTING: Continental Journey's End Motel DATE: Jan. 22, 1988
LEAF
LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 1 JA 2 510
+ Project Information
APPI icant �;�
NOTICE: This document is designed to 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:
Continental Journey's End Motel
356 Elmira Road, Ithaca, N.Y.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT:
Obrist and Appel
Name
1054 James St.
Street
Syracuse, N.Y. 13203
(P.O.) State Zip
BUSINESS PHONE: 315- 476 -1022
NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different
Continental Journey's End Development
Name
67 Yonge St., Suite 602
Street
Toronto, Ontario M5E1J8
p.O- State Zip
BUSINESS PHONE: 613 - 966 -1004
TYPE OF PROJECT: Motel 81 Unit
(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 x Generally uneven and
rolling or irregular
2. Present land use: Urban , Industrial Commercial x , Public
Forest , Agricultural , Other
3. Total area of project: 1.8755_ acres, or 81696.78 Afteare feet.
te Area:
Presently Completion
Approxima
Meadow or Brushland
Wooded
Agricultural
Wetland (as per article 24
of E.C.L.)
Public
—.xLacres /sq. ft.
NA acres /sq. ft.
NA acres /sq. ft.
NAacres /sq. ft.
NA acres /sq. ft.
Water Surface Area NAacres /sq.
Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) .9755 acres /sq.
Roads, buildings and other .90 acres /sq.
paved surfaces
Other (indicate type) NA acres /sq.
Lawn
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
NA acres /sq. ft.
NA acres /sq. ft.
NA acres /sq. ft.
NA acres /sq. ft.
NA acres /sq. ft.,
NA acres /sq. ft.
NA acres /sq. ft.
1.3acres /sq. ft.
.5755acres /sq. ft.
-2-
4- (a) What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? e.g., HdB silty
loam, etc., Fill: Sand, fine Qraaiel and silt; Natural: clay & Silt
(b) Percentage well drained moderately well drained 507 , poorly
- -- drained 507 .
5. (a) Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Yes x No.
(b) What is depth of bedrock? Below 25 (in feet).
(c) What is depth to the water table? feet. No free water at 15 feet
6. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0 -10% 95 %;
15% or greater %.
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:
a. Names of.. stream or name of river to which it is tributary None .
15. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project site:
a. Name None ; 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) I -1, B -5, R -3a; and 1 to 2 story
structures
17. Has the site been used for land disposal of solid or hazardous wastes?
Yes x No; If Yes, describe
-3-
6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as
appropriate)
a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor 1.s755acres or
81696.78 square feet.
b. Project acreage developed: 1.8755 acres initially; 1.8755 acres
ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped None
d. Length.of project in miles (if appropriate) or feet 410 ±'
e. If project is an expansion or demolition of existing building or
use, indicate percent of change proposed: building square
footage 10,515 ; developed acreage 0.4
f. Number 50 -60 proposed 81 _of off - street parking spaces existing p P
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per day 186 and per hour not known
(upon completion of project). when completely filled
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units (not structures): NA
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initial
Ultimate
Orientation - check one
Neighborhood City Regional
If: Commercial X
If: Industrial
Estimated Employment
12
i. Total height of tallest proposed structure: 26 feet.
2. Specify what type of natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) and
how much will be removed from the site --
or added to the site --
Balance cut and fill (earth)
3. Specify what type of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover) and
how much will be removed from site - None acres.
4. Will any mature trees or othe X Nocally- important vegetation be removed
by this project.
5. Are there any plans for re- vegetation to replace that removed during
construction? Yes X No. However site is being landscaped.
-4-
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 8 Mos
months (including demolition).
7. If multi - phased project: NA
a. Total number of phases anticipated
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase one month year
(including demolition).
c. Approximate completion date final phase month -year.
d. Is phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes No.
8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes x No; if yes,
explain
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50± ; after project
is completed 12
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 10± Explain Change
of use of property from restaurant to motel
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? Yes __X_No.
b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.)
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 Fall partially
within or contiguous to: No Cayuga Inlet,
No Cascadilla Creek, No Cayuga Lake, No Six Mile Creek,
No 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 x No.
d. If yes for a, b, or c, explain
15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes x No.
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used?
Yes No.
c. If yes, give name: location
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a
sanitary landfill? Yes No. If yes, explain
E. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? Yes 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
-5-
18. Will project produce odors? Yes __L_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. Will project result in an increase in energy use? x Yes No; if yes,
indicate types) Electric, Water and Sanitary, minimal increase.
21. Total anticipated water usage per day 4400 gals /day. Source of
water Public System
22. Zoning:
a. What is dominant zoning classification of site? B-5
b. Current specific zoning classification of site? B-5
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
x No_. Specify
c. Local and Regional approvals: Approval
Approval- Submittal App
(Yes -No) Required(type) (Date). (Date)
Council N
BZA N
P &D Board Y Subdivision
Landmarks N
BPW Y Curb Cut
-- Fire
Fire Dept._- Y �rntartinn
Police Dept. _ N
I U RA - -- --N- Bldg. an
Building Commissioner Y T)Pmol; ion
C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS
Attach 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:-
yr
TITLE Sr. Partner
REPRESENTING Obrist and Appel - Landscape Archtiects
DATE Jan. 22 1988
EAF
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 examples and/or situations. But
other exampmp / 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
.will 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 impact, then consider
the impact as potentially large, complete Part 2, then describe
more fully in Part 3.
e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change
in the project to a less than large magnitude, place a Yes in
Column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not
possible.
* Prepared by Obrist & Appel as suggested by Paul Mazzarella on 1/22/88. .m-
-�,1! G�.nr!
-2-
IMPACT ON LAND NO YES P
1. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT
AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL, x
CHANGE TO PROJECT SITE?
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 -tons. 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
ON ANY UNIQUE LAND FORM S x
FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e.
Cliffs, gorges, geological formations,
etc.)
Specific land forms:
NO YES
3. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT
ON ANY SITE DESIGNATED
AS A UNIQUE NATURAL AREA x
OR A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL
AREA BY A LOCAL OR STATE AGENCY?
1.
SMALL T
ODERATE
MPACT
!I�
11 JAN 2 5 19$8
LARGE
IMPACT
X
REDUCED BY
PROJECT CHANGEJ.__
-3-
IMPACT ON WATER
NO YES
4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT
ANY WATER BODY x
DESIGNATED AS PROTECTED? 0
(Under Article 15 or 24 of
the Environmental Conservation Law,
E.C.L.)
Exam les 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 x
OF WATER? 0
Exam les 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? x
Exam.les that would apply
to Column 2
Project will require a discharge
permit.
1.
SMALL T
10DERATE
IMPACT
2. 3.
POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE
LARGE REDUCED BY
IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE -
-4-
1.
SMALL T
10DERATE
IMPACT
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
NO YES
7. WILL PROJECT ALTER
DRAINAGE FLOW, DRAINAGE x
PATTERNS OR SURFACE WATER 0
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:
IMPACT ON AIR
NO YES
8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT
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.
2. 3.
POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE
LARGE REDUCED BY
IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE
-5-
Il
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
NO YES
9. WILL PROJECT AFFECT
ANY THREATENED OR X
ENDANGERED SPECIES?
Examples 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.
Application of pesticide or herbicide
more than twice a year other than for
agricultural purposes.
Other impacts:
NO YES
10. WILL PROJECT SUB-
STANTIALLY AFFECT X
NON- THREATENED OR 0
NON- ENDANGERED SPECIES?
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 1/2 acre of mature woods or other
locally important vegetation.
1. 2. 3.
SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE
IODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY
M PACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE
I
59
IMPACT ON VISUAL RESOURCE
NO YES
11. WILL THE PROJECT
AFFECT VIEWS, VISTAS x
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
ANY -SITE OR STRUCTURE
OF HISTORIC, PRE-
HISTORIC OR PALEON-
TOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE?
NO YES
Gc
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. 1 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:
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
NO YES
14. WILL THERE BE AN
EFFECT TO EXISTING X
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 X
AFFECT THE
COMMUNITY'S SOURCES
OF FUEL OR ENERGY
SUPPLY?
Examples that would apply to Column 2
1_ 2. 3.
-8-
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, D
NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION
OR ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE
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:
'f I
IMPACT ON HEALTH AND HAZARDS
NO YES
17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT
PUBLIC HEALTH AND x
SAFETY?
Examples. that would apply to Column 2
—P-ro ject -wa l -l- -cause a -risk- of explosion..
or release of hazardous substances
(i.e. oil, 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. 1 3.
-9-
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. 2. 3.
-10-
NO YES
19. IS THERE PUBLIC
CONTROVERSY X
CONCERNING THE PROJECT?
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.
1. 2. 3_
SMALL TO
MODERATE
IMPACT
POTENTIAL
LARGE
IMPACT
CAN IMPACT BE
REDUCED BY
PROJECT CHANGE
X PART 2 X PART 3 X
DETERMINATION
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
X PART 2 X PART 3 X
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
PREPARE-A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
major impacts and, therefore,
is one which may not cause significant
damage to the environment.
B. Although the project could have a
PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
significant effect on the environ-
ment, there will not be a significant
i
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
PREPARE A POSITIVE DECLARATION
major impacts that cannot be reduced
PROCEED WITH EIS
and may cause significant damage to
the environment.
-11-
r/Zzfbg
Date —
Signature of Pre arer
(if different from responsible
officer)
5c. -PAeyjF -,ff--- :0c"5 APt EL.
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 regional 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)
The only impact identified in column 2 of Part 2 is an increase in the
number of parking spaces. Presently, Talk of the Town has parking
capabilities for 50 -60 vehicles. The proposed motel development will
accomodate 81 vehicles. This number is based on the zoning requirements
which requires 1 space per motel unit. The proposed development will
increase present parking numbers between 21 -31 spaces. These additional
spaces meet-the minimum numbers required as determined by Zoning for this
type of development, therefore we conclude that there is minor significance
to this impact.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CODE 607
Glen Goldwyn Jan. 21, 1988
Community Development Administrator
City Hall, 108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Glen:
At the meeting of the Conservation Advisory Council last night, we
gave unanimous, but conditional, approval to the negative declarations
on the EAFs for the city ,s sale of the City Hall Annex and of Fire
Station #5. The condition is that the following statement be included,
either with the neg. dec. at the end, or under item #5 (project descrip-
tion):
An EAF must be done on any proposed use, during the design review
process. � C� _ 4, - 1 ' All -7
Our feeling was that, given the fact that under the B -3 zoning which
applies to both properties, parking and traffic have the potential for
having major impacts. For example, a 100 -foot structure with no off - street
parking could be permitted in an already congested area. This is why
we felt an EAF should be required as part of the neg. dec.
In reviewing the EAF s for the alienation process, we - -and Mr. Lockrow
from the state DEC to whom Helen Jones and I talked at length - -felt
that the EAF should state what alternative uses the various sites might
be put to, after the alienation. It was not enough to say that the
alienation itself would have no impact: this would not meet the H.O.M.E.S.
test of "taking a hard look" at potential impacts and identifying relevant
areas of environmental concern. At the CAC meeting last night we discussed
this, but since we did not feel qualified at this point to say what
uses would be acceptable, we did not include this in our recommendation.
However, the city probably does have certain things in mind that it
feels would be acceptable potential uses for the sites, and perhaps
it would make sense to state what these are in the EAF ,s.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
SinJcrely,
�
Betsy Darlington, Chairman
cc: Dick Booth
Carolyn Peterson
Mayor Gutenberger
"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
Memo to: Mayor and Common Council
Cc: Planning Dept.
From: Conservation Advisory Council,
Betsy Darlington, Chair
Feb. 18, 1988
TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CODE 607
At last night's meeting of the Conservation Adivsory Council, the
following resolution was passed unanimously:
Smoking Resolution
Whereas, the Surgeon General has determined that breathing the smoke
exhaled by smokers is hazardous to ones health, and
Whereas, there is strong sentiment in Ithaca to prohibit smoking
in enclosed areas other than private homes, and
Whereas, the Charter and Ordinance Committee stopped work on a smoking
ordinance when the state health council passed regulations prohibiting
smoking in many places, and
Whereas, these state regulations were overturned in court because
they had not been passed by the legislature,
Therefore, be it resolved that Common Council enact an ordinance
prohibiting smoking in enclosed public places, restaurants, work
places, theaters, and other areas in which people gather. Private
homes would be exempt. Other areas could permit smoking in designated
areas (which could be out -of- doors), provided such areas were separated
from nonsmoking areas in such a way that smoke would not drift from
smoking to nonsmoking areas.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Statement to Ithaca Town Board on rezoning of land next to Stewart Park
for the Chamber of Commerce
Betsy Darlington, Chairman of the Conservation Advisory Council 14_ I y.
Feb. 8, 1988
I. To say that this zoning change would not be spot zoning requires
taking considerable liberties with the facts.
a. It does not fit in with an overall planning scheme for the area,
b. it does not fit in with neighboring uses, and
c. it does not promote the general welfare.
a. Merely saying that there is an overall planning scheme does not
make it so. The closest thing to an overall plan for the area is the
Stewart Park Goals and Guidelines. Having the Chamber of Commerce right
next to Stewart Park would conflict with this plan by increasing the
pressure on the Park. The Park is already functioning about at capacity;
in fact, one of the major concerns considered by the Stewart Park Advisory
Group of which I was a member was the increase in traffic and parking
problems in the park. These problems are great enough that some people
have proposed completely altering the roadway and parking setup, changes
which would significantly change the character of the park in ways many
citizens feel would be undesirable.
b. The main neighboring uses in the area are Stewart Park, the Youth
Bureau, private residences, public schools farther to the south, and
some commercial use farther north. Not only would the Chamber of Commerce
not fit in with any of these uses except the commercial, but I believe
it would hurt them. The town planner has estimated that 27 -81 vehicles
per hour would be entering the parking lot adjacent to the Youth Bureau.
How is having numerous cars and campers pulling in and out of this spot
consistent with the neighboring uses, and how could this do anything
but hurt them?
Stewart Park is a city park, and while the city has always been willing
to have outsiders use it without charge, the community does not want
to increase such use. The parks presence is used by the Chamber as
an important consideration in choosing this location, with no considera-
tion of how the local citizens who use the park - -and I might add, pay
for it- -would feel about extra crowding from tourists and their campers.
c. This move would hurt the general welfare by overloading Stewart
Park, by increasing traffic congestion along busy East Shore Drive and
at its intersection with Gibbs Dr., as well as at the rt. 13 intersection,
and by removing tourists from downtown Ithaca. The move would probably
promote the Chamber of Commerce's welfare and the welfare of commercial
interests at and near Pyramid Mall, but it would certainly not promote
the general welfare.
The city -s downtown must wage a constant battle to survive against
competition from Pyramid Mall and other outlying sprawl developments.
Such enterprises, while apparently fulfilling some of the needs of consumers,
greatly detract from the character of our area and cause harm to the
downtown businesses in the city.
If the Chamber locates in the proposed location, visitors will not
take the more difficult route to downtown but will take the path of
least resistance- -much like water running down a hill - -to Pyramid Mall.
Ufa I
- � `�� i,.; ' «C-i�I Jo -I t;.� c�.��14S -4a � (., ,,_r � :._ ���._� 1. �..i � 1t -.. .. t 1'('
Pyramid does not need more business; downtown Ithaca does.r I find it
amazing that the Chamber would abandon the county seat and the county's
only urban center. The notion that there are no other spots for it } c_
to locate is simply a convenient excuse, one which does not hold water.
Not only is there no need for the Chamber to locate here, from the point
of view of the general welfare, there is in fact a need for it not to
do so. _
I almost get the feeling that the Chamber maintains that what ,s good
for the Chamber is good for the general welfare. I would suggest that
what is bad for the city is bad for the Chamber and for the county and
for the general welfare.
2. I only recently learned that the city's DPW did a short EAF for the
granting of this license. It was done on May 28, 1987. Common Council
voted to approve the licensing the first Wed. in June, and did not even
consider the EAF. The Conservation Advisory Council never even received
a copy of the EAF, yet we are supposed to review these and make recommenda-
tions to Council on there. I saw it for the first time only a couple
of weeks ago, and it was not properly filled out. Every question was
answered "no" as though the preparer had not even read the questions.
Many should have been answered yes.
If the Chamber has been following the licensing process for the Farmers
Market, it should know what a big chance it would be taking in depending
on the annual renewal of a license from the city for the driveway and
parking lot. Automatic renewals are a thing of the past. Future reviews
will be most thorough, and if any of the impacts do occur which many
expect, it's hard to imagine Common Council renewing the license. Common
Council is taking environmental reviews seriously.
I feel that the rezoning would be illegal and the choice of sites
is ill- advised.
Memo to: Mayor Gutenberger
Common Council
- Conservation Advisory Council
DPW
BPW 9,
P &D Dept. (1/c"(0,41 hazuvtfin
P &D Board
Helen Jones
Ra�pk �las�
From: Betsy Darlington, CAC chairman
Re: Inlet Island /SW Park Alienation, and Cass Park /Inlet
Date: Feb. 10, 1988
Y
A
Valley Substitution
Because there are so many elements involved in this action, many people- -
including at least one member of the Planning Dept. staff itself - -do
not really understand exactly what is being proposed, so Z' ll take
that first.
I. Lands to lose their parkland designation, and lands to be substituted.
The aim is to remove state and federal restrictions so the city would
have a free hand with the parcels involved.
A. The city has two parcels designated as parkland on Inlet Island.
Park designation would be removed from these parcels. About 2 1/2 acres
of the 6 +acre southern chunk are occupied on Sat. mornings (during about
9 months of the year) by the Farmers' Market. Part of the Station Restau-
rants parking lot is also on this part of the parkland. The northern
piece is about 1/2 acre. It s enclosed by a chain -link fence and includes
the old Agway building - -a large white structure set at an angle to the
road. Ithaca Boating Center leases this parcel from the city for working
on its boats.
The zoning is M -1 which would permit a variety of commercial use4f
the park designation were removed.
B. The city would also remove the park designation from SW Park. The
park's southern border runs west from Wickes Lumber to the flood control
levee and rr tracks, and includes about 60 acres of young woodlands
(mostly cottonwoods and willows -- species tolerant of wet conditions)
and open, scrubby ground which the DPW is using for dumping snow, leaves,
construction materials, cut -up trees, and debris such as shopping carts,
and for storing piles of dirt and the State St. bricks. The DPW is
continuing to bring in material and push back the tree line of the woods
(which, from having walked the site and from aerial photos, appear to
make up at least half the park - -maybe 2 /3rds). People wanting more
ball fields tried unsuccessfully to develop them in the open scruffy
area.
The northern boundary of the park probably runs along a power line
(vegetated with large trees) north of the bare area. Jack Dougherty
and Helen Jones don't know for sure whether or not it also includes
an irregularly shaped parcel that the rr gave to the city. The zoning
map seems to indicate it does not, but Helen said she'd find out.
The east boundary runs along an old fence line through large trees,
and the west boundary is mostly formed by the rr tracks.
Before the city acquired the land, it was farmland (back at least
r
Park alienations /substitutions
to 1938 - -the oldest aerials I,ve looked at). Helen Jones tells me that
she thinks it was for truck farming.
Zoning is P -1, so before the city could allow non - recreational or
non - educational development, it would have to be re- zoned. Currently,
there is a barricade and no-trespassing sign at the entrance from rt. 13.
C. The Cass Park section the city would designate as parkland (as
part of the exchange for loss of the above parcels) is the large grassy
area just west of the Treman Marina, and extending south to just east
of the Hangar Theater. (The section is called the "Festival for the
Arts" land.) However, the state expects to acquire this land from the
city for marina expansion, and has already appropriated $450,000 to
do so.
D. The city has already purchased one parcel of land south of the
flood control levee, and hopes to condemn, and purchase, other parcels
in the same general area of Inlet Valley, extending NW of, and including
the beautiful meandering Cayuga Inlet (south of where it becomes channeled
into the Flood Control Channel). The Town would also give the city some
of the land. Zoning is mostly FW -1, with some I -1 and B -5.
Note: Standing on the levee west of Stellar Stereo, you can see the
southern (wooded) end of SW Park off to the north, beyond a huge field
of goldenrod. Just on the other side of the levee, you can see the
lands to be acquired. (A map is attached.)
H. Some questions and points of concern
A. Cass Park
The Festival Lands are already considered by the public to be
parkland, and have been for at least 20 years. They may even, legally,
be parkland, a point the city attorney is researching. (Certainly the
city's own charter would define them this way.) Regardless of the legal
status of the area, however, there are two points of concern.
First, is it really fair to give up park land and replace it
with land that is at least de facto parkland already? Wouldn't it make
more sense to acquire lands gist are valuable and unprotected, e.g. land
along 6 -Mile Creek? This would be a real asset for the city. Simply
renaming a park area, "park," and then saying we've acquired something
new, seems bogus.
Secondly, although Common Council has not given its final approval
to the transaction, the Mayor has already signed an agreement with the
state (subject, I believe, to final Council approval) to hand over the
Festival Lands to the state for expansion of the marina. In return,
all the city gets is a revocable license to use the ballfields the state
developed near Buttermilk State Park (at a cost of some $60,000, I,m
told). Many, including in the Planning Dept., feel this trade is grossly
inequitable to the city. How could Council justify trading valuable
land in Cass Park (appraised in 1985 at $186,500) for a revocable license
to use a couple of ballfields?
Thirdly, how could the city justify turning over the land to
the state for marina expansion, when this very same land was used to
PA
Park alienations /substitutions
substitute for lost city parkland? The Planning Dept argues that the
marina is still recreational, park use. But it also says the city ,s
interest in the marina is as a tourist attraction. Arent city parks
intended for all city residents, not for a relatively elite group of
people (many from out -of -town) who can afford boats?
Furthermore, giving the land to the state would violate the
enabling legislation passed by the NYS legislature. This bill specifies
that the land acquired (in exchange for alienated land) "shall be used
for park purposes by [the] city." (Underlining mine.)
I love sailboats and sailing), but isn't the marina big enough
already? Why permit further expansion into one of the prettiest parts
of the park (and one of the few areas not occupied by ballfields)?
This is one area where people can enjoy a nice, quiet, uncrowded walk
up to the lake. And west of the grassy area is a section renowned among
birders for its rich bird habitat (some of which I think would be turned
into a lawn if the marina were to expand).
Marina expansion is virtually irrevocable, and the loss would
be considerable - -and deeply resented by many in the city. The park
needs diversity and balance. Providing for boating and ball - playing
is fine, but if we lose the open, unobstructed, undeveloped areas, well
be left with a park dedicated to these special interests.
Recommendations:
1. Remove the Festival Lands from the alienation exchange.
2. In a separate action, this area could still be officially designated
"parkland."
3. Tell the state that it cant have the land for marina expansion.
4. Keep the area as it is- -open and undeveloped except for mowing.
5. If Council decides to go ahead with the alienation proceedings, find
land along 6 -Mile Creek to replace the alienated parkland. (If some
alternatives discussed later are chosen, replacement acreage would not
need to be found.)
B. Inlet Island
Much is unknown about this parcel. Is the Farmers Market a re-
creational, and therefore legal, use of the land? (A ruling from the
state is expected on this.) Are the Station Restaurant s and Ithaca
Boating Centers operations on parkland legal?
What is going to happen with rte. 96? (A question we probably
wont be able to answer for at least 3 years.)
The objective of the alienation is to free up the land for develop-
ment. But, given the extreme congestion of the west end - -soon to become
even worse with the opening of Wegman s- -and given the objections of
the local businesses to even four hours a week of heavy use of the area
(by the Market), would development here make sense? Motels, condos,
stores would exacerbate both problems.
Studies concluding that the area was a good place to develop
were made in 1971 -1980. Everyone knows that traffic in the area since
that time has increased dramatically - -many consider intolerably.
If it weren't for the traffic problems development would produce
(and hence also, air quality problems), the eastern portion of Inlet
Park alienations /substitutions
- Island might be a reasonable place to develop, especially if it meant
an improvement in the appearance of Old Taughannock Blvd.
The notion that because a piece of parkland is "underutilized"
and therefore should be put into use is a strange one. Must every inch
of our parks be directly "used" at all times if they arenIt to be alienated
for commercial use? And what constitutes "use ?" Don't walkers count,
even though they aren't organized into leagues to agitate for space?
Isn't a driver or walker on the other side of the Inlet "using" Inlet
Island when he looks over and sees it? Maybe its a difference in philo-
sophy, but I see open green space as being "used" everytime someone
looks at it or even imagines it. I don't "use" Alaska in any direct
sense, but it gives me great pleasure to know that those vast unspoiled
areas are there. To me this is a very legitimate "use."
I don't think I am alone in this. People living in NYC slums
voted overwhelmingly to protect the Adirondack Park. And in other parts
of the country as well, the urban poor who have little chance of ever
visiting various wild areas, have also voted approval for protection
of such areas.
All of which is not to say that Inlet Island is some fabulous
wilderness area! While the section along the water is already very
pretty - -and a nice place to go to watch rowing, etc. - -the rest has been
sadly neglected. Maybe the city could make the deteriorated portions
attractive for passive uses by the public. This would undoubtedly help
the businesses along the street (at least if they spruced things up
a bit).
One further point: at the time use- studies were made for the
Island, the city had a much higher unemployment rate. Attracting businesses
was one way to relieve this. Now the picture has changed. Given our
extremely low unemployment rate (2.3 % ?), wouldn't new businesses simply
attract new people to the city rather than employ city residents currently
without jobs? When unemployment gets this low, aren't many of those
without jobs people with no skills or who are unemployable for other
reasons? New businesses wouldn't hire them any more than old ones have.
In fact, Dean of Ithaca is closing its doors for lack of workers,
and several recent newspaper articles have said a number of firms have
trouble finding skilled help, locally. I don't know anyone who wants
to attract more people to live in the city. What we need is not more
businesses but a system to train the under- and unemployed so they can
fill jobs already going begging.
One further point: Charles Lockrow at the DEC in Albany told
Helen Jones and me that the EAF must come up with a strong rationale
for the alienation of this and SW Park, and public input is badly needed
in cases such as this. The public is still very confused about what
is even going on.
Some alternatives:
1. Either specify in the alienation exactly what portion must remain
parkland, or alienate only the eastern portion (and perhaps that northern
half- acre).
2. Don't alienate any of it. Then rehabilitate the entire parcel (including
4
Park alienations /substitutions
the separate northern section) into an attractive park for passive recreation
(the western portion already is), and work with merchants to make the
street more appealling.
3. Hold everything until rt. 96 has been settled.
4. Hold everything until questions about the Farmers' Market have
been answered.
5. Change the zoning to P -1 (from M -1) before proceeding with the
alienation. There is some sentiment in the P &D Dept. to do this.
C. SW Park
The city's stewardship of the park has, in some respects, been good.
A large section has been allowed, through natural succession, to grow
up into woods with trees that are now 30 -40 feet high. In another twenty
years, this will be an especially beautiful woodland, if it s left alone.
As it is, deer and other wildlife use it, and for people it provides
aesthetic relief from the unsightliness of rte. 13. It also provides
a link between other natural areas to the south and north. It s a real
asset for walkers on the levee and rr bed, and bikers on the future
bike path.
The woods serve an important ecological function as a sponge for rainwater
in a very flat, wet, floodprone area of town, much of which has lost
its absorptive value from being paved over. The woods also play a part
in cleansing both air and water pollutants coming from rte. 13 cars
and businesses.
Most of the northern section of the park is quite barren and scrubby
because of the DPW s activities, as described above. (Where else such
activities could take place, given that they don't want to drive to
the landfill, is a good question, however. Heaven forbid that they
simply move to some other natural area!) Most of this is screened from
view by the surrounding woods, and the whole operation could be confined
to a much smaller area.-*,
Eric Broberg, a new CAC member with considerable map expertise, and
I spent some time at CLEARS (Cornell Lab. for Environmental Applications
of Remote Sensing). We looked at old and recent aerial photos of SW
Park, and also a soil map for the city, done in the 1920,s. The books
described the soil in the SW Park area as being very difficult to use
for anything other than agriculture (and even that has problems). The
area is so level that water just sits there. Drainage is very slow.
The book said, "The drainage on the flat near Ithaca and down the inlet
is very poor and improvement of the condition presents difficult problems.
The whole surface lies so level that run -off is almost entirely lacking
and no outlet which would be open throughout the year can be obtained
for underdrains:'
Much of the soil type is Genesee silt loam, about which the book says,
"The original vegetation... found in the valley flat was for the most
part a luxuriant growth of wild grass. A few elms and oaks of immense
size grew along the edges of the flat." (What a tragedy that we have
lost this! Just think of the birds and other wildlife this would have
supported!) The book goes on, "The Genesee silt loam in the Inlet Valley
when well drained produces excellent crops. It is especially considered
a good soil for truck crops. However, owing to the difficulty of drainage,
_` See " e. �
Park alienations /substitutions
the type is not extensively cultivated."
There may be some Holly silty clay loam in the NE part of the park. This
presents similar drainage problems. Originally it was forested, and
as of 1920 the native vegetation consisted of swamp grasses and some
soft maple and elm trees. Wayland and Sloan silt loams and Eel silt
loams are also in the park and present similar problems. They, too,
are unsuitable for most nonagricultural uses.
How much the soil type may have been altered by stuff dumped on top
of it I don't know.
The rationale for alienating the park was to open it up for development.
Given the drainage problems, is this really feasible? Ive been told
by a reliable source that a recent study done for the federal flood
insurance program said that this whole area of town was unsuitable for
further development.
If housing were put in there, how would people grow grass, if ball
clubs were unable to do so for playing fields? (Has salt from salt -laden
snow damaged the soil ?) Wouldn't the area be awfully buggy in spring
and summer, thus leading to demands for spraying of pesticides? And
wouldn't the ground be just plain too wet much of the time? Or would
the developer truck in thousands of loads of gravel and topsoil, and
develop on top of that? In which case, wouldn't the water then drain
off onto neighboring businesses? Wouldn't the same problems plague
any industry or other commercial use of the land?
As with Inlet Island, the studies that suggested putting commercial
or industrial development in the area were done during a time when the
employment picture in Ithaca was quite different. (I imagine they were
also done by people with expertise and interest in development, but
with little of either, in environmental concerns.) On the other hand,
affordable housing is needed more than ever in the city, and if the
site could be made suitable for this, perhaps the idea is worth exploring.
And what about the county's desire to use the park for a baling station
for all the county's waste? ' Or the city's possible use of it for the
recycling program? How would such use mesh with use for housing?
There is also the question as to whether or not the area is a wetland
and should be added to the DEC ,s state map. (It is not currently on
the map, but areas are constantly being added to it, as they are discovered.)
A careful reading of the state wetland regulations leads me to think
it might well qualify, in which case the city ,s current use of the park
is certainly unwise and probably illegal (which may be true anyway,
given the P -1 zoning).*
Wetlands are defined more by the presence- -and dominance - -of water -
tolerant species than by the presence of standing water. Species in
the park that lead me to think it might qualify include: red maple,
silver maple, willow, cottonwood, cattails (even growing among the bricks!),
swamp milkweek, red osier dogwood, water - tolerant grasses.
One further point: what would be the impact on rte. 13 traffic of
further development in that area? Could a bridge be put across the
Flood Control Channel to relieve some of this?
*7 ,- "DPW kat 40 4Lk,, f dcL�ls C0- eVAe_r� � -E 9 0o"
S W P&4, -XV -S Go KA.W.0- Cow. J IS ►-ts�OS� 40
0
Park alienations /substitutions
I. Delay the alienation process until more is known about the site.
2. Remove from the alienation process (and retain as parkland) all of
the wooded sections. Fence off the despoiled area - -or a smaller, central
portion of it - -and permit the DPW to continue to use it. The fencing
would prevent the continued expansion of the ruined area. There is plenty
of space there now so I don't know why the city is dumping stuff around
the edges and pushing back the woods. (I would favor cleaning up the
edges of the dump area and contracting the space used by the DPW, if
it is to use this area at all.) In fact, immediate action should be
taken to stop the DPW from pushing back the woods, and instead to confine
their activities to the central area.
Not alienating the wooded areas would have an additional advantage: not
so many substitute acres would have to be found, and Cass Park and /or
some acreage in Inlet Valley could be dropped from the whole transaction.
3. Separate the areas as in #2 and allow the city - -and the county - -to
use the barren area as a sorting station for recyclables.
4. Forget about alienating the park. Restore the ruined area to its
former "luxuriant grasses," and establish a raised path through the
area (closed during nesting season) so people could walk through it. (Some-
thing like the boardwalks and raised paths in the Everglades.) In other
words, make it into a really beautiful wild area, for humans and wildlife
to enjoy. People living on the south side of town don't have much in
the way of big open green spaces. And areas like this all over the
country have been lost to development. It would be such a rarity that
I can imagine people coming to Ithaca to visit it. Birders alone would
come in droves. And what a great resource it would be for classes!
Perhaps the Cayuga Bird Club and the local Sierra Club would help in
the rehabilitation.
Such a natural area would also retain an important ecological link
between open areas south of Ithaca and ones to the north (such as the
Fuertes Bird Sanctuary.) Developing the area would remove this link.
I guess you can imagine which of these alternatives I would most like
to see! But whichever one is chosen, retaining the current woodlands
and allowing them to progress at their own natural rate is important.
I realize that if the city alienates SW Park or Inlet Island, it will
still own them and could still keep them as parkland. Only the state
and federal restrictions on them would have to be removed. (By the
way, are these restrictions, as well as the city �s zoning, being violated
in SW Park ?) But do we want to remove these protections? Shouldn,t
we wait until more about the site is understood? Is the P -1 zoning
sufficient to assure its protection (or at least the protection of the
wooded and marshy areas)?
D. Inlet Valley (south and west of Flood Control Levee)
These lands are very beautiful and would be a great asset to the city's
park system, at least if the city left them alone. Of course, since
they are mostly in the "floodway" zone, there are already many restrictions.
But is it right to force people to give up their land when the rationale
in the alienations is so open to question?
7
Park alienations /substitutions
- I am very torn on this one because I d love to see that area owned
by the city and given real protection.
Some alternatives:
1. If only the barren parts of SW Park, and only part - -or none - -of Inlet
Is., were alienated, not nearly as many replacement acres would be needed.
This would reduce the number of acres the city would have to condemn. And
shrinking this area would further reduce the # of replacement acres
needed. (Of course, the city could also decide not to use the Festival
Lands as substitution land.)
2. If the city decides to proceed with both alienations, another possibility
would be to see if property owners along 6 -Mile Creek would willingly
sell. Then these could be used as the substitute lands. (Or they could
be condemned instead.)
3. State in the alienation provisions that nothing could be done to
the area around the stream or woods and nothing to the hedgerow.
Final comment (I bet you "re relieved!)
SW Park is already zoned P -1. If Inlet Is. holdings were also zoned
P -1 before being alienated, I d have less objection to the alienations,
althougT I am not convinced of the rationale behind them. At least
they'd then have to be re -zoned for non - recreational or non - educational
uses to occur.
u
^
�
'
via tlef
,pi
/
NL
INO
eTO
to
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Memo to: Glen Goldwyn
Cc: IURA members
Common Council
From: Conservation Advisory Council,
Betsy Darlington, Chair —t-e.45
Feb. 18, 1988
Re Ithaca Industrial Park EAF
TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CODE 607
At our meeting last night we decided unanimously to support your
sensible recommendation that an EIS be done for this development.
While we didn't go over each item (since we assume an EIS will be
done), we agree with your overall conclusion that there could be
significant impacts. We appreciate the care you have taken in this
,fnz4er.
By the way, did you know that the NYS DOT has a small wildlife preserve
near the site ?!
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
r
Memo to: Planning and Development Board
From: Conservation Advisory Council,
Betsy Darlington, Chair �.
Cc: CAC members
P & D Dept.
Feb. 18, 1988
I. At our meeting last night we reviewed the EAF s for the Clynes subdivision
on West Hill and for the Journeys End Motel subdivision on Elmira Rd.
1. Clynes subdivision: The CAC had questions about the intentions
for this site, and we would like to ask your board to look into this.
The site is a beautiful sloped woodland with a lovely brook running
through it. It is adjacent to McDaniels Park. Since we believe the
zoning would permit a number of houses on the new subdivision, we feel
that before a decision is reached, more should be known about the purpose
of the subdivision.
It perhaps should be noted that there are "sold" signs at each end
of the property.
2. The Journeys End EAF raises a number of questions:
a. #5 on the second side of the SERF: we wonder if a no answer is
correct. A large area of vegetation will be replaced with pavement.
Wont this affect drainage on adjacent sites?
b. #11 on same form: we feel that traffic problems could result,
and should be examined. For example, could the owners be required
to develop Commercial Ave. and use this as at least the exit from
their motel? Then exiting traffic would have a traffic light at
rt. 13.
c. "A" on first side of LEAF: Number of sq. ft. or acres of meadow /brush-
land to be removed should be given. As the comments on the map state,
all vegetation is to be removed from the site. Most of the site
is vegetated (mainly goldenrod), so N/A is not an appropriate answer.
d. P. 2 of LEAF, #5 (c): Did a test boring show the water table to
be 15 ft.? Some of us were under the impression that it was much
closer to the surface in this area -- perhaps as little as 3 feet.
e. P. 3, B,l,f: 81 parking spaces accounts for all the rooms. What
about employee parking (15 employees projected)?
f. P. 3, #3: (vegetation to be removed: "none "): see "a" and "c,"
above.
g. P. 4, 114, a: Isn't this area in the 100 -year flood plain? (Our
zoning map doesn't give us the answer to this.)
h. P. 4, #15, a and b (solid waste disposal): these must be answered
"yes:' (As was the case with the Farmers Market EAF.)
i. Circle section of LEAF, p. 2, # 1:
again, question was raised about depth of water table;
clearcutting of vegetation from more than 1/2 acre should be
checked in column 2;
removal of topsoil from more than 1/2 acre also should be checked
in column 2;
#3: is it in the flood plain? If so, check in column 2
j. p. 4, #7: Again, we wonder about drainage in this very level,
difficult -to -drain area. We feel that the EAF should address this
concern more fully.
k. p. 7, #14, "project will result in traffic problems:" We think
this should be checked in column 2 and addressed more fully in Part
3. See comment above, re possible use of Commercial Ave.
k. p. 9, #17 (de- icers): This should be checked, probably in column
1. The parking lot will be considerably larger than 30,000 sq. ft. and
they will almost certainly end up using de- icers. (If they do not
plan to do so, this should be listed as a point in their favor!)
Conclusion: we feel that there are a number of issues that should
be addressed by the Planning Board in preparing their EAF. I was
told by Jon Meigs that the owners have suggested some excellent planting
plans for the site, and we hope that the landscaping will indeed
reflect this. The proposed motel would be a very long building in
an unattractive part of the city. Good landscaping would help a
lot!
II. We also thought that the Planning Board should take a look at
the cumulative impact, especially on traffic along rt. 13 (south),
of all the development that is taking place, and probably will continue
to take place in this part of the city.
III. As recommended with the Clynes subdivision, we suggest that
all subdivisions without specific stated intentions be looked at
closely, and intentions determined whenever possible. (You probably
already do this.)
r
C,4C A OAF'S?
W.Jt,, . �- CITY OF ITHACA
a, L - P7 108 EAST GREEN STREET
(0__J U, " ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF ^,Q L, 6h StIe 0v—
CITY ATTORNEY p S
M E M O R A N D U M
TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CODE 607
TO: Richard Booth, Chairman of Charter and Ordinance Committee
Betsy Darlington, Chairman -of Conservation'Advisory Council'
All Alderpersons
Mayor John Gutenberger
FROM: RalW, 4ash, City Attorney
DATE: February 22, 1988
SUBJECT: Environmental Review
I have had several inquiries recently regarding environmental
review procedures. I have attempted a comprehensive review of state
and city law on this subject so that I could hopefully advise depart-
ment staff of a uniform procedure for environmental review. Before I
delineate such a uniform procedure, I would like to.have you review
the following matters so that we avoid confusion and /or disagreement
in the future.
1. What actions require environmental review?
Generally both the State lavi and regulations and the City
ordinance place actions in several categories:
(a) Excluded Actions: Actions undertaken before the effective
date of SEQRA.
(b) Exempt Actions: Actions for which environmental review is
not necessary under SEQRA.
(c) Type I Actions: Actions listed on the State's or the City's
"Type I" list which are likely to require the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement and require at a minimum a full
Environmental Assessment Form.
(d) Type II Actions: Actions listed on the State's or the
City's "Type II" list which are presumed to have no significant effect
on the environment and for which no environmental review procedure is
required.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
_ 2
(e) Unlisted Actions: Actions which are not excluded, exempt,
Type I or Type II.
Our City Code Section 36.5(E) entitled "Unlisted Actions" pro-
vides that "(f)or actions which are not on any list it will be at the
discretion of the City whether or not to require the completion of an
Environmental Assessment Form." This is at variance with the State ti5
regulations which provide that only Type II, excluded and exempt
actions are relieved from environmental review [6NYCRR Section 617.3'
(j)] and that an EAF must be completed for unlisted actions [6NYCRR
Section 617.5(c)].
Since the State law and regulations make it clear that State law
supersedes local law anytime that the local law is less protective of
environmental concerns, I would assume that State law controls and all
unlisted actions must receive environmental review.
2. Who does the environmental review?
Generally, under state law, the governmental body which makes the
decision to directly undertake, fund or approve an action must com-
p e e t Pnvirc�nmen -al review an make a determination of environ-
mental significance. It is not permissible to have a governmental
body make environmental decisions when it does not directly undertake,
fund or approve the action in question.
Our City Code Section 36.6(D)(1) provides as follows:
The Ithaca City Common Council shall have overall
responsibility for implementation of this ordinance.
Common Council may designate that a particular City
department board or commission assume the role of lead
agency for actions of a nature that would place them
within the jurisdiction of that particular department,
board or commission.
It is clear from State la�3 that Common Council cannot do environ-
mental review for decisions outside its jurisdiction. The.Board
is the only body which can do environmental review or `��
re ests for zoning variances and the Planning_Boar is e on y ]Do ay
w ich can o environmenta review for requests for subdivision _Y_
t
d �J�JL VVdl, l.V 11 d11IC 1JUL 1..WV c11 C3111r 1G
However, Common Council does have general supervisory authority
over many City activities which are generally undertaken by other City
bodies. The licensing of the Farmers Market is a good example. The
Board of Public Works has authority to issue the license, but Council
has authority to supersede the Board and make the decision on behalf
of the City.
- 3 -
From a practical point of view, it would seem that Council would
not want to do environmental review for all actions over which it
might technically assert jurisdiction, (and it could not do the
environmental review unless it was going to make the decision) but
might wish to reserve the ability for decision - making and environ-
mental review in particular cases.
It would seem that when Common Council has concurrent juris-
diction over matters first presented to another body, that the
procedures for designating a lead agency should be used to determine
who does environmental review. These procedures as found in City Code
Section 36.6(D)(2) provide that the completed EAF and a copy or
summary of any application be sent to all involved agencies notifying
them that if no written objection is received within fifteen days the
initial agency proceed to complete the environmental review as lead
agency. If an objection is received Common Council will then desig-
nate the lead agency.
This procedure would apply equally when other bodies besides
Council are involved agencies. Just this week we have reviewed appli-
cations for Simenon's Outdoor Dining and the Ithaca Festival. In
these cases several notifications will have to be made to properly
establish lead agency. But only if Council or another agency objects
would Council designate a lead agency.
City Code Section 36.6(c) provides that any department receiving
an Environmental Assessment Form shall provide a copy of the form to
the Chairperson of the Conservation Advisory Council and to the Common
Council liaisons to the CAC. I would propose that`we� have the depart-
ment also provide a copy or summary of the application or proposed
action with the EAF and that such notification be deemed notification
to Counci This would re ieve transmi ing of copies of EAF docu- � ��s"'',
ds -n3 attachments to the rest of the members of Council. �`� , �°
men
I would note the role of the Conservation Advisory Council in
environmental review. It does not make environmental review decisions
unless it is directly undertaking, funding or approving an action.
Its input and assistance should be regularly solicited and must be
solicited for all actions for which a Positive Declaration is made or
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement is prepared. [City Code
Section 36.6(D)(3)].
3. What is the general procedure for environmental review?
I would propose the following checklist for environmental review
of. governmental actions, which list is derived from the State regu-
lations [6NYCRR Section 617.5(a)]:
(a) Determine whether the action is subject to SEQR. If the
action is an exempt, excluded or Type II action, the agency shall have
no further responsibilities.
t
- 4 -
(b) Send copies of the EAF and summary of proposal or copy of
application to Chairman of Conservation Advisory Commission and Common
Council liaisons—to the CAC
(c) Determine whether the action involves any other City
Agencies and, if so, send them copies of the above materials.
(d) Determine whether the action involves a state agency. If it
does, see if state agency is conducting environmental review of
action.
(e) Determine whether the action involves a federal agency. If
it does, see City Attorney.
(f) Make a preliminary classification of the action as Type I or
Unlisted, using the information provided and comparing it with the
state and local Type I lists. Type I actions must have a full EAF
prepared.
(g) If the action is unlisted determine whether a full EAF is
necessary. Full EAF's maybe required for unlisted actions when the
slz r- t_EAF__would not provide the ea agency wi su icient infor-
mation to base its determination o signs Lcance.
(h) Proceed to make determination of significance fifteen days t5
after notification is given to CAC, Council liaisons and other
involved agencies and no objection to lead agency status is received.(N�
_iz,--)
4. What forms do we use?
The State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated
new SEAR regulations effective June 1, 1987. Attached to these
regulations are Environmental Assessment Forms. The State - proposed
forms vary from the forms we have been using and still continue to use
in the City. Although we are not mandated to use the state forms, I
believe that at least certain features of their forms should be used
by City agencies when conducting environmental review to maximize
consideration of environmental concerns and emphasize proper
procedure.
I have attached copies of our City short form and the state's
short form. The first.sheets are virtually identical, except the
State form makes it clear that the used for Unlisted
Actions only_ I propose to add this to the City short form. '
On the second sheet, the City form addresses the same areas of
environmental concern noted on the state form but in a different
manner. You will note that the state form asks for an explanation of
the adverse effects. The City form requires the completion of a Long
Environmental Assessment Form to explain any adverse effects noted.
Either procedure would be acceptable. Do you have any preference?
S
- 5 -
I would note two things from the State form, second page, which I
recommend including in the City form. These are question "A" asking
_whether the action exceeds a Type I threshold. I would also mention
the Type'I threshold as defined in the City'Code. Also, the state
form in question "D" asks whether there is, or is likely to be, a
controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts. I
rink`h.is more appropriately addresses the issue of controversy
relating to environmental review.
4mj w,
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM ( SEAF)
a.c� ^
,
INSTRUCTIONS:
In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that
the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project
and the likely impacts of the action.
Environmental Assessment
1. Will project result in a large physical change to the
project site or physically alter more than one acre of
— land? ............................. ...............................
Yes No
2. Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form
found on the site or to any site designated a unique natural
area or critical environmental area by a local or state
agency ? ..........................................................
Yes No
3. Will project alter or have an effect on an existing waterway ?....
Yes No
4. Will project have an impact on groundwater quality ? ..............
Yes No
5. Will project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites ? .............
Yes No
6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or
animalspecies? .... ............................... ............
Yes No
7. Will project result in an adverse effect on air quality ?.........
Yes. No
8. Will project have an effect on visual character of the
community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to
the community ? ....................................................
Yes No
9. Will project adversely impact any site or structure of
historic, pre- historic, or paleontological importance or
any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark
district? ........................ ...............................
Yes No
10. Will project have an effect on existing or future recreational
opportunities? ................... ...............................
Yes No
11. Will project result in traffic problems or cause a major
effect to existing transportation systems ? .......................
Yes No
12. Will project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare,
vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's
operation during construction or after completion ? ...............
Yes No
13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety ?.........
Yes No
14. Will project affect the existing community by directly
causing a growth in permanent populations of more than
5 percent over a one -year period or have a negative effect
on the character of the community or neighborhood ? ...............
Yes No
15. Is there public controversy concerning the project ? ..............
Yes No
If•any question has been answered Yes a completed Long Environmental
Assessment Form (LEAF)-is necessary.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: TITLE:
REPRESENTING: DATE:
CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
1. Project Information /to be completed by applicant or project sponsor
1.
Applicant /Sponsor
2. Project Name
3.
Project Location:
4.
Is Proposed Action:
0 New O Expansion O Modification /Alteration
5.
Describe Project Briefly:
6.
Precise Location Road Intersections,'Prominent Landmarks, etc., or
Provide Map)
7.
Amount of Land Affected:
Initially Acres or Sq. Ft. Ultimately Acres or Sq. Ft.
8.
Will Proposed Action Comply With Existing Zoning or Other Existing Land
Use Restrictions?
GYes O No If Not Describe Briefly
9.
What is Present Land Use in Vicinity of Project?
G Residential O Industrial 0 Agricultural
OParkland /Open Space 0 Commercial O Other
Describe:
10.
Does Action Involve a Permit /Approval, or Funding, Now or Ultimately,
From Governmental Agency (Federal, State or Local)? O Yes ' j No
If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit /Approval Type
11.
Does Any Aspect.of the Action Have a Currently Valid Permit or Approval?
0 Yes O No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit /Approval Type
12.
As a Result of Proposed Action Will Existing Permit /Approval Require
Modification? -
Yes No
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS
TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Applicant
/Sponsor Name Date
Signature
PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 617.21 .5t=� l {
Appendix C
State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
DILAT I_PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
1. APPLICANT /SPONSOR
2. PROJECT NAME
3. PROJECT LOCATION:
' Municipality County
4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map)
5. IS PROPOSED ACTION:
O New O Expansion ❑ Modificatlon /alteration
6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY:
7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: ,
Initially acres Ultimately acres
8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS?
❑ Yes O No If No, describe briefly
9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT?
O O Commercial O Agriculture O Park/Forest /Open space ❑Other
O Residential Industrial
Describe:
10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL,
STATE OR LOCAL)?
O Yes O No If yes, list agency(s) and permitlapprovals
11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
O Yes O No If yes, list agency name and permit /approval
12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?
O Yes O No
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Date:
Applicant /sponsor name:
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
OVER
1
ART II- PNVIRUNMLN 1,4L Av
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.127
,❑ Yes ❑ No _
B. WILt,,ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.67
may be'superseded by another Involved agency.
I-1 V.. n No
If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF.
If No, a negative declaration
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible)
C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal,
potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly:
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly:
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:
C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change In use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain brief
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be Induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly.
C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not Identified In C1-057 Explain briefly.
C7. Other Impacts (Including changes In use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly.
D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?
❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, explain briefly
PART III — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency)
INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it Is substantial, large, Important or otherwise significant.
Each effect should be assessed in connection with Its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d)
Irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that
explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevapt- adverse impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed.
❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse Impacts which MAY
occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and /or prepare a positive declaration.
❑ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting
documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental Impacts
AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination:
Print or Type Name 01 Responsible O i Zi in i ead Agency
Signature of Responsib a Officer in lea Agency
Name of Lead Agency
G
Tit e o Responsib e O icer
Signature o Preparer (II different from responsible officer)
181 Delaware Avenue
Delmar, NY 12054 -1398
(518) 475 -3000
DORMITORY AUTHORITY
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
I i17
HIS 181988
C ,
CL )R GTi�
•wl •r:!_f4T
(See Attached Distribution List)
Re: Multipurpose Gymnasium
Cornell University
Gentlemen:
1/
February 12, 1988
11 West 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036-8082
(212) 944 -3600
C la C _ in
('�-7� -070_7
On October 29, 1985, the Dormitory Authority, as lead agency for a Type I SEQR
action, issued a Negative Declaration, Notice of Determination of Non -
Significance on behalf of Cornell University for approximately $100,000,000 of
Dormitory Authority obligations, the proceeds of which included the financing
for construction of a zulti- purpose gymnasium. The October 29, 1985 SEQR
determination for the gymnas was generic in nature and subject to a site -
specif is review upon completion of design.
Forwarded herewith is an updated Environmental Assessment Form and site plan
for your review and comment. (The proposed fieldhouse is to be located as
shown in Area #5 of the site plan).
The Dormitory Authority will conduct its site - specific review of this project
at Cornell University commencing at 1:30 PH on Tues ay, rch 15, 1988.__�V—e
request your written comments on any SEQR concerns by Friday, M-a-r—c-h-1r, 1988.
Involved agenc es, t ey shire, may send a representative to the
March 15, 1988 SEQR review. We will advise you under separate letter as to
the specific Cornell building and room location of the review.
RLL:AEK:js
Enclosures
cc: J. Durkin
D. McDowell
J. Andrus
SEQR File
Dormitory Authority
Sincerely,
Ronald L. Lane, P.E.
Chief of Engineering Services
Christopher H. Richmond — Executive Director William D. Hassett, Jr. — Chairman
: ......... . ........... . ,. �....,.._.. .........
DORMITORY AUTHORITY - STATE OF NEW YORK
NORHANSKILL BOULEVARD. ELSMERE. NEW YORK 12054
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (EAF)
DATE: January 6 1988
ROJECT:
MULTIPURPOSE FIELD HOUSE
AFFLICANT - NAME & ADDRESS ARCHITECT - NAME AND ADDR1::55 _
ICORNELL UNIVERSITY GWATHMEY SIEGEL & ASSOCIATES
FACILITIES & BUSINESS OFFICE 475 TENTH AVENUE
JDAY HALL NEW YORK, NY 10018
ITHACA, NY 14853 '
PERSON TO BE PERSON TO BE
CONTACTED: ERIC DICKE CONTACTED: PETER GUGGENHEIMER
' "' (607) 255 -7105 1; SI'*E?.3 Ph-::! 212) 947 -1240
BL•..7 7NESS � �lliiais
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT - If Project consists of two or.more build- ;
t ings a separate EAF may be needed for each.
A MULTIPURPOSE GYMNASIUM CONSISTING OF A BASKETBALL ARENA WITH 3 COURTS ,
• AND SEATING FOR APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SPECTATORS; A MULTIPURPOSE PRACTICE
SPACE OF APPROXIMATELY 20,000 SQ. FT.; LOCKER ROOMS,. OFFICES, AND LOBBY 1
WITH CONCESSION AREAS.
Do not write below this line 1
HE_.RING LOCATION: DATE: Tom:
i
ACTION TYPE: Generic Site Specific Combined
i
Unlisted Negative Declaration Filed (Date)
Type I
Type II Draft EIS Filed: (Date)
F%"-mP t
Excluded Final EIS Filed: (Date) '
RECO:• ENDATIONS PANEL: Not
Significant Significant
(for) Chief of Engineering Services
(for) Deputy Executive Director. Construction
(for) General Counsel
' (for) Special Construction Services Director
(for) Director of Project Management DATE RECEIVED
INFOR*LATION TO BE FURNISHED BY APPLICANT
t
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT: CORNELL UNIVERSITY - ,.MULTIPURPOSE FIELD HOUSE
This document is designed to assist in determining whether the
proposed action of the DORMITORY AUTHORITY in financing the project may
have a significant effect on the environment. Please.complete the entire
Assessment Form. 'Answers to these questions will be, considered as part of
the application to the DOR!!ITORY AUTHORITY for financing and may be subject
to further verification. It is expected that.completion of the EAF will be
based on information currently available and will not involve further
studies or investigation.,
mcst of the following questions require a "Yes" or "No" answer.
Please circle the correct answer.
If the answer to any of the questions is "Yes ". please explain in a
separate attachment and discuss all alternatives. Please furnish an
8" x 10 ".photograph of an architectural rendering of the project and a
plot plan reduced to 8;," x 11" showing the relationship of the building
to its surroundings.
PROJECT INFOR*!ATION
1. Address or location of project.
CENTRAL CAMPUS
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
ITHACA, NEW YORK
County TOMPKINS
NaWe, address and title of chief executive officer of local politic,-:
subdivision in which project is located.
MAYOR JOHN GUTENBERGER
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
CITY HALL
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
3. Have there.been any other Environmental Quality Reviews, Environmental
Impact Statements or Environmental Assessment Forms filed with the
Co=issioner of Environmental Conservation by any local governmental
agency'. No____
If yes, by what agency. N/A
Has any other agency assumed the role of lead agency (name) NO
D&CS -2 (Rev. 10/82) i -2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT: CORNELL UNIVERSITY - MULTIPURPOSE FIELD HOUSE
4. Physical Description
_ a) Height to cornice' S6 ft. Stories 2
b) If there is..a tower or chimney, give height above cornice
c) Total area of building 145.000 sq. ft.
d) Property size (square feet or acreage) 158,400 =ate fr.•of immediate
contract limit lines. Part of 750 acre central.campus
e) Ground covered 82,500 sq. ft. Percentage 52 x•
f) i.Construction start SPRING ii. Construction completion WINTER .
-1988 1989/1990
g) Exterior material: J. Major GROUND FACE BLOCK 83 X
ii. Minor TRANSLUCENT PANELS 12 X
iii_ Other INSULATED GLASS _5_7.
5. Estimated Cost:
Construction (building only): $ 14.000.000
Site work. utilities, ground isprovements: 50,000
Architects and Engineers fees: 1,235,000
Furnishings and Equipment: 200,000
1,115,000
Total: $16,600,000
6. a) Anticipated amount of DO1RHITORY
AUTHORITY obligations to be sold: $7 000 000 Series '85
" b) Anticipated securities delivery date?
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
1. a) Are there any federal, state or local permits,
including plan approval and building permits, Y NO
required?
D&CS -3 (Rev. 10/80
i
-3-
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT.- CORNELL UNIVERSITY - MULTIPURPOSE FIELD HOUSE
b) Local and Regional approvals: (furnish copies). YES NO
City, Town, Village Board
City, Town, Village Planning Board
City, Town, Zoning Board
City, County, Health Departmeat
Other Local and Regional Agencies
Name: 1.
2.
3.
State Agencies 1.
2.
Federal Agencies 1.
APPROVAL REQUIRED SUBMITTAL APPROVAL
(Yes, No) (Type) (Date) (Date)
YES BUILDING N/A N/A
PERMIT
YES VARIANCE 3/25/87 5/7/87
2.
*SYRACUSE /WATTERTOWN UNIFO?T4 CODE BOARD OF REVIEW
2. Zoning:
a) Dominant zoning classifications of the area P -1 (Insr;rur;nnal)
b) Current specific zoning classification of site P -1 (Institutional)_.
c) Is proposed use consistent with present zoning YES
d) If no, indicate desired zoning
3.. What is the present dominant land use within one mile radius of the
proposed facility? INSTITUTIONAL, THEN RESIDENTIAL (2000 ft away)
4. Average height of buildings within a three -block radius? 30 -50 ft.
5. Will the National Environmental Policy Act apply to this proposed
facility? NO Is federal funding involved? NO
DSCS -4 (Rev. 10/82) -4-
4
•
ENCIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
• CORNELL UNIVERSITY - MULTIPURPOSE FIELD HOUSE
PROJECT
LOCAL EFFECTS ON MUNICIPALITIES
1. a) Will the project increase capital expenditures by
the local municipality (expansion of roads,
utilities, etc.)': YES NO
b) Will the project affect existing transportation systems YES NO
(bus routes, traffic flow, etc.)?
2. a) Will the project increase municipal expenditures for
services (fire, police, waste hauling and treatment,
YES NO
etc.)?
3. Will the project affect adjacent towns or municipalities?
(If yes, state how and to what extent on separate sheet) YES NO
4. a) Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved r O
other than through a municipal sewage system? YES
b) If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) N /A_
c) If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent
will be discharged: N/A
S. a) Does project involve disposal of solid waste? TES NO
b) If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility
be used?
c) If yes, give name: TOMPKINS COUNTY SANITARYLL.
Location: TOMPKINS COUNTY
d) Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or
into a sanitary landfill?
6. Will project routinely produce odors more than one hour
per day?
7. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local
ambient noise levels?
BE N0
YES ti0
YES �0
YES NO
8. a) Total anticipated water usage per day * gals /day..
* "NON- EVENT" DAY = 25,000 gals /day 1.2% of Campus Total.
"EVENT" DAY = 60,000 gals /day 2.9% of Campus'Total.
D&CS -5 (Rev. 10/82)_ -S
a
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT: CORNELL UNIVERSITY - MULTIPURPOSE FIELD HOUSE
8. b) Will new or expanded water supply facilities be
required? YES NO
-- c) Will new or expanded water delivery facilities
be required? YES fiC
9. Is any open burning anticipated during construction? YES QO
ECOLOGICAL EFFECT
(Answer only questions 14, 15 and 16 for projects in New York, Kings and
Bronx Counties)
1. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed
from the site? tons, APPROX. 15,000 cubic yards. (TO ANOTHER PART
OF CkXPUS)
2. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover)
will be removed from site? NONE
3. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other
locally- i=portant vegetation be removed by this.project? YES NO
4. Are there any plans for re- vegetation to replace that
removed during construction? 'ES NO
PROJECT WILL BE LANDSCAPED. - (SEE DRAWINGS)
5. During or after construction will the project alter
the banks or shore of a stream, lake or other body
of water'. YES
6. Will there be any drain -off from roads or parking
areas into a stream, lake or auy other body of
water? YES �0
7. Will the project result in stream or channel modifica-
tions? YES h0
8. Is the project within one mile of the following:
a) Game preserve (name) YES NO
b) Fishing stream (name) YES 2:0
c) Scenic or wild river (name) FALL CREEK, CASCADILLA CREEK YES NO
d) Prehistoric site (name) YES NO
e) Other (name) YES NO
9. Will the project result in the destruction of wild
animal life? % YES NO
D&CS -6 (Rey. 10/82) -6-
Name
IN THE EVENT THAT ARCHEOLOGICAL RELICS, HISTORICAL RELICS OR FOSSIL BEDS
ARE DISCOVERED AFTER. THE APPROVAL SOUGHT IS OBTAINED, THE APPLICkNT Kr-
NOTIFY THE AUTHORITT 111MEDIATELY AND CEASE WORK UNITL PERMISSION TO RESL
IS GRANTED BY THE AUTHORITY.
t. .
' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT: CORNELL UNIVERSITY - MULTIPURPOSE FIELD HOUSE
10. Does the project site contain any species of plant
YES NO
or animal life that is identified as endangered?
Name Species
11. Does the project site contain any species of animal
life that is identified as endangered, or the habitat
of such a species?
YES NO
Name of Species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on.the
site (i.e., cliffs, dunes, marshes, bedrock
project
outcroppings, other geological formations)?
YES NO
Type
13. What is (are) the predominant soil type(s)? a) CLAYEY SILT,
b) SAND , c) SILTY SAND.
14. Is any portion of the project located in the 100 -year
Y =S NO
flood plain?
•15. Is any portion of the project located in a coastal zone
Regulation and Coastal
area as defined by the Waterfront
Resources Article of the Executive Law of the State of
YES NO
New York?
16. Will the project result in the filling or disturbance of
If number of acres
Y-5 NO
any fresh or tidal wetland? yes,
HISTORIC RESOURCES
1. a) Are there archeological sites, historic landmark
buildings or historic preservation districts within
NO
or adjacent to the project area?
,y5
a NO
--b) Within one mile of the project area?
c) Name (1) MORRILL HALL Distance 1/2 MILE
(2) AG QUAD Distance 1 4
A.n. W1A-% ttuuS 4- to M►.
2. Does the project involve alteration to an historic or
YES NO
landmark building? Interior? _ Exterior
3. Have any hearings by preservation.groups been held?
YES NO
Date
Name (1)
Date
(2)
YES NO
4. Has any objection been raised by local preservation groups'.
Name
IN THE EVENT THAT ARCHEOLOGICAL RELICS, HISTORICAL RELICS OR FOSSIL BEDS
ARE DISCOVERED AFTER. THE APPROVAL SOUGHT IS OBTAINED, THE APPLICkNT Kr-
NOTIFY THE AUTHORITT 111MEDIATELY AND CEASE WORK UNITL PERMISSION TO RESL
IS GRANTED BY THE AUTHORITY.
c '
ENVIRONMENTAL- ASSESSMENT FORM
Project: CORNELL UNIVERSITY - MULTIPURPOSE FIELD HOUSE
2. Will enaro; inefficieuL boilers be replaced? '=S
3. Is double glazing or storm windows proposed? YES NC
4. Is increased insulation proposed? YES NO
5. Does
the project
ENERGY
State
Energy Code
YES NO
(Renovations Only
CO—.21-UNITY CONSIDERATIONS
1. Will the project
affect energy use ?.(Circle
correct answer)
YES 0
2. Will
a)
Natural Gas
Increase
Decrease
No
Change
b)
Oil
Increase
Decrease
No
Change
c)
Coal
Increase
Decrease
No
Change
d)
Electricity
Increase
Decrease
No
Change
e)
Other: _
Increase
Decrease
No
Change
2. Will enaro; inefficieuL boilers be replaced? '=S
3. Is double glazing or storm windows proposed? YES NC
4. Is increased insulation proposed? YES NO
5. Does
the project
meet the requirements of the New York
State
Energy Code
YES NO
CO—.21-UNITY CONSIDERATIONS
I.-Will
the project
alter the existing neighborhood character?
YES 0
2. Will
the project
intrude on existing views and vistas
YES �O
from
parks or public
property?
3. Will the project cast shadows on any single neighboring
property more than four (4) hours per day during winter
secscn? YES �7
4. How much will the completed project increase the
permanent population of the site? Persons 25
In the case of hospitals use bed count plus employees.
5. How much will the completed project increase daily
visitation to the site? Fers,ns * , Vehicles **
* 25 EMPLOYEES, 10 RECRUITS, 350 STUDENTS (5000) EVENT DAY. ** SEE #12A
6. Has any public hearing other than on historic resources
been held on the project? YES ;:0
(STATE OF NY BUILDING VARIANCE, MAY 1987)
7. Is any public or additignal public hearing anticipated? YES h0
8. Is the construction of a source of air contamination
involved? YES NO
9. Will the project affect utility rates in the community? YES KC
D&CS -8 (Rev. 10/82) • -8-
r ,
E14TIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Project: CORNELL UNIVERSITY - MULTIPURPOSE FIELD HOUSE
10. a) Will blasting occur during construction? YES NO
b) Will riveting occur during construction? YES NO
11. Is the project site presently used by the community as
an open space or recreation area? YES ONO
12. a) Number of off- street parking spaces existing 320* *See attached explanation.
b) Number upon completion of project 128*
c) Is off - street loading provided?
13. Number of jobs generated by this project:
YES NO
During Construction: 99 After Construction: I Adds H nnal
14. Number of jobs eliminated by this Project: 0 -
15. What measures are proposed or beinz taken to minimize the
environmental impact?
control noise, dust and erosion and to maintain strict safety
requirements.
reparer's Signature
Project Manager
Title
D&CS -9 (Rev. 10/82)
4
Arrhi tpel-ur ^1 .iartri r Pc a orn 11 University
Representing
1/6/88
Date
Cornell University
Multi- Purpose Field House
Environmental Assessment Form
a v (C Question 12a, 12b - Page 9
6 January 1988
The Multi- Purpose Fieldhouse will be constructed at the site of a
present 320 -space parking lot. The Fieldhouse project is part of an
overall Athletics Master Plan which was developed in conjunction
with the Transportation Master Plan, both of which have been
approved by Cornell's Board 'of Trustees. When the 320 spaces are
deleted from this location, 128 spaces will be constructed adjacent to
the building. These are in addition to those 258 just north of the
adjacent athletic fields already added to this part of the central
campus, zone 5 (see atached map). Another 300 spaces are proposed
for this zone of the campus as part of this master plan.
As can be seen from the tabulations on the accompanying map, 1672
parking spaces (net) have been added to the central campus since
1982, and an additional 717 are planned. The major point to be
made is that there has been a net increase in parking in the
immediate area of the proposed project, and that this was planned
and coordinated between the two planning and project efforts so that
during construction and after it, there will be sufficient available
parking.
EFD /mst
4
'CO
or
4w
Ji t.
\
ri,
We,
40,
.on sense 0 KiNswum a
Ni
inns mummusommukr's wwww"T" Q1
NIP.
,a1 •� i • •v� C
D i
t r,
mt
00 N
4 1,
o 77'
XT
all
cio',
t c
0i
■
.on sense 0 KiNswum a
Ni
inns mummusommukr's wwww"T" Q1
NIP.
,a1 •� i • •v� C
D i
t r,
mt
00 N
4 1,
o 77'
XT
all
cio',
t c
0i
's
• ii {�
AW
��L� /1 \�by�r
y�o
-0 r
r
,n
sz
9`
E,r P
3Sbn00
\ y107 �4di7rNnw
NVWM�N
Obrq
S
C>
0 0 S
� o
� C 1
- � 1
N
- O i>
�-- - = ROA (C "
FU-CURE \
pROP056D
I $ I I O
r Ci
h
c�
�v
N
I
n�
r
161 Delaware Avenue
Delmar, NY 12054 -1398
(518) 475 -3000
DORMITORY AUTHORITY
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
/l
(See Attached Distribution List)
Re: Multipurpose Gymnasium
Cornell University
Gentlemen:
RECEIVED NIAR 1 1988
February 24, 1988
11 Nest 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036 -8082
(212) 944 -3600
Reference is made to our February 12, 1988 subject letter.
The subject site - specific SEQR review will be as follows:
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 1988
Time: 1:30 P.M.
Place: Meeting Room
Best Western University Inn
East Hill Plaza
Ithaca, New York
Sincerely,
Ronald L. Lane, F.E.
Chief, Engineering Services
RLL:AEK:clb
cc: J. Durkin
D. McDowell
J. Andrus Dormitory Authority
SEQRA file
Christopher H. Richmond — Executive Director William D. Hassett, Jr. — Chairman
A
Memo to: Tom Miller (representing Stephen P. Garcia)3
Jon Meigs
�r
From: Betsy Darlington, Chair of Conservation Advisory Council =
(607) 273 -0707 Tl
Cc: CAC members, Council liaisons, and Ray Schlather JV!, (cam
Re: Response to request from applicant for my comments d
on the EAF for 5.7 -acre subdivision on West Hill 3
Feb. 25, 1988 s
I. I received this EAF after our monthly meeting and so have not discussed
it with most other members of the CAC. Therefore, the following comments
are my own. No doubt the other members would raise additional points
to be looked at, or might disagree with me on the ones I'm raising.
2. I was not familiar with the site so I paid it a visit, looking in
from the north end of the site- -i.e., the southern end of Campbell Ave.,
and driving around that entire undeveloped plot of which this subdiv. is
a small part. I also called some residents in that area, one who lives
next to the proposed subdiv., and one who lives a bit farther north
on Campbell Ave. (and who happens to be very knowledgeable about birds).
A third was someone who lives on Sunrise (eastern section of it). A
member of the CAC lives on Chestnut, and I spoke briefly with her as
well.
3. Starting with the very first page (the amended application), and
proceeding through the document I received:
a. #4 (List special features): The site has many special features,
but the overriding one is the very diverse and rich wildlife habitat.
Neighbors tell me there are great- horned owls, saw -whet owls, screech
owls, numerous woodpeckers (incl. pileated), ruffed grouse, wild turkey,
grey- cheeked thrushes, wood thrushes, and too many other song birds
to list here (even in mid -Feb. I was greeted by so many different singing
birds, I had trouble identifying their calls), coyotes, foxes, deer
(17 counted recently), chipmunks, squirrels, rabbits, raccoons.
Also, it looks from the topo map as though there are two brooks running
through the property. (I saw one at the north end.) If so, I think
they should be mentioned.
b. #5 (How subdiv. will affect adjoining properties): I would add
to this, "Will clear a rich natural area that ,s of value to the community."
c. Part 1, page 2 and 3,
A (Site description) - physical setting:
# 1 (present land use): rural, forest. "Residential" is only
to the north (and east ?) of the project site, so perhaps this should
be stated, if "residential' is to be checked. (I am unclear as to the
meaning of the question - -does it mean on the site, or next to the site ?)
#2 (acreage of various types): I would call the area "mixed woods
and brush -" (On city's form, we use the word "wooded" instead of "forested,"
by the way - a fine distinction, perhaps, but enough of one to make
a difference.) I would suggest bracketing the first two items together
and putting the 5.7 acres to apply to both. (One neighbor said he has
lived there for over 40 years and many of the trees are at least 50
t
N
6
years old. He and another neighbor also named several bird species
that do not live in "brushland," but require woodland. (Great horned
and saw -whet owls, wild turkey, ruffed grouse, various thrushes.)
Would it in fact have only 1 acre of pavement and buildings?
This seems low to me.
#3 (drainage): One of the neighbors, a man who used to work in
the city water dept. (head of it ?), says there are areas in there that
are very swampy. That implies to me poor drainage. Neighbor just to
the north of the site says they have had bad problems with drainage,
runoff, and erosion.
#4 (bedrock): how thoroughly was depth of bedrock checked?
I know from having put in wildlife ponds that this can vary considerably
in a very small area- -and this is typical of our area.
#8 (depth of water table): why is this unknown? And might swampy
areas mean it is near the surface in those places? (An engineering question
I don't know answer to.)
# 11 (rare species): was this checked, and by whom? It would
not surprise me if there were some rare plants or birds in there. Of
course, this could not be checked before about mid -May. There are several
local experts who could check it.
#13 (used by community for recreation): this needs further research,
but from the responses I got from the few people I spoke with, this
would have to be answered Yes.
# 15 (streams): are there a couple of brooks through the site?
(I know of one for sure.)
#16 (wetlands, etc.): how large is the swampy area mentioned
by a neighbor?
d. Part 1, B (project description) (page 3 -5):
#1-g: many families, esp. on West Hill, have two cars, and use
both for commuting. Therefore, shouldn't this answer be 28?
-j: (frontage on public thoroughfare): I don't understand the
answer of "011. How can that be?
#3: city's form asks a different question (Are there any plans
for revegetation to replace that removed during construction ?) I think
the answer should be "no," since grass isn't a replacement for woods.
But "lawns" could be typed in next to answer.
#4: (acres of vegetation to be removed): answer, according to
earlier answers, is 5.7, not 1.0. Also, city's form asks what type
of vegetation. ( Trees and brush). ` P, 3 , u k 8, 1 ) C 1- P• 2 — A,2
#5: city's form asks, "Will any mature trees or other locally
important vegetation be removed ?" Answer is Yes. (Perhaps type in,
"richly diverse habitat ".)
#8: (blasting): were enough tests done to be sure answer is "no ?"
Ithaca is full of surprises.
X616: (solid wastes): answer, of course, is yes!
-c: give name of landfill (Landstrom ?)
6617: (solid waste): city's form asks if any solid wastes will
be disposed of on site. (I assume "no ? ")
6618: (pesticides): mention that many homeowners use pesticides
on their lawns and gardens.
6620: (noise): during construction (asked on city ,s form) - yes;
3
after construction - yes. (The only ambient noises in there now are
the wind and wildlife.)
#23: (water usage): National average is 100 gal. per person per
day. For 14 families of 4, this would give a figure of 5600 gal.
e. Part 1 -C (Zoning, etc.) (page 5)
# 6: (Point of fact I don't know answer to: has Common Council
given its approval to these "local land use plans ? ")
#7: (Land use and zone 1/4 mile radius around project): answer
given for land use is correct only to the north (and maybe east). South
and west, the land use is undeveloped - -more woods and brush.
#8: (Compatible): Yes, only to north and maybe east; No, to south
and west.
#12: (traffic) I have no opinion on this one. Octopus cant
take much more though.
f. Part 2: Impacts (page 6 -11)
Note that form states that, "If impact threshold equals or exceeds
any example provided, check column 2." It also says to check column
2 if you re in doubt; then explain in Part 3. Check column 1 only if
threshold is lower than example given.
#1 (bedrock): I have same question as raised above.
City form asks two additional questions: clearcutting or
removal of vegetation from more than 1/2 acre ?; and
Permanent removal of topsoil from more than 1/2 acre?
First of these should be checked in column 2. I like the way
you elaborated under "other impacts ", but this should say "woods and
brush," instead of just "brushland:'
On the topsoil question, I,m in no position to know the answer.
#4: (impact on any non - protected body of water ?) What about the
brook(s)? Removing vegetation can be expected to increase
flow and also muddiness. (Put under 'other impacts. ")
#6: (drainage flow and patterns, etc.)
I think a couple of thresholds could be met or exceeded, and
should be checked in column 2:
Change in flood water flows;
Substantial erosion (nearby neighbor says they - -and the city- -
have had a lot of trouble with this).
#8: (threatened or endangered species): before answering no to
this, experts should check it out, after mid -May.
Depending on answer to initial question, threshold saying, "removal
of any portion of critical or significant wildlife habitat" might have
to be checked in column 2.
#9: (non- threatened species): must be answered Yes.
Action would indeed substantially interfere with resident and
migratory birds and other wildlife, so check in column 2.
City form says "removal of more than 1/2 acre of mature woods
or other locally important vegetation." Check in column 2.
21
# 11. (aesthetic impacts): should be answered Yes.
And each of the three listed thresholds should be checked in column
2. (Project components are compatible only with uses to the north and
perhaps east; certainly not to west and south. Views that would be eliminated
are not ones to distant hills but ones of the site itself, both from
adjacent properties and from distant hills.)
#13. (open space and recreation): Of course, Yes! And Yes to
each of the two thresholds listed (foreclosure of future recreational
opportunity, and reduction of open space important to the community).
#14. (Traffic) (I am concerned about the cumulative impact on
traffic of this and all the other development some are projecting for
that area. But this is a problem for the city to address; your EAF
should not have to.)
#16 (noises, odors, etc.): City form says during or after construc-
tion, so answer should be Yes.
Av\other construction site in the city has had terrible chemical odors.
Will this one?
Next two thresholds (noise and removal of natural barriers) should
be checked in column 2.
#17 (health and safety): Yes, because of threshold listed on
city form: "Use of any chemical for de- icing, soil stabilization, or
control of vegetation, insects, or animal life (etc.) in excess of 30,000
square feet." This should be checked in col. 2. (Lawn and garden pesticides
as well as de -icers will surely be used.)
# 18 (character of neighborhood): check Yes. And following thresholds
should be checked in column 2: change in density of land use, demand
for additional community services (I'd probably check in col. 1), precedent
for future projects.
#19 (public controversy): There already is some (among the few
people who know about it) and there will undoubtedly be more as people
learn about the proposal.
I did not receive a Part 3.
An EIS is clearly called for here. The project would have numerous
large and important impacts.
Memo to: Ralph Nash, City Attorney ..
From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair
Re: EAF "s
Feb. 26/88
Cc: Liaisons Booth and Peterson
Thanks a lot for your recent advisory. on, the city s EAFs. I have a
few questions and comments: i.
1. Under "Site Description ": Does "present land use" and "physical setting"
mean on the site itself or on and adjoining the site? Of the form is
going to be changed anyway, this should be clarified.) T - 4- "tJ- J w-QaA-4- 4, -Pry -,
bw� a ►-�c.� a�pl[c.�,} o..tPa,e„�P..t -
2. The city's long form asks if the project would impede the flow of
flood waters. The state's form asks if it would change the flow of
flood waters. Maybe our form should say, "Impede or alter..:'
3. Should the CAC receive BZA EAF "s?
4. Yesterday I received a copy of an EAF done for Cornell 's Field House
proposal. Should the CAC review this, or was it just sent to me for
my information? (What about other Cornell projects ?)
5. Sending EAF "s to the CAC just 15 days in advance of the time we must
submit comments would not give us enough time to prepare them, in many
cases, since we only meet once a month. What happens when we receive
one the day after our meeting?
For example, the Garcia subdiv. EAF arrived on Friday, two days after
our latest meeting, and P &D Board was meeting the very next Tuesday
to decide whether or not to grant preliminary approval. This meant
I had to review it without input from the other members of the CAC.
(And I had to scramble to prepare my own comments in time.) I would
think 35 days would be the bare minimum, and 40 -45 days would be better.
Some months even 35 days would not be enough time. Say we met on
the first Monday of each month. Then we would have met on Feb. 1 and
not again until March 7. (Or May 2 and June 6, Aug 1 & Sept 5, Oct. 3
& Nov. 7.) If I received the EAF the day after our meeting, we would
discuss it 34 days later, and the very next day Id have to get in our
comments. Whatever body was receiving them would not have time to read
them before their meeting, if that meeting were the same day.
Another problem is when I receive one just before our meeting. I
have to have copies made for everyone, and distribute them. They should
have time to review it before the meeting - -and if possible, go see the
site. If we don't receive them long enough in advance, it's impossible
for people to do this.
How about something like this? "EAFs must be received by the CAC
at least 10 days prior to their next meeting. Comments from the CAC
must be sent in no later than 7 days after that meeting." (I do things
faster than this, but would not like to hold all future chairmen - -or
even myself - -to having to set everything else aside in order to complete
the work sooner than this. Being mostly self - employed, I can juggle
my time more easily than a chairman with a typical 9 -5 - -or 9 -91- -job.)
Call me if you want to discuss any of this further.
Thanks!
L CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF _
CITY ATTORNEY
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Helen Jones, Planning Department
FROM: Ralph Nash, City Attorney
I
I
TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CODE 607
DATE: March 1, 1988
RE: Lggal Status of Festival Lands 0 Ca v-
We have previously reviewed several maps and legal documents
relative to the history of the Festival Lands and its present
legal status. The following is a summary of the history of this
property and my conclusions regarding its legal status.
The Festival Lands were formerly part of the property owned
by the City of Ithaca and operated as an airport by the City of
Ithaca. It appears that the entire airport area was previously
acquired by the City of Ithaca in three separate deeds between
1908 and 1930. None of those deeds to the City of Ithaca for the
airport property contain any restrictions as to the uses of the
property.
In the early 1960s,.the City of Ithaca desired to
discontinue use of the airport. In addition, the Army Corps of
Engineers undertook the construction of the flood control channel
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
r
�'scu+d'�4Xx..�it^ T 1, a rY - w �,. -x�• _
from the southern end of Cayuga Lake. It was decided by the City
of Ithaca and the State of New York to make a realignment of the
former Cass Park area of the City of Ithaca, which lay to the
east of the airport, and to establish',a marina and a performing
art center as part of this realignment of property.
The first legal document which appears to have been executed
in furtherance of these plans for realignment of the property
holdings at the southern end of Cayuga Lake was a lease agreement
between the City of Ithaca and the Ithaca Festival of the
Classics, Inc. This lease was executed on or about May 7, 1965
and provided generally that the majority of airport property
would be leased to the Ithaca Festival. This property was
generally bounded by Taughannock Boulevard on the south and west,
Park Road on the east and the low -water line of Cayuga Lake,
which was then the north boundary of the City of Ithaca, on
the north. Included in this original lease was the parcel of
property to be known as the Festival Lands. This lease was made
in contemplation of construction of a million dollar performing
arts center. Article Fifth of the lease provides that if such
construction did not commence in the future, the lease would
cease and terminate and the respective obligations of the
parties to each other would also cease and terminate. Because of
the failure of construction of a performing arts center as
contemplated by this lease, I think a good argument can be made
that its terms became ineffective.
There were two other terms of this lease which bear some
- 2 -
discussion. Article Eighteenth provided that
"in the event that during the term of this
lease agreement, certain lands are acquired
by the lessor (the City of Ithaca) from the
State of New York, which said lands adjoin
the demised premises on the north, resulting
from the development of Flood Control Project,
the lessor agrees that such land shall be
held as park land in keeping with the
development of the demised premises by the
lessee and shall not be leased or sold for
any commercial purpose which is not compatible
with or shall interfere with the natural
development of the demise premises for the
purposes herein above described in Article
Third (construction of a performing arts center)."
The property described in this paragraph is the property to
the north of the Festival Lands which was created by depositing
the fill from the construction of the Cayuga Inlet. Therefore,
the reference to park land does not refer to the Festival Lands,
and again, it is doubtful whether this paragraph was effective
because of the failure of construction of the performing arts
center.
Also to be noted is Article Twenty -Sixth of this agreement.
This Article provides as follows:
"It is understood and agreed that except for
the portion of the above - described premises
occupied by buildings, enclosures, structures
or parking areas which presently exist or
which may hereafter be constructed upon the
above - described premises, said premises shall
be made available to the public for recreational
purposes, without admission charges, subject
to the rules and regulations of the Board of
Public Works as they may relate to the
enforcement of such recreational use. However,
nothing herein contained shall be construed to
mean that such lands are dedicated for ark
purposes." (Emphasis added.)
- 3 -
The next legal document which was executed relative to this
property was the Joint Development Project for a National Arts
and Recreational Center at Ithaca — Memorandum of Understanding.
This agreement was between the City of Ithaca, State of New York
and the Center for the Arts at Ithaca, Inc., and was executed
on or about August 25, 1967. It appears that the Center for the
Arts at Ithaca, Inc. was a successor to the Ithaca Festival of
the Classics, Inc. This document provided for the comprehensive
realignment of property west of the new Cayuga Inlet Channel and
provided for the development of this property. Generally, the
City of Ithaca conveyed the northerly portion of its former Cass
Park to the State for development as the Treman State Marina.
The southerly part of the former Cass Park and the southerly part
of the airport lands were joined together to form the new Cass
Park. Certain lands in the northerly part of the former airport
property were conveyed to the State, and a portion of the former
northerly part of the airport property was to be leased to
the Center for the Arts at Ithaca, Inc. for development as a
performing arts theatre area with a Festival Theatre, Concert
Hall and parking areas.
Whereas the prior lease between the City of Ithaca and the
Ithaca Festival of the Classics, Inc. had leased a large portion
of the former airport property to the Ithaca Festival for
development as a performing arts area, the joint development
project provided that only the area of land to be known as the
Festival Lands consisting of approximately 14 acres of property
t Mme. wf y =s ,,.. 5.s, --•�.. T w.r...4:.� �w.�...�.�.. -a.� .a. :. «''� uT
was to be leased to the Center for the Arts at Ithaca, Inc.
for development as a performing arts area. This three -party
agreement did provide that the City would retain and develop for
park and recreation purposes that portion of Cass Park and old
municipal airport property designated on the master site plan
which were not conveyed to the State or leased to the Center.
It appears that City maps thereafter consistently showed the
northerly boundary of Cass Park in accordance with the division
of lands provided by this agreement. Paragraph 16 of this
agreement did further provide that the State, the City and the
Center should use their respective lands only for purposes shown
on the master site plan and the State Marina site plan and that
any further deviation from these plans would be subject to a
written agreement by the parties hereto. The agreement also
provided in paragraph 14 that the Center agreed to renegotiate
its lease with the City to permit the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding to be carried out and the development of the area
to be accomplished.
The next legal document which I reviewed is a release of
part of the leased premises executed by the Ithaca Festival
of the Classics, Inc. on or about October 14, 1969. Basically
this document releases from the 1965 lease agreement all
that southerly portion of the former airport which was to be
incorporated into the new City Cass Park. Also it appears that
certain minor realignments of the Ithaca Festival property were
accomplished by agreement between the State and the Center for
- 5 -
the Arts at Ithaca, Inc. as the present configuration of the
Festival Lands varies somewhat from the proposed configuration
in 1967. However, it is important to note that the northerly and
southerly boundaries of the Festival property have remained at
all times the same. The southerly boundary is the northerly
boundary of Cass Park and the northerly boundary is the former
low -water line of Cayuga Lake.
As we know, it was not possible to construct a performing
arts center on the Festival Lands as contemplated in the 1967
agreement. on or about July 22, 1974, the City of Ithaca entered
into a lease with the Center for the Arts at Ithaca, Inc. for a
lease of the former hangar building of the City airport for use
as a performing arts facility. This lease has been continued to
the present day and includes a portion of property surrounding
the hangar building. It does not appear, however, that any of
the property leased to the Center for the Arts at Ithaca, Inc.
is the same as the former Festival Lands. It appears that the
Hangar Theatre lands are wholly within Cass Park, and that the
northerly boundary of the hangar lease property is the same as
the northerly boundary of the Cass Park lands.
The legal result of the foregoing is that the City owns an
irregularly shaped parcel of land north of Cass Park bounded on
the east by the Treman State Marina on the west by lands owned
by the Finger Lakes State Parks and on the north by the property
reclaimed with fill from the Cayuga Inlet Project. It appears
that there are no current agreements legally binding on this
6 - '
property, and that it is in a sense a forgotten piece of property
in the development scheme in this area. The question has been
raised as to whether or not this property is legally park land or
has any other legal restrictions regarding its future use.
Land can become dedicated for park purposes through specific
provision in the deed trust or other instrument transferring
the land to a municipality. As noted, there was no specific
designation of the former City of Ithaca airport property for use
as park land in the original conveyance to the City of Ithaca,
and indeed, the property was used in excess of 30 years for
non -park purposes.
A municipality may itself formally dedicate land acquired
for general purposes to park purposes. Additionally, dedication
can occur without formal proceedings through the activities of
the municipality in respect to the property.
I have reviewed court cases on this matter to determine
whether or not the City of Ithaca has in fact dedicated the
Festival Lands to park purposes without formally making such
dedication. In the case of Village of-,Croton-on-Hudson v West
Chester County, 38 A.D.2d 979, 331 N.Y.S.2d 883 (A.D.2, 1972);
the Court found that where lands had been acquired by the County
for public park purposes by a special borrowing, and had been
used for such park purposes for over 45 years, there had been a
dedication of the property for park purposes and acceptance of
such dedication by implication by the acts of the municipality,
despite the fact that the deeds to the property contained no
- 7 - `
restriction of the land to park use and there did not appear to
be any formal dedication by the municipality of the land to park
use.
In the case of Gewirts v. City of Long Beach, 69 Misc. 2d
763, 330 N.Y.S.2d 495 (Sup. Ct., Nassau County, 1972); aff'd 45
A.D.2d 841, 358 N.Y.S.2d 957 (A.D.2, 1974); the Court again found
that certain lands were dedicated to public park purposes despite
the fact that there was no restriction in the deeds to the
properties to the municipality. In this case the City of Long
Beach had designated the area as a public park by local law and
had continued to use the property as a public park for a period
in excess of 30 years. The Court also noted that the City had
taken steps to obtain federal funds to finance measures designed
to lessen the erosion of the beach and to reconstruct the
boardwalk in the park. The Court found this
further evidence of dedication of the property to a public park.
I have also considered the case of Pearlman v. Anderson, 62
Misc. 2d 24, 307 N.Y.S.2d 1014 (Sup. Ct., Nassau County, 1970);
aff'd 35 A.D.2d 544, 314 N.Y.S.2d 173 (A.D.2, 1970). In this
case the Court again considered whether a dedication to park
purposes had been made by a municipality. The Court noted that
the deeds to the parcels of property in question imposed no
restrictions on the use of the properties. The Court noted that
one of the parcels in question was obtained by purchase after
publication of a notice of domination for the purpose of
"extension of municipal utilities, park and recreation area of
- 8
maST
.... _..
Mill River." The Court noted though that all three parcels of
land were acquired pursuant to the authority contained in Section
89 of the Village Law and not Section 169 which is the authority
for acquiring lands specifically for park purposes.
After acquiring the properties, the municipality took the
following actions in regards to the property. A metered parking
lot was constructed on a small portion of the lots. Blacktop
walkways were constructed in certain areas. At one time lights
were installed which were later removed because of vandalism, and
some park benches were placed along the walkways. A short time
later a few shrubs and trees were planted. The evidence before
the Court indicated that people had used the walks and that
children played on the property and that some of the benches were
also used. At some further unspecified date a sign was erected
by the Village stating "park closed /no trespassing between
sunset - sunrise by order of RVCPD.11 The Village published annual
reports in which there were references to the Mill Park River
area. In one of these reports there was specific reference to
the property involved as having been made into a "sit -down park." _
However, there was no resolution adopted or any official act of
the trustees of the Village with respect to the land.
The Village intended to build a village hall with parking
on approximately 18 percent of the property in question and had
adopted a bond resolution to pay for such construction. Legal
proceedings were brought to challenge the ability of the Village
to take such action with regard to the property. The Court noted
- 9 -
that proof in the case revealed that the Village had a fairly
good percentage of lands devoted to park and recreational use,
some of which were very close to the property in question. Those
challenging the Village efforts to construct a village hall
in this property contended that the area was now restricted to
park use, and that no portion of it could be used for any other
purpose without express state legislative action. The Court
noted that the question in the case was whether or not the acts
of the Village as noted above were sufficient to constitute
a dedication of the premises as a park. The Court noted that
the property was acquired for general municipal purposes by the
Village and that at such time the land could have been used for
any public purposes. The fact that the Village cleaned up the
property, put in a few shrubs and trees, walkways with four or
five benches, and it was used to a small degree as a park, did
not seem to place this property into a trust for park purposes.
The Court noted that to hold otherwise would cause public
officials to bar the use as a park of land required for future
needs and that such action would certainly not be in the public's
interest.
It appears to me from reading these cases that something
more than mere use of the Festival property by certain persons
for park purposes is necessary in order to find that the Festival
Lands have been dedicated to park purposes. I do not find in
the material you have forwarded to me that the City of Ithaca has
made any improvements to the Festival Lands or has at any time
- 10 -
..,. �%we u..kr..:...r u�!,� ....hr:•� �.'qpx; Mme.',, r+•.. - & S . >a.,t � ..a.w ... ..
marked them as park property or treated them as park property.
It does not appear then that any de facto dedication of this land
to public parking purposes has occurred.
I have had brought to my attention Ithaca Charter Section
5.23 entitled "Public Parks." This Section generally provides
that the Board of Public Works shall have the power to regulate
and maintain public parks in the City of Ithaca. Paragraph 2 of
this section goes on to provide as follows: "The word parks is
hereby defined to include all public grounds and places, except
cemeteries, which shall have heretofore been under the control
and supervision of the City of Ithaca and all public grounds
and places hereafter acquired by the City of Ithaca under the
provisions of this Charter." The question is,whether or not this
provision of our City Charter makes the Ithaca Festival Lands
inalienable park lands.
Although this section does seem to provide that all city
lands and buildings are park lands, I cannot believe that this
section was intended to provide that all city lands and buildings
are dedicated to park purposes. If such were the case, then
City Hall itself would be designated a park and any and all city
property would require legislative approval in order to sell
it or use it for other than park purposes. I believe that the
meaning of this paragraph is to provide that all public grounds
and places are under the supervision of the Board of Public
Works. Only if this paragraph is construed in this manner can
it have any real meaning. I would also note, as was previously
• - 11 -
discussed, that the original lease agreement between
the City of Ithaca and the Ithaca Festival of the Classics, Inc.
executed in 1965 provided specifically that the agreement was
to be construed not to mean that such lands were dedicated for
park purposes. Again this provision in this lease would have no
meaning if it was automatically overridden by Section 5.23 of our
Charter.
I have also considered whether or not the Festival Lands
are subject to any federal restrictions on their use or disposal.
In 1967, the City of Ithaca did receive federal land and water
conservation fund monies to acquire property to use as Cass Park.
The property acquired which was approximately 48 1/2 acres was
the former Lehigh Valley Railroad property which lay to the south
and east of the City's airport property. obviously, the City
already owned the airport property, and it does not appear that
any of the land and water conservation fund monies obtained in
1967 were used other than to acquire property to the south and
east of the airport lands to be used for the new restructured
Cass Park.
Again in 1979, the City obtained land and water conservation
fund monies to make improvements in Cass Park. The improvements
made with this money included the swimming pool, the ice rink and
certain improvements to the softball fields. It does not appear
that any of these grant monies were used to make improvements in
the Festival Lands. Since on neither occasion were federal funds
used to obtain or make improvements to the Festival Lands parcel,
- 12 - 6
I do not believe that the Festival Lands are encumbered by any
restrictions applicable to federal land and water conservation
fund grant properties.
cc: Mayor John Gutenberger
All Aldermen
Betsy Darlington,
Chairman of the Conservation Advisory Commission
- 13 -
CITY OF .ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK -14850
.y
OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CODE 713
March 8, 1988
Ronald L. Lane, P.E.
Chief of Engineering Services
Dormitory Authority of NY
161 Delaware Ave.
Delmar, NY 12054 -1398
Dear Mr. Lane:
The Conservation Advisory Council of the City of Ithaca received the
EAF for Cornell 's new multi - purpose gymnasium after our Feb. meeting. Our
next meeting wont take place until after the March 11 deadline for written
comments. Therefore, we have not had a chance to discuss the EAF as a group.
However, I have spoken on the phone with several members, and some concerns
have been raised.
One concern is with the aesthetic impact of the building. We hope that
the exterior material and the overall design will be attractive, and that
lots of trees and shrubs will be planted around the building. We have not
seen drawings of the building, and so cannot comment on specific aspects
of its appearance.
Members also have questioned the adequacy of the parking plans. The
building will seat about 5000 spectators, and although there will be many
walk -ins, there will also be many cars. Is there really sufficient parking?
One member asked if more parking could be accommodated under the building
(either below grade or at grade). Although this would increase the height
of the building, that would be preferable to spreading parking lots out
over an ever - larger area.
Members have also observed that on page 6 of the EAF, the question ( "Will
there be any drain -off from roads or parking areas into a stream, lake or
any other body of water ? ") is answered "No." Since run -off will enter nearby
Cascadilla Creek, and then Cayuga Lake, this question should be answered
"Yes."
Finally, we are concerned that the map we received shows 300 new parking
spots at the site of the old Oxley Arena. This is a singularly inappropriate
location for a parking lot. Cascadilla Creek is right next to the proposed
lot, and pollutants from the cars will wash directly into the water. While
it is true that some other parking lots, both in the city and at Cornell,
are next to creeks, such a practice is damaging to the quality of the water
and the life it supports, and should be avoided.
Sincerely,
Betsy Darlington, Chair
Cc: Senior Vice President James Morley 4
Vice President John Burnes
Paul Griffin, Facilities Planning and Construction
H.M. Van Cort
Mayor John Gutenberer
"An Eq al O ortunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" ,
CAC members anti liaisons S,�Q, 31uMu�> .Jl Q�1D'Beard Ck,�r
/- .
March 18, 1988
Memo to: P &D Dept.
P &D Board C a r.,, ,. s
BPW
Building Dept.
Members of Common Council
From: Conservation Advisory Council
(Betsy Darlington, Chair)
Cc: Members of the CAC
Re: EAF s for Parking Ordinance, Wells Subdiv., Garcia Subdiv.
Date: March 18, 1988
EAF for Amendments to front yard parking regulations:
We concur with the negative declaration.
We had a few suggestions on the way the EAF was filled out:
1. In general, all questions should be answered, at least with an
N /A. (Entire pages shouldn't simply be crossed off.)
2. Page 5 (part 1), #22: we felt that all zoning categories should
be listed.
3. Page 8, #16 (part 2): "yes: other impacts: will improve aesthetic
quality of neighborhoods."
3/18/88 (CAC comments)
EAF for Wells Subdivisiion at 140 Coddington Rd.
Because we did not receive a part 2 or part 3, we could not do a complete
review. These are comments on what we did receive:
I. Initial application, #7: is "none" the correct answer for work to
be done by city? Map says "new water main by city." Also, what about
road plowing? (Re sewer, map says "new san. sewer by owner. ") (Will
road be deeded to city? If so, we assume there are mechanisms in place
to assure it meets city specs.)
2. SEAF, 110: answer should be yes. (P &D Bd., at least.)
3. LEAF, Part 1, page 1 (bottom of page): under "other" it should also
say "some mature trees."
4. Same place: numbers have to be wrong. Neither column adds up to
1.51 acres. 0 acre has 43,560 sq. ft.) (Perhaps 63,340 sq. ft. is
the total area? That would be 1.454 ac.) Anyway, with the wrong numbers
we can "t tell what's planned.
5. Part 1, page 2, #12: answer should be yes. (Views are spectacular.)
Also, answer should be consistent with answers on application ( #4).
6. Part 1, page 3, # If: where will the off - street parking be located?
7. Part 1, page 3, #3: what about the trees? Will they be left in place?
8. Part 1, page 3, #4: what sort of landscaping is proposed? (That
area of the city has seen enough large development with nothing but
grass around it.)
9. Part 1, page 4, #15: (solid waste) Should be answered yes: Tompkins
Co. Landfill
10. Part 1, page 5, #23: is Common Council approval needed? (We didn't
think so.)
3/18/88 (CAC comments)
Garcia Subdivision EAF
The CAC has several broad concerns with this proposal: removal of vegetation
and wildlife, soil erosion, the slope, and the stream that runs just
inside the southern border. The CAC feels that an EIS should be done.
A subcommittee met to consider the EAF in more detail. We felt that
if the project were substantially modified, an EIS might not be needed.
Of course, this would depend on what the modifications were.
LEAF, Part 1:
1. page 1, A 3: In light of a conversation the chair (Betsy Darlington)
had with Mr. Garcia, we would like clarification on the 'other: lawns,
orig." Does he now plan to clear off everything except the trees and
replace it with lawns? (More landscaping than this should be required
- -or areas of brush should be left; otherwise the impact on the wildlife
will be even more severe. Just lawns would also be aesthetically out
of character with the neighborhood.) (This and later answers leave
us confused as to his intentions.)
2. page 2, #8 (threat., endang. species): this should be checked by
an ornithologist during spring migration and summer. (The variety of
birdlife listed by neighbors indicates the area is very rich in this
regard; presence of threatened or endangered species is not by any means
out of the question.)
3. page 2, #11 (used by community as open space): indications are that
the answer is yes.
4. page 2, #12 (views important to community): yes (especially into
the site) —
5. page 3, Blb (acres developed initially and ultimately): shouldn't
these read 1 ac. initially (for roads) and 5.7 acres ultimately (entire
developoment)?
6. page 3, B3 (amt. of veget. to be removed from site): According to
page 1, this figure is 4.7 acres. Which figure is correct?
7. page 3, B4 (veg. to be removed): add after "Trees and brush in roadway,"
the phrase "and where houses will go." Also, should be consistent with
page 1.
8. page 4, #6 (period of construction): is the 12 months for completion
of the road only?
#8: blasting? Maybe - -see later comments, under noise.
9. page 4, # 13 (change in surface area of waterways): on -site stream s
volumn- -and surface area - -would probably increase. (Impervious materials
will replace some vegetation. Also, amount of vegetation left around
stream will influence degree of impact.)
10. page 5, #19: (noise, etc. during construction in excess of local
ambient noise level): should be yes.
Also note: at a meeting with neighborhood residents, Pat Hannan said
that blasting would be needed to relocate the gas pipeline for the road.
He also said that blasting was needed when the city put in the water
main up there. And he felt blasting might be needed for putting houses
along the rather steep grade.
11. page 5, #21 (anticipated water use): gal. should be figured at 100
gal. per person per day (acc. to water dept.). 3500 is too low for 14
families. (4200 -5600 for families of 3 or 4 people)
Part 2: (circled section)
(If a threshold is equalled or exceeded, it must be checked in col. 2)
12. page 2, #1 (effect from physical change): first two thresholds should
be checked in column 2 (slope exceeds 10 %; water table is 1 -2 feet)
5th threshold (constr. for more than 1 year): will all homes and the
road be completed in 12 months? If not, shouldn't this be checked in
column 2?
8th threshold (veg. from more than 112 acre): should be checked in
col. 2
10th threshold (removal of topsoil from more than 1/2 ac): should
be checked in column 2
13. Page 3, #4 (protected body of water): should be "no"
14. Page 3, #5 (Nonprotected body of water): "Yes" And under "other,"
it should say, "one permanent and one intermittent stream on site ",
and be checked in column 2.
15. page 4, #6 (effect on water quality): last threshold (siltation,
etc. into existing body of water) should be checked in col. 1 or 2. (There
almost certainly will be such an effect during construction of road
and houses. And after, if no mitigating measures, such as revegetation
are taken.)
16. Page 4, #7 (small increase in rate of runoff): this could be a large
impact unless extensive revegetation is untertaken.
17. Page 5, #10 (impact on flora and fauna): "Yes" And both thresholds
should be checked in col. 2. (Interfere with any resident or migratory
species; removal of more than 1/2 acre of mature woods or other locally
important vegetation)
18. Page 6, #11 (impact on vis l character of neighborhood or community):
first two thresholds should checked in col 1 or 2 (intro. of new
materials, etc. in contrast to surrounding landscape; and project easily
visible, not easily screened, and different from others around it.)
(Note: If project retains the current vegetation on north and east,
screening might be adequate. And if lots of vegetation is left around
homes, the project will fit in better with neighboring residences, even
though it of course will still be different from the current landscape
and the landscape to the south and west.)
19. Page 7, #13 (impact on present or future rec. opportunities): "Yes"
And check both thresholds (col. 1 ? ?). (Permanent foreclosure of future
rec. opportunity; major reduction of an open space important to community.)
20. Page 7, # 14: we were not aware at the time of our meeting of a potential
transportation problem that came out in a later meeting with neighbors: In
snowy weather many cars are unable to make it up Taylor Pl. from Hector
St., and they all end up parking at the bottom of Taylor Pl. Twenty
eight extra cars being added to this at rush hour could be a real problem,
esp. considering the Hector St. curve just above that intersection.
21. Page 8, #16 (disturbance during construction): Yes. And last two
thresholds should be checked (in col. 1 or 2, depending on what will
be done - -e.g blasting ? - -and the time of day. (Noise above local ambient
noise; removal of natural barriers that would act as noise screen.)
22. Page 8 -9, #17 (health and safety): Yes. (And see #20, above.) Last
threshold (de- icers, pesticides, etc.) should be checked in col. 1 (or
2 ?)
23. Page 9, #18 (impact on character of neighborhood): Yes. And check
last threshold ( "other ": loss of open space and wildlife)
24. Page 10, #19 (Controversy): maybe last threshold should be checked
in col. 2.
No Part 3 was completed.
The meeting with neighbors indicated many objections to the project
as it is currently proposed. Objections focused on traffic through
the only access (Taylor Pl.)- -esp. in winter; erosion during construction;
the steep grade - -esp. of the cul de sac and building sites (and the
extensive site preparation this would entail); and the impact on wildlife.
Many said they had settled on West Hill because of the wildlife and
other natural features. And, although the zoning permits lot sizes
of 10,000 sq. ft., most lots are much larger up there; the residents
like the feeling of open space that this gives to the neighborhood (though
one said, "But maybe I don't have a right to it. ") The sense of the
meeting, at least of this group of about 10 neighbors, seemed to be that
the project would be more acceptable if it were substantially modified
and scaled down.
The legality of the cul de sac was also raised since it is not shown
on the city's master plan for area roads.
Memo to: P &D Board
P &D Dept.
15z A d- Building Dept. (Waterfront EAF only)
T. Ciaschi, J. Sharma, Bergman and Alexander, Mogil and Chilson
(as applicable)
Copies to: Members of Common Council
CAC members
From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair on behalf of CAC Subcommittee
Re: Various EAF s
Date: April 22, 1988
The Conservation Advisory Council Subcommittee on EAF s met today to
review four EAF s that came in this week, and which will be acted on
before the May meeting of the full council. In at least one case (Sunrise
Terrace Subdiv.), the full council should have been able to consider
the EAF. The P &D Board and CAC Chairs will be meeting soon to consider
how this recurring problem can be solved. '
1. Mogil subdivision on Floral Ave. (expansion of single- family residence
by 14 square feet)
Conclusion: No significant impact.
2. 221 Columbia St. subdivision (addition of a driveway next to home)
Conclusion: No significant impact.
The two remaining EAF s will be considered on separate pages:
Sharma EAF: 15'x c. 65' expansion of On the Waterfront, 702 Willow Ave.
(Glass structure would be added to west side of building. 15' width
would be along Cascadilla Creek; 65' length would be along side of existing
building.)
Conclusion: project scale and location (on west side of building) seem
to be such that there would not be a significant impact.
We urge the developer to landscape (at the very least with grass) the
area in front, and to put in curbing. Present appearance of that area
is unappealing. Lack of curbing encourages random parking which furthers
deterioration of the surface and contributes to the unkempt appearance.
Additional subcommittee suggestions on the EAF:
1. Short form "project information:"
#5: length of building is not given. A call to Mr. Sharma gave us
the 65' figure.
Also, the plat shows a new parking lot, but none is described in the
EAF. Is this something that has already been approved? If not, how
many cars is it for and why isn't it described in the EAF?
# 9: (present land use in project vicinity), and # 16, page 2 of long
form (land use within 1/4 mile): Montessori Preschool should be noted.
2. SEAF, #2: Should be "Yes" ( "Critical environmental area ")
Lang form:
3. Part I
page 2: #10: project site is "within or contiguous to a site designated
a ...critical environmental area..." ( Cascadilla Creek)
# 17: (Has site been used as a dump ?) Is this area part of
the old city dump - -which had hazardous wastes in it?
page 3: Project description is incomplete--#1 d (length in feet),
f (parking spaces now, and proposed), g (max. veh. trips per day and
per hour), h (commercial -- employment), i (height of structure)
page 4: # 13 is answered "yes" (increase or decrease in surface area
of body of water). Is this an error? If not, what's the explanation?
Will structure extend out over the water?
# 15: (Disposal of solid waste): a: yes; b: presumably yes;
c: Tompkins County Landfill ( ?); d: no
4. Part II
page 2: #1 (effect from physical change to site): Should be answered
yes if parking area will be for 50 or more vehicles (column 2, if so),
and if in a designated floodway (we couldn't tell from our zoning map)
#3 (An effect on a critical environmental area): yesi col. 1
page 3: X65 (Effect on body of water): yes, and check column 1 (small
to mod. impact), next to Cascadilla Creek threshold
Sunrise Terrace Subdivision (Timothy Ciaschi, et al.)
I. Conclusion: Subcommittee sees several potentially large impacts,
and recommends a positive declaration.
U. Major areas of concern:
drainage
erosion
impact on Silver Creek (same as Cliff Park Brook) (and Cayuga Inlet)
impact on the natural environment
loss of open space
foreclosure of possible future use as a neighborhood park
obstruction of views from neighboring properties
cumulative impact of this and various other nearby proposed subdivisions
(INNS, Garcia, etc.) on Octopus traffic
III. Possible mitigating measures to address some of these concerns
would include:
preservation of as much of the natural vegetation as possible
minimal disturbance of the ground cover;
erosion controls (one of which is to preserve existing vegetation);
extensive landscaping.
Members noted that a number of surrounding homes have virtually
no landscaping around them other than grass. (Some lack even this, and
are eroding.) If 19 more units were to be put in like this, the area
would look substantially worse. Moreover, planting of trees and shrubs
(or retaining what's already there) would help mitigate the impact on
wildlife, esp. birds.
IV. Comments on specific items of the EAF
SEAF, page 1:
#3 (effect on waterways): yes
Hill) #8 (visual character, views, vistas): yes (locally and from East
#10 (effect on future rec. opportunities): yes
#11 (effect on traffic): yes (esp. Octopus)
#15 (controversy): is their none?
LEAF, Part I
page 2, #10: (critical environmental area): yes (Cliff Park Brook
is Silver Creek, which applicant apparently is not be aware of.) (Local
ordinance should clarify this.)
#11: (space used as open space or recreation area): don't
kids and birdwatchers use the area? (We don't know answer.) (Even on
raw, snowy - sleety April 21, many bird species were seen or heard there.)
#12: (views): yes!
page 3, B, l,b (acreage developed, initially and ultimately): doesn't
"initially" mean now? If so, figure should be 0. (Wording of form needs
to be clearer.) —
B,2 (type of natural material to be removed): no soil? If
so, how much? (What about where pavement and houses will go ?)
B,5 (revegetation plans): does yes answer mean developer
will do this or he expects that homeowners will do it?
page 4, #14,b (contiguous to Silver Creek): yes (applicant
wrote in Cliff Park Brook, apparently unaware that they were the same)
# 15,b (use of an existing solid waste facility): yes (we
assume!)
c: Tk. Co. Landfill M
#16 (pesticides): yes (homeowner use is widespread, and
can be expected)
page 5, #21 (water usage per day) (figure not given; we estimate
7600 gal (100 gal per person per day x 4 people x 19 units)
LAEF, Part II
Impacts which may equal or exceed a threshold should be checked
in column 2
#1, 1st threshold (construction on slopes of 15% or more): column
2
2) 4th (bedrock exposed or within 3' of surface): col. 1 (or maybe
5th (more than 1 year; more than 1 phase): col. 2 (3 stages, 2
years)
8th (removal of veg. from more than 1/2 ac.): col 2
10th ( " topsoil " "): maybe col. 2 (if
topsoil from 1.9 ac. for roads, driveways and buildings is to be removed
from site)
#3 (Critical env. area): yes (Silver Creek)
#5 (effect on body of water): Silver Creek - -col. 2 (Also Cayuga Inlet)
#6 (Effect on surface or groundwater quality): yes
last threshold (siltation, etc. into body of water with obvious
visual contrast to natural conditions): col. 2
i�0 r` lei �e ce. -s S C,At,.2 ,- Ce -
#8 (Air quality): yes (maybe)
"Other:" wood stove emissions (if people install them). (Getting
to be a big problem.)
#9 (Threatened or endangered sp.): each threshold is a possibility,
(unless it s been checked and found otherwise).
#10 (Non- threatened sp.): first 2 thresholds (impact on wildlife;
removal of more than 1/2 ac. of woods or imp. veg.): col. 2
#11 (Visual impacts): 1st threshold (new materials, etc.): col 2
3rd (elim. or screening of scenic views): col 2
Note: what does "project will create new visual corridors" mean?
# 13 (present or future rec. opportunities): 1st thresh. (permanent
foreclosure of future rec. opport.): col 2
#14 (traffic): 2nd thresh. (traffic problems): col. 1
Note: how easy is it to get up Sunrise Rd. in snowy weather? Will problems
develop at Hector St. in such weather?
col. 2 "other ": cumulative impact with other developments on W. Hill:
#16 (Construction disturbances): 1st thresh (blasting within 1500
ft. of a school): yes C col . 2-)
3rd thresh. (noise above local ambient levels): col. 2
#17 (health and safety): last thresh. (chemical use): col. 2
#18 (character of neigh.) 5th thresh. (precedent for future projects):
col. 1
#19 (controversy): are peoples opinions known?
Memo to: Developer of Sunrise Terrace
From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair (273 -0707) 71
Date: April 23, 1988
In the event that an EIS must be prepared, the following notes might
be of use to you.
I walked quickly over much of the site on April 21. The bitter cold,
snow, and sleet prevented me from being very thorough and from checking
the most northern portion of the site. (And I wasn't sure where the
northern boundary was.)
I heard or saw the following bird species:
flicker tufted titmouse chickadee
house finch goldfinch ruby- crowned kinglet
pine siskin field sparrow robin
crow maybe meadowlark (a coughing attack interfered with
the sound I heard). On a nicer day, the list would be longer.
Plant species:
ash and black locust (the two dominant species on the site) .4 C,
staghorn sumac (an especially fine stand of this underrated and valuable
plant)
red osier dogwood
Russian or autumn olive M
hawthorn
(choke ?) cherry
various brambles
honeysuckle
burdock
grass
I did not find as much diversity of tree species as would be desirable,
at least on the portions I checked. Nearer Silver Creek (I think off
your property), there's good diversity.
Also: Many signs of deer, and a mound full of woodchuck holes (another
underrated species)
Sto n
Ll
((, tin
To the Editor:
On Thursday, May 19th Common Councils Charter and Ordinance Committee
and the city's Conservation Advisory Council are hosting a meeting to
hear comments from the public on a proposed smoking ordinance. The meeting
will be at 7:30 PM in Common Council Chambers Ord floor of City Hall).
The proposed ordinance would restrict smoking in a large number of
di." � (,-) Lv K 'e t-v c -s
public places ,throughout the city. People can get copies of the draft
ordinance from the City Clerk in City Hall, 108 E. Green St.
The smoke that curls off the end of a cigarette contains a long list
of toxic chemicals. According to Dr. Joel Nitzkin, Director of the
Monroe County Health Dept. in Rochester, there are more deaths from
environmental tobacco smoke than from all industrial toxic air emissions
put together. "Passive" smoking has been shown to increase the risk
of respiratory illness, lung cancer, leukemia, cervical cancer, and
breast cancer. * Tobacco smoke is more than a mere nuisance; it is a
serious health hazard.`
Just as we have laws that outlaw combining drinking and driving, or
target - practicing on the Commons, many people in Ithaca feel that we
need to regulate this newly recognized danger. Clean air, just like
pure water and untainted food, is a basic necessity ., and it is the
responsibility of governments to protect 'Lt The meeting on May 19th
is your chance to give us your comments and suggestions on the draft
ordinance before it is sent on to Common Council for action.
Dick Booth, Chair, Charter and Ordinance Committee
Betsy Darlington, Chair, Conservation Advisory Council
Lv,�
ITHACA'S SMOKING ORDINANCE: SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES
This sheet summarizes the provisions of the City of Ithaca's smoking ordinance
that regulate smoking in indoor places open to the public. Please refer to
the ordinance for further details. A separate sheet summarizes the ordinances
regulation of smoking in the workplace.
General Mmking prohibition: With certain exceptions, the ordinance prohibits
smokin in all indoor areas open to the public. Public areas covered yTy lT TTs
general prohibition include, but are not limited to:
** museums, theaters, places of worship, libraries, public buildings;
** food markets, stores, food service establishments, laundromats, banks, and
all other commercial service establishments;
** arenas, gymnasiums, auditoriums, clubhouses, enclosed swimming pools, health
clubs, and other enclosed athletic facilities;
** elevators, lobbies, stairways, waiting areas, restrooms, hallways;
any facilities where the public routinely conducts business;
** public transportation vehicles, including taxicabs, limousines, and buses;
enclosed bus stops;
* police vehicles while being used to transport members of the public;
* hospitals, residential health care facilities, and all other facilities
and offices that provide health services;
** educational and vocational institutions;
* all places of public accommodation that serve ten or more people.
Exceptions to general smoking prohibition: Notwithstanding the general prohibition
against smoking in indoor public places, smoking maybe permitted in the following
places under certain circumstances:
** a separate enclosed room or rooms -- vented to the outdoors - -in a food service
establishment, club house, or service club (such room(s) not to exceed 30%
of the facility es capacity or area);
* the concourse area of a bowling establishment;
** a bar that does not contain a food establishment;
* a bar that contains or adjoins a food service establishment if the bar is
in a separate enclosed room(s), vented to the outdoors;
a bingo establishment, provided there is a contiguous non - smoking area for
at least 30% of the seating capacity (and up to 70% of capacity if demanded
by customers);
* not more than 70% of the individual rooms rented at places of public accom-
modation serving ten or more persons, provided at least 30% of the rooms
are maintained as smoke -free areas;
** a separate enclosed room(s) -- vented to the outdoors - -used primarily for
smoking purposes in any indoor area open to the public;
* retail tobacco stores involving only incidental sale of other items;
* a theatrical production (by the performers only);
** jury deliberation room(s), subject to the discretion of the presiding .judge
and provided that the rights of non - smokers are protected;
** a private group convention where the participants are individually identified
by the organizer of the convention;
** any convention, meeting, or trade show if the organizer gives notice in
promotional materials that smoking will not be restricted, and prominently
posts notice of that fact at the entrance.
-G
Where the smoking restrictions do not apply:
** Private homes, private apartments and dwelling rooms, and private motor
vehicles (other than vehicles used by an owners employees during the course
of their employment);
** any private social function where arrangements are under the control of
the sponsor of the function and not of the person in charge of the establishment
where the function is held;
** public accommodation facilities serving fewer than ten people;
* commonly used areas in fraternities, sororities, multiple dwellings, rooming
and boarding houses, and dormitories (for example, lounges, hallways, recreation
rooms, laundry rooms, bathrooms, and meeting rooms)
--------------- - - - --
General provisions:
** "Smoking" and "No Smoking" signs must be prominently posted.
** Any dispute concerning the meaning of the ordinance must be resolved to
provide the greatest protection to all persons from second -hand smoke.
* The person in charge of a place covered by the ordinance must request compliance
with the ordinance, and must ask persons who do not comply to leave the
premises.
Note: In order to avoid confrontations, people in charge of places open to the
public may find it helps to hand out small printed cards to persons who are
smoking in non - smoking areas. We suggest that such cards might say the following:
PLEASE DO NOT SMOKE IN THIS AREA
Smoking in this area is a violation
of Chapter 67 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code
Thank you for your cooperation
--------------- - - - --
Waivers: The ordinance provides for waivers in truly exceptional cases where
the implementation of the ordinance would cause undue financial hardship or
be clearly unreasonable. For example, a waiver may be granted if an establishment
is equipped with a ventilation system that meets standards specified in the
ordinance.
--------------------
Flenalties and enforcement:
** Any person who smokes in any place where the ordinance prohibits smoking
will be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50.00 per violation;
** Any owner, operator, manager, or person in charge of any place in which
the ordinance prohibits or otherwise regulates smoking who fails to comply
with its provisions will be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200.00
for each day of violation.
Effective date: The ordinance took effect October 15, 1988, but the penalties
and enforcement provisions will not apply until April 15, 1989.
November, 1988
ITHACA'S SMOKING ORDINANCE: SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE
This sheet summarizes the provisions of the City of Ithaca's smoking ordinance
that regulate smoking in the workplace. Please refer to the ordinance for further
details. A separate sheet summarizes the ordinances regulation of smoking
in indoor areas open to the public.
General rules:
I. Employers must provide smoke -free work areas at all indoor primary work
stations for all employees who want them. However, employers may assign
employees to work in public places where the ordinance allows smoking (for
example, in a separate enclosed room in a restaurant).
2. The general smoking prohibition governing public areas applies to places
that are both workplaces and indoor places open to the public.
3. In a public indoor place where smoking is generally prohibited, an employer
may designate a separate enclosed room(s) -- vented to the out -of- doors - -for
employees to use as a smoking room.
4. No employee may be penalized or discriminated against for seeking full compliance
with the smoking ordinance or for stating his /her preference for working
in a smoking or non - smoking area. Every employer must adequately guarantee
the protection of the rights of smoking and non - smoking employees.
5. An employer has the right to designate the entire workplace, or any portion
thereof, as a smoke -free area, subject to any collective bargaining process
that may apply.
6. Employers must prominently post "Smoking" and "No Smoking" signs in every
place where smoking is regulated by the ordinance.
7. Any question concerning the meaning of the ordinance must be resolved in
a manner that will provide the greatest protection to all persons from second-
hand smoke.
8. Employers must request compliance with the ordinance by all persons in their
place of business, and ask persons who do not comply to leave the premises.
9. The ordinance does not apply to the following places or to employees working
in these places:
* Private homes, apartments and dwelling rooms, and private motor vehicles
(other than an employers vehicles that are used by employees);
** Any place where a private social function is being held during which
the arrangements are under the control of the functions sponsor and
not the person in charge of that place;
** Public accommodation facilities that serve fewer than ten people;
** Common areas in fraternities, sororities, multiple dwellings, rooming
and boarding houses, and dormitories (for example, lounges, recreation
rooms, laundry rooms, bathrooms, and meeting rooms).
(turn)
- +"- •
Workplace policy: Every employer must adopt (or if a collective bargaining
unit exists, negotiate through the negotiating process) and implement a written
policy governing smoking in the workplace. The employer must prominently post
a copy of the smoking policy for that workplace and provide a copy to each employee
and prospective employee. This policy must do at least the following:
1. Prohibit smoking in any indoor work area occupied by more than one person
unless that area is occupied exclusively by smokers.
2. Prohibit smoking in any vehicle controlled by the employer, if the vehicle
is used by an employee who wishes to work in a smoke -free area.
3. Prohibit smoking in commonly used areas, including but not limited to hallways,
elevators, auditoriums, meeting rooms, supply rooms, rooms containing photo-
copying equipment, recreation rooms, restrooms, and employee medical facilities.
4. Designate contiguous non - smoking areas in cafeterias, lunchrooms, and employee
lounges, that cover at least 70% of the seating capacity and floor area
of these facilities.
5. Require best efforts by the employer to comply with requests from non - smoking
employees to be assigned to areas where smoking is prohibited, and to avoid
being assigned to areas where smoking is permitted, and require the employer
to keep written documentation about these efforts.
Waivers: The ordinance provides for waivers in truly exceptional cases where
the implementation of the ordinance would cause undue financial hardship or
be clearly unreasonable. For example, a waiver may be granted if an employer "s
establishment is equipped with a ventilation system that meets standards specified
in the ordinance.
Penalties and enforcement:
I. Any person who smokes in any place where the ordinance prohibits smoking
will be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50.00 for each violation.
2. An employer in charge of any place in which the ordinance prohibits or otherwise
regulates smoking who fails to comply with its provisions will be subject
to a civil penalty not to exceed $200.00 for each day of violation.
Effective date: The ordinance took effect October 15, 1988, but the penalties
and enforcement provisions will not apply until April 15, 1989.
November, 1988
OFFICE OF
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Jack Dougherty,
Dept. of Public
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca
Dear Jacks
CITY OF ITHACA
l oe EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 148SO
May 8, 1988
Superintendent
Works
TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CODE 607
First I want to thank you for taking the time a few weeks
ago to familiarize me with the history of SW ParkAnd the
rationale behind the DPW's activities there. I do believe
that both of us act in what we reel is the city's best
interest. The fact that we come at it with different
perspectivies is a good thing. The best solutions, afterall,
come when many aspects are taken into consideration. I
really do welcome your insight into things and I certainly
understand SW Park better from having heard what you had to
says
Secondly, I'd like is thank you for taking action to get
the household trash that private citizens have dumped in the
park removed from there.
And finally, just as you asked me to bring my concerns is
YOU when I have them, I hope you will do the same, as you did
with SW Park and the Chamber of Commerce FAF. I would be the
first to admit that I have a lot to learn, and I appreciate
hearing other points of view. I hope that if I ask you questions
about things you will understand that I really do Just want
to understand the particular situation better so I won't rush
to a hasty, ill — informed, foolish decision.
Best wishes,
Betsy Darlington, Chair
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 11495)3:
OFFICE OF
TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CODE 607
May 29, 1988
George Mayer
NYSEG°
Ithaca - Dryden Rd. ,
Etna, NY 13062
Dear Mr. Mayer:
Would you please send me information about the use of herbicides along
the power line that crosses Slaterville and Coddington Rds. just west
of Burns Rd. -- in particular, the names of the herbicides, the label
information for them, and when they are applied?
I was in the section between Coddington Rd. and Six -Mile Creek last
week and I noticed that herbicides had been used. Since new green growth
is coming up around all the dead woody growth, I would guess they were
used last year. I called the City ,s DPW and spoke with Larry Fabbroni
who had recently noticed the same thing. He thought you might know
what s been used. If not, could you please send this letter on to whomever
would know?
Since the area in question drains into the water supply for most of
the city and some of the town of Ithaca, we would like to know what
NYSEG is using.
Thanks for your help!
Sincerely,
Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair
Cc: Larry Fabbroni
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL CODE 607
June 17, 1987
Earl Flansburgh, Chairman
Buildings and Properties Committee of
the Cornell Board of Trustees
Earl R. Flansburgh Associates
77 N. Washington Street
Boston, MA 02114
Dear Mr. Flansburgh:
At the June 17th meeting of our committee, the following
letter was unanimously approved:
We, the members of the City of Ithaca's Conservation Advisory
Council, are disturbed by Cornell's plan to build the new Theory
Center on the south side of Grumman Hall and into the northern
edge of Cascadilla Gorge. The building's presence would have a
deleterious effect on the quality of life of the many people who
walk in and through that area daily. In addition, disturbance
of this magnitude would have a significant impact on the flora
and fauna of the gorge, as well as at least a short -term impact
on the water quality of Cascadilla Creek.
The gorges of Ithaca, true natrual treasures, are an
intregal part of our City and of of Cornell. They are important
as natural areas in which members of the Cornell and Ithaca
community, as well as numerous visitors, can find much - needed
peace and quiet. This section of Cascadilla Gorge is especially
vital in this regard because it is an island of natural beauty in
a rapidly developing area. The aesthetic value of the area would
be seriously comprised by this construction.
A major concern with the plan would be the precedent such
construction would set. For about 100 years Cornell has wisely
protected the gorges from development.
We urge you and your committee to reconsider your decision
and reaffirm Cornell's longstanding tradition of gorge preservation.
Thank you.
UerSince /rely yours,
cjh Ashley�iller, Chairman
Conservation Advisory Council
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
a A
Memo to Connie or Cookie:
Would you please call Ashley Miller by Friday afternoon (tomorrow)
to come and sign this letter? (She wants to sign it in person.)
Also, C.A.0 would like you to please send copies to:
Mayor Sohn Gutenberger
M. Van Cort
Robert M. Matyas, Vice - President for Facilities, 317 Day Hall,
Cornell (14853)
Provost Robert Barker, 300 Day Hall
President Frank H.T. Rhodes
Robert Cook, Director, Cornell Plantations, One Plantations
Rd.
Carolyn Peterson, Alderman
Thanks a lot!
.i Y
June 17, 1987
Earl Flansburgh, Chairman
Buildings and Properties Committee of
the Cornell Board of Trustees
Earl R. Flansburgh Associates
77 North Washington St.
Boston, MA
02114
Dear Mr. Flansburgh:
At the June 17th meeting of our committee, the following letter
was unanimously approved:
We, the members of the City of Ithaca's Conservation Advisory
Council, are disturbed by Cornell s plan to build the new Theory
Center on the south side of Grumman Hall and into the northern
edge of Cascadilla Gorge. The building's presence would have
a deleterious effect on the quality of life of the many people
who walk in and through that area daily. In addition, disturbance
of this magnitude would have a significant impact on the flora
and fauna of the gorge, as well as at least a short -term impact
on the water quality of Cascadilla Creek.
The gorges of Ithaca, true natural treasures, are an integral
part of our city and of Cornell. They are important as natural
areas in which members of the Cornell and Ithaca community,
as well as numerous visitors, can find much - needed peace and
quiet. This section of Cascadilla Gorge is especially vital
in this regard because it is an island of natural beauty in
a rapidly developin , area. The aesthetic �,
-value o t e area would be seriously compromised by this construc-
t ion.
A major concern with the plan would be the precedent such construc-
tion would set. For about 100 years Cornell has wisely protected
the gorges from development.
We urge you and your committee to reconsider your decision and
reaffirm Cornell 's longstanding tradition of gorge preservation.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Ashley Miller, Chairman
Conservation Advisory Council
Memo to: Leslie Chatterton
The CAC,s subcommittee for EAFs met today to review the proposed project.
We are unclear as to what the project proposes to do. On the one hand,
it seems to indicate interior renovations, but on the other hand it
states that the number of parking spaces on the site will increase from
12 to 43. So, is a parking lot part of the project? We proceeded under
this assumption. We felt that adding so many people and their cars
to this once - beautifully landscaped property could have a significant
environmental impact. A fraternity is supposed to locate in the building,
which could have a severe impact on the entire site and neighborhood.
Specific areas of concern:
I. Drainage from a once- vegetated site that has been turned into a parking
lot.
2. Erosion of banks below the lot.
3. Trash and debris on and around the site.
4. Appearance of the site from neighboring homes and streets. This
once - lovely property has already suffered significant aesthetic and
environmental degredation from earlier removal of important vegetation.
Further deterioration can reasonably be expected, given the intended
uses for the site.
We had a number of comments and questions about specific items:
SERF -- Project info: #7 If only interior work is intended, how can 0.5
acres be involved? Or does the project indeed include a parking lot?
We skipped Part 2 of the SERF; comments on the LEAF would apply to the
S EAF as well.
LEAF -Part 2 (part 1 comes after part 2 with this EAF)
Page 2
1. This is answered "yes" but nowhere does it say what the effects of
the changes would be.
Page 3. 6. "Yes"
Page 4. 7. "Yes." Drainage certainly will be altered as a once - vegetated
area is converted to a parking lot. Paved parking will increase from
5526 sq. ft. to 17,045 sq. ft., and from 12 to 43 spaces.
Page 6. 11. "Yes." (Views, vistas, visual character of neighborhood)
Potential large impacts (col. 2) from the first two examples. (Introduction
of new materials in contrast to surroundings; easily visible.)
12. (Historic district) 1st and 3rd items - col 2., since they meet
the stated threshold. (This is an item a number of people reasonably
disagree on how to answer, however.)
Page 7. 14. "Yes." 43 more cars entering Buffalo St. (Col. 1, second
item)
Page 8. 16. The change from vegetation to pavement will result in a
change in temperature on and next to the site. This will be most noticeable
ILPC members
Jason Fane, J. Sharma
P &D, BPW, Building Dept.
Cc:
CAC members
Common Council members
Re:
EAF for 705 E. Buffalo
From:
Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair �' t
Date:
June 26, 1988
The CAC,s subcommittee for EAFs met today to review the proposed project.
We are unclear as to what the project proposes to do. On the one hand,
it seems to indicate interior renovations, but on the other hand it
states that the number of parking spaces on the site will increase from
12 to 43. So, is a parking lot part of the project? We proceeded under
this assumption. We felt that adding so many people and their cars
to this once - beautifully landscaped property could have a significant
environmental impact. A fraternity is supposed to locate in the building,
which could have a severe impact on the entire site and neighborhood.
Specific areas of concern:
I. Drainage from a once- vegetated site that has been turned into a parking
lot.
2. Erosion of banks below the lot.
3. Trash and debris on and around the site.
4. Appearance of the site from neighboring homes and streets. This
once - lovely property has already suffered significant aesthetic and
environmental degredation from earlier removal of important vegetation.
Further deterioration can reasonably be expected, given the intended
uses for the site.
We had a number of comments and questions about specific items:
SERF -- Project info: #7 If only interior work is intended, how can 0.5
acres be involved? Or does the project indeed include a parking lot?
We skipped Part 2 of the SERF; comments on the LEAF would apply to the
S EAF as well.
LEAF -Part 2 (part 1 comes after part 2 with this EAF)
Page 2
1. This is answered "yes" but nowhere does it say what the effects of
the changes would be.
Page 3. 6. "Yes"
Page 4. 7. "Yes." Drainage certainly will be altered as a once - vegetated
area is converted to a parking lot. Paved parking will increase from
5526 sq. ft. to 17,045 sq. ft., and from 12 to 43 spaces.
Page 6. 11. "Yes." (Views, vistas, visual character of neighborhood)
Potential large impacts (col. 2) from the first two examples. (Introduction
of new materials in contrast to surroundings; easily visible.)
12. (Historic district) 1st and 3rd items - col 2., since they meet
the stated threshold. (This is an item a number of people reasonably
disagree on how to answer, however.)
Page 7. 14. "Yes." 43 more cars entering Buffalo St. (Col. 1, second
item)
Page 8. 16. The change from vegetation to pavement will result in a
change in temperature on and next to the site. This will be most noticeable
(and unpleasant) in summer.
Page 9. 18. "Yes." (Effect on character of neighborhood.) Most definitely!
Fraternities have a very large impact, and this will, we believe, be
the first in that area. (Put in col. 2, under "other impacts ") (Loud,
frequent parties can be expected, among other things.)
Page 19. (Controversy). Both examples should be checked, we think, in
col. 2.
A Part 3 is definitely called for. Mitigating measures are badly needed
and should be detailed in Part 3.
LEAF --Part 1
Page I. A.3. Vegetation should be described. Also, the total in the
"after completion" column should add up to the figure in A.3. (23,904)
Page 2. 4a. Soil type should be given.
4.b. How did applicant arrive at the 100% well- drained figure if he
doesn't know the soil type? A 100% figure for this site would be surprising.
13. "Yes" (Historic building) (We assume "no" is a typo.)
Page 3. l.c. Is the vegetation on the banks and around the edges to
be removed? s" s 1 vo'4 &- ske is -to l,-
5. If no vegetation is to be removed, haw can there be anything to replace?
Either #4 or #5 is answered wrong. What vegetation is to be removed,
and what will be used to replace it?
Page 4
6. Will project really take only one month? Does this time period include
the parking lot? Will parking lot be installed in a second phase?
Or will it perhaps be applied for separately?
15. (Solid waste.) a. "yes:', b. "yes." c. Tompkins County County landfill.
Page 5. 21. Should have been answered. (At 100 gal /day /person, usage
would be 3200 gal, and the source, City water supply.)
Memo to: Leslie Chatterton, P &D
Mark Haag
ILPC members
P &D, BPW, Building Dept.
Cc: Members of CAC and Common Council
Re: EAF for parking lot at 440 E. Buffalo `
From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair
Date: June 26, 1988
The CAC's EAF subcommittee met today at the site to consider the EAF
for this project. Our feeling was that there is the potential for some
significant environmental impacts. Some of these are ones which we
felt insufficiently qualified to evaluate, and we recommend that a geologist
look at the site and give his advice. Barbara Hotchkiss recommends
any of the following, all of whom work at the USGS:
Phil Zarielli
Ward Staubitz
Bill Cappell
Summary of possible impacts:
I. Potential for erosion, especially its Cascadilla Gorge. (And
we contend that the project site isA on iguous with the gorge, although
it is about 25' from the rim itself?
In addition to the finished project, we wonder how construction will
take place without damaging the fragile gorge next to it. Will a construc-
tion fence be effected at the outside perimeter of the proposed finished
parking lot so "ve�>&s, and debris cannot cause damage? The gorge is
a fragile place and the soil is shallow.
2. Changes in drainage patterns resulting from changes from vegetation
to pavement and changes in topography. We wonder how this site can
be drained uphill through pipes to Buffalo St., if a drywell is not
approved. The map supplied shows no pipe layout, but does show a steady
slope from the site uphill to the south.
Furthermore, the projects slope toward the gorge would lead to runoff
into the gorge unless the project is constructed with great care.
Over time, the fill can be expected to settle and shift. Will it
be possible to maintain an inward sloR_e toward a drywell, or proper
slopes to drainage pipes? And will it be possible to maintain the retaining
wall without damaging the vegetation beyond it?
3. Trash and debris from student populatioin using the site.
4. Pollutants from the cars.
5. Impact on climate in the vicinity, esp. in the nearby parts of
the gorge. Large unshaded portions of pavement become very hot on a
sunny day, and then radiate this heat back to the surroundings. Mr. Haag
is to be commended for intending to save the large Norway maple (not
an ash) on the east side of the lot. However, numerous very large shade
trees will be removed. Granted, many of these are Norway maples, an
introduced species, and native species would be better. But they do
serve an important purpose in terms of climate moderation. We would
recommend that if this project is approved, it be required that some
large shade trees be planted strategically in the parking lot to provide
shade, and cooling through evapotranspiration. (This would mean fewer
spaces, of course.)
6. Aesthetic impact. The transformation of this wooded area into a
parking lot would naturally lead to degradation of the appearance, both
from neighboring properties and from the gorge trail. People living
in the house immediately to the west would look out nn t at a wooded
gorge, but at a wall ten feet higher than A ,_presentrand`at cars.
Darlington had thought from her previous conversation with Mr. Haag
that the hemlock screening would be outside the entire wall, not in
between the two 5- foot -high "steps" of the wall. While some small - rooted
plants in the latter area would be highly desirable, anything with a
large root system (such as trees) would eventually destroy the retaining
wall.
It was our feeling that a parking area directly behind the building
at 440 E. Buffalo would make a lot more sense and do a lot less damage.
(Is parking a problem here? Buffalo usually seems to have a lot of spaces.)
Although the form was filled out carefully- -much more so than most we
review - -we had a number of specific comments, suggestions, or questions
on the EAF itself:
LEAF -Part 1- Project Inforrnation:
A.2. Present land use. "Forest" should also be checked.
A.3. Description of area, now and after completion. Almost none is
unvegetated at present. Woods, brushland, and paved surfaces are all
items for which figures should be given. (Item should be consistent
with B.3 and 4 on page 3.) (1400 sq. ft. of vegetation to be removed)
Page 2:
A.S. Bedrock depth should be determined. It is often very near the
surface in nearby areas. This would have implications for the drywell,
if one is used. Would water drain out right onto bedrock? Would blasting
be required to install the drywell?
A.9 and 10: Our feeling is that the northern portion of the site
is in fact part of Cascadilla Gorge, although the rim itself is just
outside the site. In any case, it certainly is contiguous to it.
A. 12. Site certainly contains views important to the community, both
from and to the site.
A. 14. The creek itself must be only 25 or 30 feet from the site, measured
horizontally (as it should be). It s virtually straight down from the
rim to the water. We would say this makes it contiguous to the site.
Page 3: B.l.i. Total height of tallest structure: 10 feet.
Page 4:
B.6. Why will it take 6 -7 men 4 months to complete project? That seems
excessively long to the construction worker member of the subcommittee.
B.13. Punoff into the gorge: we felt a geologist should be consulted
on this question.
B.14.b. Yes, contiguous to Cascadilla Creek
B.15. Where will all the trees be removed to? County Landfill?
LEAF Part 2
Page 2
2. A gologist should be consulted about possible effects on the gorge
wall itself of having large amounts of weight added to the land above.
We noticed, for example, that the natural gorge wall vn4er the property
to the east is bulging outward, and even as we watched a rock, crumbled
off it. Of course, gorge walls will crumble anywhere, but we wondered
if the weight of the building at the top was speeding up the process
and was also causing the outward bulging, which did not look normal.
7
tj�"'tom �� �1��, &I -�, 0 , �cus WSJ
If so, the proposed parking lot \could have the same effect.
Page 3
5. (Effect on body of water) "Yes" Possible small to moderate impact
on Cascadilla Creek - maybe potential large impact, depending on geologist s
review.
Page 4
7. Consult geologist on erosion likelihood. Also, as noted above, how
will the water run uphill to Buffalo St.? Or will the pipes drain from
the site to some lower point to the west of the site?
Page 6
11. Views will be substantially changed for the worse, as noted above.
Check in column 2.
12. Both answers should be in column 2 since they meet the thresholds
given. (Many people disagree on how to answer this item, however.)
Page 7
14. A typo-- should have been answered "yes" although t he impact is
a positive one.
Page 8 N /J
16. under other: climate changes (esp.temperature increases) in the
vicinity should also be listed.
Page 9
18. Check in col. 2: "Project will set an important precedent for future
projects." Such parking lots could proliferate.
Part 3
Page 2: We do not agree with the Building Commissioners assessment
that the site is not contiguous with the gore. In fact, some of it
may be part of the gorge, depending on ones definition.
0
Memo to: Paul Mazzarella, P &D
P &D Board
Members of Common Council
Cc: Conservation Advisory Council
From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair
Re: Site Plan Review ordinance
Date: June 29, 1988
I have just a few comments on what looks like a very good and useful
document:
1. Page 7, #3: All projects, not just those with a slope of 5% or greater,
should be required to indicate on their map such natural features as
woods (maybe showing whether mature or in early stages), streams, wetlands,
brushlands, etc.
2. Page 10, after "p" perhaps add a "q ": Various natural features such
as woods, brushlands, bodies of water, cliffs, etc.
3. Page 13, X65: delete the word, "specimen." Otherwise everyone will
get hung up on just what that means. Any tree of 15" dbh or more is
a specimen tree, really, and should be given extra protection. (Actually,
I "d prefer a figure of 12 ". It takes a long time for trees to reach
12" in diameter.)
4. Page 17, #10: What exactly does "protection of solar access" mean?
How large an area? Would shade trees have to be limited - a move that
would be counterproductive in terms of cutting air conditioner use and
helping -reduce the build -up of CO2 in the atmosphere (greenhouse
effect)? On the other hand, specifying some amt. of area that could
be used for solar collectors seems like a very good idea. (Reducing
the use of fossil fuels also will slow down the build -up of CO2.)
5. Page 24, end of page: How about requiring that the site be returned
to as nearly its natural state as possible, including replacing cut
trees and seeding any bare soil? Otherwise, what might be a neat appearance
following the repairs stated could quickly be undone in the first rainstorm.
. J!
Memo to:P &D Dept and Board
James Borra
Cc: CAC members
Common Council members
Mayor Gutenberger
City Engineer Bill Gray
Building Commissioner Tom Hoard L .�
From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair : :_A
Date: August 16, 1988
Re: EAF for Deer Creek Subdivision
The CAC ,s EAF subcommittee met yesterday and reviewed this EAF. Two members
walked (and crawled ?) on the site in July. The subcommittees findings:
I. Recommendation: positive declaration (potentially significant impacts
on the environment). We feel that a DEIS should be done.
U. Comments:
A. We feel that the city's Part 2 of the Long EAF form, .rather than
the states, should have been used. The two forms are not the same and
it makes it difficult for us to do a careful review if we have the wrong
form.
B. Our understanding from two sources (one being the DEC in Albany)
is that in a project of this nature, a worst -case scenario must be addressed
in the EAF. While the application is merely for permission to subdivide
the property, and then sell off building lots, the potential fate of those
lots must be addressed in the EAF although the applicant may not be the
one to do the actual developing. (By the way, would Mr. Borra be the builder ?)
If the subdivider intends that certain features - -e.g. the trees - -be
retained, this could be put into restrictive covenants in the deeds when
selling the lots.
We realize that this point is one which the applicant did not understand
and therefore Part 1, at least, of the EAF was filled out based simply on
what the subdivider himself was going to do, namely clear brush, remove
vegetation for roadways, and mark off 8 lots. Because of this, we have
a large number of comments on specific answers that were given on the EAF.
We wish to thank Mr. Borra for providing many excellent maps of the
site.
C. We feel that cumulative impacts of this and the other subdivisions
in that area should be considered by the Plan ing Board. We believe the
DEC recognizes this need as welIC t- Sa�e,^ai�I
III. Summary of potential impacts on the environment
A. Drainage, erosion, sedimentation, flooding
With the 16% slope, the lack of storm sewers and the intent to channel runoff
into the two streams on the site, and the replacement of some permeable,
vegetated surfaces with impervious surfaces, there will be an increase in
volume of water flowing through the streams. This will lead to erosion
of stream banks, both on the site and below it, and sedimentation, including
in the Inlet.
(Cumulative impact should also be addressed.)
There could be flooding of homes below the site.
A number of mitigating measures are possible to address these concerns.
B. Loss of important vegetation
Site includes much dense brush (great black raspberries!) and an impressive
stand of walnut trees. Although the subdivider says he will not cut down
trees or dig up the brush, purchasers of the lots would have to do so in
order to develop their lots. Presumably, to put in the roads, even the
subdivider would have to cut trees. Also, the EAF has some discrepancy
on this point: on page 1 of Part I, it says only 1 acre of vegetation would
be removed, while on page 3 it says 4.5 acres would be removed.
(Cumulative impact should be addressed by P &D Board.)
C. Loss of wildlife
The dense and varied brush and woods provide food, cover, and nest sites
for many species. (Also, cumulative impact.)
D. Loss of attractive views into the site, both from the immediate neigh-
borhood and from vantage points all over East Hill. (Views from the site;
however, would be great.) When combined with the other subdivisions planned
for this large undeveloped woodland, the effect would be dramatic and ir,
reversible.
E. Loss of open green space and natural area important to the neighborhood *c�(Y•
(Also, cumulative impact.)
F. Loss of potential future parkland
G. Cumulative impact on traffic, esp. at the Octopus
H. A growing concern, nationwide and worldwide, is with the global warming
from the "greenhouse effect." Trees are the most efficient removers of
carbon dioxide (one of the principal greenhouse gases) from the atmosphere.
Some scientists are recommending massive reforestation of the globe to help
stem this major threat. This subdivision, combined with other proposed
subdivisions on West Hill, would virtually wipe out perhaps 100 acres of
woodland. If nothing else, this should be kept in mind by the Board.
I. Straight cul de sac up a 16% grade raises several concerns, e.g. runoff
and safety.
IV. Specific comments on the EAF form
a. Part I, page 1: site description does not seem to be very accurate;
a better choice might be to say, "woods and brush, large stand of mature
walnuts."
b. page 2, #4: we assume the soil type and drainage were checked?
100% well - drained is quite unusual around here. ( "Drainage" doesn't mean
ability of water to run off the surface but to percolate into the soil.)
C. # 12: scenic views - yes (into the site, from near and far)
d. # 14: 2 streams through the site, as indicated later in form,
including on one of the maps
e. page 3, #1-f: No off street parking ??
f. #I-h: Shouldn't this ke 4 homes initially and 4 ultimately?
g. #1-i: Is 30' height�V" be written into restrictive covenants?
Or would Borra be the builder?
h. #4: many mature trees including walnuts would presumably
be removed
i. page 4, #6: 4 months to prepare 8 sites and build 8 houses?
j. #7: earlier, two phases seemed to be contemplated
k. #8: how carefully has this been checked? Nearby sites
have required, or will require, blasting
1. #9: zero jobs?
m. #12: (sewage): homes would use city sewer system
n. #13: (stream surface area increases): yes
3
o # 15: Solid waste -yes, to county landfill
p. page 5, #19: construction noise -yes
q, #21: 8 homes, 4 people each, 100 gal /day each =3200 gal
water per day
r. Initial application for Approval of Subdivision, #4: states incorrectly
that brooks will not be affected.
s. Part II: page 1 (of State form): (If a threshold is met or exceeded,
answer goes in col. 2)
#1: more than one phase: column 2, not 1
#3: "...drainage will enter 2 small streams..:': col 2
#5: Siltation: col 2
#6: Flooding: col 1 or 2 (steep slope might indicate col 2)
Incompatible with existing drainage patterns: col 2
Vol. of runoff will increase: col 2
#8: (endangered species, etc.): No
#9: (nonthreatened, etc. species):--comment from #8 should
go here (will eliminate natural habitat of about 5 acres).
(Interfere with migratory species): col 2
#11: Elimination of important scenic views: to site, though
not from site: col 2
# 14: traffici ccumulative impact at Octopus
# 18: Change in density of land use: col 2 (esp. cumulatively)
Increase in need for services: col 2 " it
Precedent - setting: col 2 " it
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
The CAC, at its August 15, 1988 meeting, unanimously passed the following
resolutions:
Be it resolved that the BPW make known its intentions for the old sewage
treatment plant and its possible availability for a neighborhood park;
and
Be it resolved that Common Council designate the old sewage treatment
plant site, if not needed by DPW, as a neighborhood park.
Findings:
1. The North Central Neighborhood (NCN) has the smallest ratios of parkland
to population of any city neighborhood.
2. The NCN has one of the highest proportions in the city of several
population groups: elderly, children, minorities, low income.
3. As population density increases, the need for recreational opportunities
and open space becomes more acute. The NCN, already quite dense, could
soon have a large project adding still more people.
4. Adequate recreational opportunities can foster a sense of community.
5. A well- designed park adjacent to Cascadilla Creek could enhance the
appearance of that valuable natural resource in a section that has
been neglected by the city.
6. The site is large enough to accommodate facilities for a number of
activities: basketball court, skateboarding park (maybe in the large
building nearest the creek), a wall for handball, swings, jungle gyms,
see -saws, picnic tables, etc.
7. The Northside Cascadilla Civic Association (NCCA) has made repeated
requests of the city for more park space, and has specifically asked
for this site.
8. Since the city already owns . the site, it would not have to lay out
money to buy it.
9. A park in that area would also serve the Fall Creek and Central neigh-
borhoods.
10. The NCCA has demonstrated a willingness to work hard for the neighborhood
and would undoubtedly contribute much to the planning and development
of the park.
11. State funds are available for development of neighborhood parks.
12. While developing the site would take some thought, time, and a modest
amount of money, simply designating the site as parkland should be
simple and quick, and would send a message to the neighborhood that
the city does care about it and does respond to its needs.
� 'v -All Creek �<.�asa4o�
vr, j
1
I
•' ti
x CcN1 -v,c 1r � I
COKf'F � 1
� 1
I
r
Senuti � '' 11
1 �
1 �
I �
Iq-7 0 w,Ap
At its August 15th, 1988 meeting, the Conservation Advisory Council
unanimously passed the following statement and recommendation to Common
Council, r�arding plastic and polystyrene packaging:
The disposal of solid waste is a matter of increasing concern in Tompkins
County and across the nation. Landfills are closing and incineration
poses many environmental risks. Recycling is an increasingly attractive
option for many communities, as the City of Ithaca has recognized, but
much of the solid waste is not recyclable.
One approach to the solid waste disposal crisis is to diminish the
quantity of waste at its source. Non - recyclable, non - biodegradable
packaging (for example polystyrene containers, plastic bags) constitutes
a significant portion of our solid waste stream. In the United States,
disposable packaging now constitutes over one third of the solid waste
by weight, and even more by volume. _
The Conservation Advisory Council urges' Common Council to consider
a city -wide ban on non - recyclable, non - biodegradable packaging. Alterna-
tives to these forms of packaging exist and more are being developed.
Similar prohibitions against non - recyclable, non - biodegradable packaging
have been enacted in Suffolk County, NY.
The Conservation Advisory Council views the elimination or significant
decrease of this component of the solid waste stream as environmentally
responsible and as an important adjunct to our solid waste disposal
strategy. It should have the additional benefits of reducing litter,
encouraging recycling, and reducing the environmental impact of non -
biodegradable waste on groundwater and air quality.
The purpose of this proposal is to diminish the portion of the solid
waste stream in the City of Ithaca that is composed of non - recyclable,
non - biodegradable packaging in order to protect the air, water, and
land against contamination and degradation. The Conservation Advisory
Council recommends that the proposed ordinance include the following:
1. Prohibition of:
A. Non - recyclable, non - biodegradable packaging use by retail food
establishments. To include, but not be limited to, polystyrene
cups and food containers, plastic utensils, and plastic bags.
B. Non - recyclable, non - biodegradable packaging that is intended for
a single use within the public institutions of the City of Ithaca.
To include, but not be limited to, polystyrene trays and plastic
utensils commonly used in cafeteria settings within schools, jails,
and health institutions.
2. Definitions of terms and requirements of the proposed ordinance.
3. Exclusions from the proposed ordinance. For example, biodegradable
plastics have been developed. What criterion should be used to include
or exclude such packaging?
4. Penalties for failure to comply with the ordinance.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Memo to: Jack Dougherty
BPW
Joe Ciaschi ll
From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair lr�--K>l
Date: August 15, 1988
Cc : CAC ) C-0►�.w..ev, eota,.J
Re: 1. 401 College Ave - EAF on building overhang
2. 424 S. Geneva St. - EAF on groundwater testing well
.X A
r
it I
TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CODE 607
The CAC s EAF subcommittee met yesterday and reviewed the two EAF "s
listed above.
Recommendations:
1. 401 College Ave.: negative declaration (no significant impact), assuming
the overhang is the one already on the building and not some new structure
still to be built.
Comments: No part 2 of the SEAF was filled out, as required by local
and state law.
Description should have made clear what this was all about.
2. 424 S. Geneva St.: Neg. dec. Even if there should be some local
adverse impact of the drilling, this presumably would be overridden
by the environmental importance of the project, and the DEC s order.
Comment: No part 2 of the SEAF was filled out, as required by local
and state law.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
r
E3`
Memo to: Jon Meigs, Paul Mazzarella, Thys Van Cort
From: Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair
Re: Lead -time for review
Date: Sept. 1, 1988
Cc: Susan Blumenthal and P &D Board
Tom Hoard
CAC members
Thanks for your memo--and also for all the demographic research you
did for us concerning the Northside!
Having the deadline for EAF submissions be the first workday of the
month is not enough time, at least in 8 months of the year: Assuming
you photocopied the EAF and mailed it to me the same day as you received
it, and I received it two days later, our EAF subcommittee would have
only 5 days to review it before the full CAC meeting, in six months out
of the next 12. And all this assumes a rather rapid schedule at your
end, in terms of sending it out.
Here's what happens in six months out of the next 12:
You receive the EAF on Monday (Oct. 3, Jan. 2, Apr. 3, May 1, July
3). You mail it to me that day. I get it on Wed., and the full CAC meets
the following Monday. In the case of this Sept., if you rec "d it Thur. Sept. 1
and mailed it to me that day, I probably would not get it until Tue. Sept. 6
since Monday is a holiday. Or, if I recd it on Sat., I,d have trouble
reaching anybody until after the holiday weekend. In any case, I couldn,t
Xerox it for them until Tue. Sometime before our full council meeting,
I must Xerox it for the subcommittee members, send it to them, they must
read it, at least one of us must go see the site, and we must meet to
go over it. In addition, we must write up our report for P &D.
In two months of the year (Dec. and June), there would be exactly a
week from the time I received it until the CAC meeting (assuming you mailed
it out to me the day you received it). And in four months (Nov., Feb.,
Mar., Aug.) there would probably be sufficient time. (Though Aug. presents
its own problems, with people on vacation.)
In view of all this, I would like to suggest that the deadline be one
week before the first working day of each month. True, it,s not a nice
easy thing to remember (or write down), but it would give us enough time
to do the job.
It may be worth reminding people that the schedule is so tight because
the CAC moved its meeting time back a week to accommodate the P &D subcommittee
that reviews applications prior to their full board meeting. If for some
reason no one wants to have the aline be a week before the first workday
of the month, an alternative would be to have an extra month in there
for the CAC to get in its report to P &D; then the deadline could be a
nice neat "first workday of the month." But I would think developers
would prefer to have the thing be an untidy "week before the first workday"
than to have their project delayed a month.
One further observation: unlike most committees with a big work load,
the CAC does not have a staff person to help out with mechanical details.
Thanks!
k�
f
Memo to: Paul Mazzarella
P &D Board
Common Council
Cc: Conservation Advisory Council members
Re: Site plan review ordinance
Date: Sept. 1, 1988
In addition to the five comments I sent you on June 29th, I have a couple
of otLcr suggestions to make on the proposed ordinance:
1. Require that all new projects incorporate measures to ensure a zero
increase in runoff from the site, both during and after construction.
Runoff from streets is a major source of water pollution, in addition
to causing all sorts of other environmental problems.
2. Require new projects to incorporate various energy - saving measures,
both in the design of the structures themselves and - -in the case . aa- (.earJ) e
businesses - -in the design of the machinery to be used. (Energy- efficient
water heaters, refrigerators, and other appliances and machines, -when
these are available.)
3. Perhaps a bonus could be given for use of solar energy.
Have the comments I sent in last June been considered? (I haven't been
to all the meetings about site -plan review.)
C (4 C - i
i o
o way.. C
C4 4
41- q
Memo to: George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner
From: Betsy Darlington, Conservation Advisory Council Chair
Date: Sept. 14, 1988
Re: Proposed bikeway along rr bed south of ' Six -Mile Creek
Z`-c: Susan Beeners, Town Planner
Noel Desch, Town Supervisor
Ithaca Town Board members
CAC members
Mayor Gutenberger and Common Council members
The CAC asked me to write and, first of all, express our thanks to you
for coming to our August meeting to explain, and answer questions about,
the proposed 6 -Mile Creek bikeway.
We were pleased to hear that,
a) the town has no plans for the old rr grades between Burns Rd. and
the City line to ever be developed into roads, and that it would represent
a "radical departure" ?rom town policy for this to change;
b) that the town will encourage development on the rr side of Coddington
Rd. to be clustered up nearer the road and away from the rr bed;
c) that the town intends to discourage development below the rr grade
beyond Northview Rd. (we wish that same policy extended inward toward
the city as well);
d) that the pavement of the bikeway would be only 4 -5 feet wide, with
about two feet to one side (maybe each side ?) for joggers.
We would like to see a written statement from the town confirming these
intents (realizing, as you pointed out, that legislative bodies can
and do change their minds!).
Despite our helpful exchange Monday night, most of the CAC s concerns
(as expressed in our memo of July 20/88) still stand, the biggest one
being the impetus to development that extending the sewer line out along
the rr bed would give. Unfortunately, the towns interest, as you indicated
it, in developing along that side of Coddington Rd. is simply different
from what we feel is in the city's best interest- -that being, of course,
to protect the watershed and the unique natural area that lies between
the rr bed and Six-Mile Creek.
In addition to our earlier concerns, we wonder if you could clarify
for us the Towns intentions regarding the two parks shown on the 1984
Open Space Plan (a vest pocket park and an area park, on the creek side
of the railroad bedr -off Kendall and near Northview, resp.)? None of
us could recall exactly what you said about these.
A question: Does the towns master plan have a provision in it for zero
increase in runoff from new projects?
Finally, could the town take out any mention of using multiflora rose
or privet as barriers along the proposed bikeway? The plant life in
the area is too sensitive to risk threatening it with these very invasive
species. You also mentioned blackberries; this seems more appropriate.
Again, thanks for meeting with us!
DRAFT DRAFT, DRAFT
October 10, 1988
Superintendent Gordon Bruno
Ithaca School Board Members
Lake St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mr. Bruno and Members of the School Board:
The Conservation Advisory Council has two concerns it would like you to
address:
1) In light of the serious solid waste crisis in Tompkins County, and
in view of the destructive efer-% of Styrofoam on the earths atmosphere
and stratospheric ozone layer, we feel that use of disposable trays and
other eating utensils in school cafeterias must come to an end. The schools
used washable, reusable materials for generations, and we urge you to
reinstate them. This would also set a good example to our children who
are going to have to adapt to a less wasteful life style as our environmental
problems worsen. While we assume the reason for switching to Styrofoam
and other disposable materials was financial, the ultimate costs of the
switch are unacceptably high.
2) Recent reports indicate that many drinking fountains contain lead solder
or are lined with lead. We would like to know if the district is taking
any action to see if such is the case in our schools, and if so, to take
remedial action.
Thanks for your help!
Sincerely,
Betsy Darlington, for the CAC
0
Tompkins County
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CCGUNCCEL
Biggs Building `A, 301 Dates Drive
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 274 - 5360
October 3, 1988
Mr. Andrew Mazzella
Regional Manager
Finger Lakes State Parks & Recreation Region
R.D. # 3
Trumansburg, NY 14886
Dear Mr. Mazzella:
Several members of the EMC have spent time this summer visiting and discussing
the "Hog's Hole" section of the Treman Marine Park. We would like to share with
you the results of these discussions.
A number of us would ideally like to see the entire area north of the marina,
from Route 89 to the Inlet, returned to a naturalized wetland area. However,
realizing that this is impractical given what has already taken place in the
area, we have come up with the following list of more practical suggestions.
We feel that implementation of these suggestions would best enhance the existing
wetland area, making the entire area more suitable for*both human and wildlife
use.
1. Keep the access road and parking area(s) well away from the wetland area.
Bringing the access road in from the marina parking lot rather than from
the maintenance road would help.
2. Separate the wetland area from the proposed developed parkland with a
substantial buffer zone, preferably with a sizable mound.
3. Material for this mound could be obtained by scooping out (bulldozing ?)
2 or 3 areas in the northern part of the wetland, where grasses now
dominate. These areas would have to be carefully planned, with a very
gradual gradient to a depth of 2 or 3 feet below lake level. We feel
ponds such as this are very important as wildlife habitat.
4. The remainder of the wetland could remain untouched, with the exception
of a few unpaved trails. These trails should be marked with signs
explaining the fragile nature of the wetland, and urging users to stay
on the trails.
Continued .....
r^
M
Page 2 - Mazzella - 10/3/88
5. We would like to have a declaration from your office recognizing
the special nature of this wetland area, and guaranteeing that
the entire area will remain forever natural.
We hope these suggestions will be of help to you in finalizing your plans for
the area. We would like to have someone from the EMC meet with you or your
staff members to go over these suggestions in more detail, and provide whatever
other help we can. We appreciate your past co- operation, and look forward to
working together in the future.
Yours very truly,
Roger Farrell, Chair
Land Use and Transportation
xc:'�Betsy Darlington
Ithaca CAC
RF /mdg
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
October 11, 1988
Superintendent Gordon Bruno
Ithaca School Board Members
Lake St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mr. Bruno and Members of the School Board:
The Conservation Advisory Council has two concerns it would like you to
address:
1) In light of the serious solid waste crisis in Tompkins County, and
in view of the destructive effect of the CFCs (used to make Styrofoam)
on the earths atmosphere and stratospheric ozone layer, we feel that
use of disposable trays and various plastic utensils in school cafeterias
must come to an end. The schools used washable, reusable materials for
generations, and we urge you to reinstate them. This would also set a
good example to our children who are going to have to adapt to a less
wasteful life style as our environmental problems worsen. While we assume
the reason for switching to Styrofoam and other disposable materials was
financial, the ultimate environmental, social, and financial costs of
the switch are unacceptably high.
2) Recent reports indicate that many drinking fountains contain lead solder
or are lined with lead. We would like to know if the district is taking
any action to see if such is the case in our schools, and if so, if it
is taking remedial action.
TELEPHONE: 272 -1713
CODE 607
I am enclosing an article from Discover on the lead problem in drinking
fountains, and parts of two articles on CFC s, from Science and from Oceanus,
a journal put out by the Woods Hole Marine Lab.
Thanks for your help!
Encl
Cc: Gary Lindenbaum, Assistant
Superintendent for Business
Sincerely,
Betsy Darlington, for the CAC
"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 TELEPHONE: 272 -1713 CODE 607
October 11, 1988
Peter Trowbridge
Trowbridge & Trowbridge
1345 Mecklenburg Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Peter:
At our meeting last night, the Conservation Advisory Council asked
me to relay to you a couple of our concerns regarding the West Hill
Master Plan which. we understand you will be working on with the West
Hill Civic Association.
Our first concern is that the large undeveloped natural area be protected
as much as possible from fragmentation into smaller separate parcels.
As you probably know, there is considerable evidence that fragmentation
of woodlands is responsible for the decline of a number of interesting
and valued bird species, for example red - shouldered hawks and numerous
neo-tropical migrant songbirds such as warblers, vireos, and thrushes.
(There is even speculation that woodland fragmentation and loss of large
expanses of woodlands may have a greater adverse impact on the latter
group than loss of habitat in the tropics.) So, the more that can be
left undisturbed and in one piece, the better.
Our second concern is with traffic. We hope that there will be no
new street thoroughfares through the West Hill neighborhood. This seems
especially important in view of the tremendous building boom in nearby
areas of the Town of Ithaca.
Thanks for your consideration!
Congratulations to you, Paula, and others on your staff for your recent
awards!
Sincerely,
Betsy Darlington, CAC Chair
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Conservation Overlay Zones
November, 1988
The Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) recommends that Common Council
adopt the following conservation overlay zoning in sensitive natural areas
of the city.
I. Purpose
The purpose of conservation overlay zoning (COZ) is to give added protection
to environmentally sensitive areas without changing the overall zoning
of the given areas. The CAC feels that our wetlands, waterways, and woodlands
are Ithaca's most sensitive and valuable natural resources. The purpose
of the COZ would be:
to protect the water quality of the streams themselves and Cayuga
Lake into which they flow;
to preserve plant and wildlife habitat;
* to minimize excessive increases in water volume flowing through the
creeks, and consequent erosion of the banks, siltation of the
streams and lake, loss of riparian (streambank) vegetation, and
loss of habitat for fish and other wildlife;
* to protect land from periodic excessive flooding due to removal of
riparian vegetation, dredging, filling, damming, or channelization;
* to prevent degradation or loss of wetlands;
to safeguard scenic views and vistas from and to the lakes, wetlands,
creeks, and gorges; and
* to enhance the recreational (including tourism) values of these important
places.
11. Background and rationale
Ithaca's waterways have often been treated as nuisances rather than
the tremendous natural assets that they are. Especially in downtown Ithaca,
the result has been polluted water, channelization, disregard for plant
and wildlife habitat, litter, and inappropriate development. Loss of fisheries,
and possible contamination of remaining fish species, has been another
result.
Runoff from streets is a major cause of water pollution, and in addition,
the replacement of permeable, vegetated surfaces with impervious ones
leads to gullying on the slopes and greater volumes of water in the streams
with resulting erosion, siltation, loss of plant life, loss of fisheries
and other wildlife. Buildings close to waterways can degrade the aesthetic
appeal of these resources.
The CAC feels that it is important to preserve the features we have
left and improve water quality, enhance aesthetic appeal and recreational
value, and improve plant and wildlife habitats of our waterways. The COZ
proposed here would be a first step in that process. In addition, we
hope that the city will give attention to rehabilitating areas along our
waterways that have been degraded.
While increasing the enjoyment of city residents in these important
natural resources, tourism will also be enhanced, with consequent economic
benefits to the city.
In addition to the waterways, the city boasts several woodlands that
deserve protection. Woodlands provide a number of benefits; for example,
2
* enjoyment of the people who live near them, see them, or use them;
* noise buffer;
* visual buffer;
* habitat for wildlife and plants;
* protection of waterways from excessive runoff, pollution, erosion,
and silt at ion;
* protection from flooding;
* protection of air quality by trapping or absorbing pollutants;
* cooling through shading and evapotranspiration;
* absorption of CO2, one of the major greenhouse gases.
Note: An alternative to including the woodlands in the COZ would be to
designate these as Critical Environmental Areas under the local Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance.
M. Proposed provisions of the ordinance
1. In the overlay zones, no new construction except for certain accessory
uses to existing structures, as specified below, may take place without
a special permit and environmental review. Existing structures, roads,
driveways, etc. may remain, but may not be replaced without a special
permit and environmental review (with the same exceptions as for new con-
struction). In the absence of a permit for replacement, demolition must
return the site to a stable, vegetated condition. Replacement of existing
structures may not result in an increase in density.
2a. Construction activities in an overlay zone must make provisions
for protecting the zone from environmental damage: to avoid such problems
as erosion and increased runoff, compaction of soil around trees, piling
of soil around trees, trash and pollution, etc. The owner /contractor
must spell out in advance what actions will be taken, and if problems
arise during construction, must take corrective action.
2b. Construction activities outside of the overlay zones may not encroach
on the areas inside the zones. Appropriate construction fencing must
be installed to ensure that this provision is not violated. Any debris
that gets into the overlay zone must be removed by the projects contractor
or owner, and any accidental damage must be remedied by same. Water runoff
from such nearby activities must be controlled by same.
3. No trees above 12" DBH, and no more than 10 trees above 2" DBH,
may be cut in either zone without a special permit and environmental review.
Criteria to consider before granting or denying a permit should include
such things as species of trees and appropriateness of habitat, health
of the trees, endangerment of nearby structures and utilities.
Note: Loss of tree cover is one of the major threats to our waterways.
The CAC views this provision of the proposal as vital.
4. Consideration in granting or denying permits shall be given to such
things as slope, existing vegetation, views, size and appearance of project,
and of course, findings of the environmental review. The reviewing board
may place any conditions on the owner /developer that it deems necessary
to ensure the protection of the critical area. The board should have
broad powers in terms of design and layout of structures, both of which
should blend with their surroundings and be as unobtrusive as possible.
Note: The CAC recognizes that there will be controversy concerning
the degree of specificity that is needed in identifying the criteria.
It would be very difficult in Ithaca to come up with very specific criteria
because each situation is likely to be so different from every other;
what might be entirely appropriate in one setting could be disastrous
in another. The CAC feels that it would be best to leave each determination
up to the good sense of the reviewing board (whatever body that may be),
acting with advise from the CAC and possibly outside experts.
5. A no -build buffer zone should be established in especially critical
areas such as along waterways, in which no new structures could be built- -that
is, a permit could not be issued. Exemptions to such a provision - -along
the flats but not the gorges - -could include boat launching sites, boathouses,
poles, lean -tos, docks, fences, bridges (list taken from state guidelines- -
Appendix R of the Stream Corridor Management Manual - -a DEC publication).
(Replacement of existing structures might be exempted.) These same guidelines
recommend buffer strips of varying widths, depending on slope of the land,
in watersheds and other critical areas:
0% 50'
10% 90'
20% 130
30% 170
40% 210
etc.
6. Members of the CAC and the reviewing board may enter any site in
an overlay zone in order to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposal
and, after work has begun, to assess compliance with protective measures
and the possible need for additional measures.
7. Accessory uses that are permitted without a permit, PROVIDED these
do not come closer than 50 feet to the edge of a creeks high water mark
nor closer than 50 feet to slopes that are greater than 15% adjacent to
a creek (whichever is farther) (or use guidelines in #5):
a. Driveways larger than square feet
b. Parking lots for 4 or fewer vehicles
c. New attached construction that would not increase the existing footprint
by more than 10% ( ?) nor density of use by more than 10% ( ?).
d. Small garden sheds, children�s play apparatus, picnic tables, patios
for single or double - family homes, and similar small-scale residential
uses.
8. Any dispute regarding the intent of this ordinance shall be resolved
to give the maximum protection to the critical area.
9. Except for small projects as described under #7 above, granting
of permits in an overlay zone may not be treated as ministerial acts.
4
10. Severability: if any part of the ordinance is found to be illegal
under NYS or Federal law, only that part shall be deleted from the ordin-
ance. (Or however this clause is supposed to be worded!)
IV. Areas to be covered
sed overlay zones is available for
A large map marked with the propo
examination in the Planning Dept.
In some municipalities with overlay zoning, 200 feet in each direction
is the standard distance from critical areas.
A. Waterways
The CAC took a trip (with a 100 tape measure) to five different sites
in the city to see what the implications of various distances would be. In
most cases, the CAC is recommending a distance of 200 feet in each direction,
measured horizontally from the center of a stream. Where a stream is unusually
wide, such as along the Flood Control Channel and Cayuga Inlet, the measurement
has been taken from the top of the bank next to the creek. A few other
exceptions to the 200 -foot rule (in some spots leaving less than 200
and in other spots, more than 200):
a) From College Ave., going east along the south side of Cascadilla
Creek, follow the north side of Oak Ave. to rt. 366.
b) From College Ave., going east along the north side of Cascadilla,
the distance shall be 250 from the center of the creek until reaching
the east end of the Theory Center. From there, follow Campus Rd. east
to the stairs (leading to the stadium) just before the bridge at rt. 366.
The gorge is unusually wide in many areas of the stretch from College
Ave. to the rt. 366 intersection. Furthermore, the north side has a number
of buildings in close proximity to the gorge. Further infilling in that
area would be harmful to the gorge and the water quality of the creek,
as well as to aesthetic values.
c) Along the connector between Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel,
follow Taber St. on the south side.
d) Along south side of Six -Mile Creek, east of Aurora St. Bridge, follow
Hudson and Giles Streets; except note additional protective band along
south side of road (under "other protected areas ").
e) Along north side of Six -Mile Creek, east of Aurora St., follow State
St. to Ferris Pl. From there, go southeast along a line 250 below State
St. to the city line; except note additional protective band ( "under other
protected areas ").
f) Going east along south side of Fall Creek, near Johnson Art Museum,
starting at N -S intersecting rd. (Central Ave.), follow north side of
University Ave. and first part of Forest Home Dr. Thereafter follow a
line 200 south of Forest Home Drive, to the city line (south side of
Beebe Lake). (See map.)
g) Going northeast along the NW shore of Beebe Lake, follow the service
road that leads to Newman Gym; from there follow a line 250 from the
old north shore of Beebe lake, east to the city line.
B. Other protected zones: (see map)
a) Linn St. Woods (on EMC ,s unique areas list) and narrow band of woods
north and east of Lake St. on the south side of Fall Creek (use treeline
as the boundary in both instances). (Not precisely marked on map.)
b) 200 feet from, and including, Fuertes Sanctuary. This is one of
5
the best examples in the state of now -rare old- growth flood plain forest.
c) 200 feet from, and including, Cornell 's Biological Field Station
(boundary needs to be more clearly delineated on map ).
d) 100 feet from, and including, rare remnant old - growth flood plain
forest and other mature woods at SE corner of SW Park and along the southern,
eastern, and northern boundaries of SW Park. Use line of mature trees
as boundary- -not accurately marked on map.
e) Wooded area of SW Park (not precisely marked on map).
f) Zone extending from Ferris Pl. southeast to the city line, and from
State St. south and southwest to the boundary of the creek overlay zone. This
area has seen intensive development in close proximity to the gorge. Serious
damage to the creek and the gorge could result from further increases
in density. Furthermore, there would be severe loss of neighborhood and
aesthetic values and of wildlife and plant diversity (with all that this
entails).
g) Zone extending 200 to 300 feet - -as shown on map - -south from Giles
St. between Columbia and Van Atta "s Dam, to where the area abuts the City ,s
Watershed holdings. (See map) This area consists of important protective
forest.
h) As much as possible of the remaining woodland (now about 100 acres ?)
on West Hill, with help from the West Hill neighborhood in defining the
boundary of the protected area.
i) The Hogs Hole next to Cass Park, an area with valuable wetlands
and a large stand of massive trees (boundaries to be determined). Important
habitat for birds- -and birders! Valuable remnant of the once -vast wetland
that used to border this end of the lake. Now owned by the state park
system.
l•
.1 $ 11
Six-Mile Creek Acquisitions
November, 1988
Conservation Advisory Council policy statement
In view of the City's recent acquisition of land along Six -Mile Creek,
and with the prospect of further acquisitions, the CAC recommends that
Common Council state what its policy will be regarding these lands.
Over the course of several meetings, we came up with the following recommenda-
tions for your consideration:
1. The overall objective for the lands below the rr bed, and for a buffer
zone 200 -feet -wide above it, should be to protect the natural character
of these areas. Recreation should be entirely of the passive sort -- walking
and bird - watching, for example. The CAC feels that the City must commit
itself to not putting in active recreational facilities below the tracks.
Perhaps, Though at least some of the land would be officially designated
as "park," it could be called the Six -Mile Creek Natural Areas Park.
The Adirondack Park sets a good precedent: the term "park" does not
need to imply active uses of the land, and the state recognizes this.
The city is fairly well endowed with developed parks and vast expanses
of mowed grass. Unfortunately, it is not well supplied with areas of
unspoiled natural beauty where one can go for quiet reflection and renewal.
This type of recreation is just as important as ballfields and skating
rinks; each type of facility meets different needs. As the City expands,
we will continue to need both types of recreational areas; the need
for natural areas could well grow disproportionately, considering the
continual growth of the city and surrounding towns.
Open areas (abandoned fields) below the rr tracks should be left to
continue their succession back to forest.
2. We understand that the two acres of frontage along Coddington Rd. on
the Maylin/ Brahm parcel were appraised at $30,000 ($15,000 each). It
would seem reasonable to sell off this portion, or perhaps one slightly
larger, for housing. The remain ing 14 acres of the upper parcel is
appraised at only $700 per acre. The city acquired it for even less
than this. In other words, we got a terrific deal, and it would not
make economic sense to sell it for the paltry returns that could be
expected - -at most, $9800.
The CAC feels that it would be prudent for the city to hold onto tha-
above- the-rr land as protectioin for the watershed.
Another reason to hold onto the above - the -rr property is that NYSEG
currently sprays herbicides in certain areas below their power line.
Last June or July, Darlington and others observed 1, k an ds of dead
woody plants, and a letter to NYSEG confirmed that they spray in that
area. NYSEG claims to stay 600 feet from any stream, but at least one
recent spraying went much closer to the stream on the upper section
of the Maylin /Brahm parcel -- Darlington estimates perhaps only fifty
feet away. NYSEG does not spray on City watershed holdings. Unless
the new property is already officially part of the "city watershed,"
we request that the City look into so designating it.
In any case the City would undoubtedly have more leverage in convincing
NYSEG not to spray there than would a private owner. (There are, of
course, good reasons to avoid spray.)
Lk h., y t"413 .� w
C N Or -b
3
be able to assure such owners that the City's aim in acquiring the land
is to protect it as a natural area and to protect the City "s water supply,
not to either develop it as a high -use recreation area nor to sell it
for development.
d. We propose that the City acquire conservation easements along any
streams that flow between Coddington Rd. and the rr bed, even if the
adjacent property is not one the City wishes to buy. We recommend a
band extending at least 200 feet in each direction from the banks of
such streams, in order to give the water the needed protection from
pollution. Alternatively, the City could purchase these waterway bands,
or negotiate restrictive deed covenants with the owners.
e. Except for item (d), we suggest that the City aim to acquire only
lands below the rr bed and 200 feet above it (as a buffer). Exceptions
could be made, however, for critical or unique areas above the rr bed.
6. Acquisition and protection of lands in the Six -Mile Creek corridor
is of such overriding importance to the City that it must be seen on
its own merits and not be contingent upon any other city projects.
7. The CAC recommends that the City set up a special fund for acquisition
of Six-Mile Creek land. We also recommend that any income from sale
of road - frontage land on Coddington or Slaterville Rds. be put into
this fund. EQBA funds should also be sought -- matching funds in particular
may be relatively easy to get. '
8. We also passed the following resolution:
Be it resolved that
the City of Ithaca create, maintain, and support by budget allocationn
a small (5 person maximum) Committee for Land Acquisition Within the
Six -Mile Creek Watershed that is empowered to publicize City Policy
in this area, make and receive offers for the purchase of land (subject
to Common Council approval), prepare and administer a budget, seek outside
funding, and develop creative procedures in an aggressive program of
land acquisition and watershed protection.
Memo to: Leslie Chatterton
Members of the ILPC
Kenneth Young, Project Applicant,,
Peter Dieterich, Acting Bldg. Commissioner,/
Carolyn Peterson -- liaison to CAC
John Johnson -- liaison to CAC ✓
Dick Booth -- liaison to CAC
Cc: Conservation Advisory Council members
From: Conservation Advisory Council Chair, Betsy Darlington I Lc
Date: Nov. 14, 1988
Re: Proposed changes to 120 Highland Pl.
The CAC subcommittee of three members considered the SERF and LEAF for
120 Highland Place.
Conclusions:
The possible impacts that we foresee all relate to the very sensitive position of
the building, right on top of the Cascadilla Gorge cliff.
1. No significant impact on the view:
The building is highly visible from one of Ithaca Is important view - points - -the
College Ave. Bridge - -as well as from the gorge trail itself. When one looks to the
west from the bridge or the trail, one is greeted by a stunning view -- except for
the unsightly intrusion of this very large, imposing structure.
We felt that the extra floor and stairwell wouldn't be that much worse, and
in some respects could be an improvement. We are told that the roof would be very
dark green. This would certainly be an improvement over the current, very conspicuous
aluminum - colored roof. Our one concern is that the new story would block out the
view of some large deciduous trees, the tops of which are now visible beyond the
building, an impact that would be most bothersome in summer.
2. Tenants and trash:
While the building is currently owner - occupied, there is no guarantee that this
will continue to be so in future years. There is great potential for tenants to
discard rubbish off their porches and into the gorge below. (In fact, one member
seems to recollect that in earlier years, the porches were often littered with stuff- -
something that does not appear to be the case at present.) Although no increase
in density is planned at this time, there certainly could be an increase in the future.
This has been the trend throughout Collegetown. More people, more trash in the gorge.
We recommend that, if the project is approved, a clause be included that density
must not increase in the future.
3. Construction debris:
Construction crews are frequently careless about where they deposit construction
debris -- especially if they are working along the edge of a gorge. Even with careful
supervision on the Cornell Campus, much construction debris ends up in the gorges. The
potential at 120 Highland Pl. for debris falling into the gorge is very high. Indeed,
just to the west of the building -- perhaps partly on the next property -- someone has
dumped concrete chunks, wallboard, etc. down the slope. It is much easier to throw
it over than to cart it away.
We recommend that, if the action is approved, the developer be required to post
a bond to cover cleanup of any debris that enters the gorge, and to repair any other
damage that might occur to the gorge.
Conservation Overlay Zones
November, 1988
The Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) recommends that Common Council
adopt the following conservation overlay zoning in sensitive natural areas
of the city.
I. Purpose
. The purpose of conservation overlay zoning (COZ) is to give added protection
to environmentally sensitive areas without changing the overall zoning
of the given areas. The CAC feels that our wetlands, waterways, and woodlands
are Ithaca 's most sensitive and valuable natural resources. The purpose
of the COZ would be:
to protect the water quality of the streams themselves and Cayuga
Lake into which they flow;
* to preserve plant and wildlife habitat;
to minimize excessive increases in water volume flowing through the
creeks, and consequent erosion of the banks, siltation of the
streams and lake, loss of riparian (streambank) vegetation, and
loss of habitat for fish and other wildlife;
* to protect land from periodic excessive flooding due to removal of
riparian vegetation, dredging, filling, damming, or channelization;
* to prevent degradation or loss of wetlands;
to safeguard scenic views and vistas from and to the lakes, wetlands,
creeks, and gorges; and
* to enhance the recreational (including tourism) values of these important.
places.
H. Background and rationale
Ithaca 's waterways have often been treated as nuisances rather than
the tremendous natural assets that they are. Especially in downtown Ithaca,
the result has been polluted water, channelization, disregard for plant
and wildlife habitat, litter, and inappropriate development. Loss of fisheries,
and possible contamination of remaining fish species, has been another
result.
Runoff from streets is a major cause of water pollution, and in addition,
the replacement of permeable, vegetated surfaces with impervious ones
leads to gullying on the slopes and greater volumes of water in the streams
with resulting erosion, siltation, loss of plant life, loss of fisheries
and other wildlife. Buildings close to waterways can degrade the aesthetic
appeal of these resources.
The CAC feels that it is important to preserve the features we have
left and improve water quality, enhance aesthetic appeal and recreational
value, and improve plant and wildlife habitats of our waterways. The COZ
proposed here would be a first step in that process. In addition, we
hope that the city will give attention to rehabilitating areas along our
waterways that have been degraded.
While increasing the enjoyment of city residents in these important
natural resources, tourism will also be enhanced, with consequent economic
benefits to the city.
In addition to the waterways, the city boasts several woodlands that
deserve protection. Woodlands provide a number of benefits; for example,
• 4
* enjoyment of the people who live near them, see them, or use them;
* noise buffer;
* visual buffer;
* habitat for wildlife and plants;
* protection of waterways from excessive runoff, pollution, erosion,
and siltation;
* protection from flooding;
* protection of air quality by trapping or absorbing pollutants;
* cooling through shading and evapotranspiration;
* absorption of CO2, one of the major greenhouse gases.
Note: An alternative to including the woodlands in the COZ would be to
designate these as Critical Environmental Areas under the local Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance.
M. proposed provisions of the ordinance
1. In the overlay zones, no new construction except for certain accessory
uses to existing structures, as specified below, may take place without
a special permit and environmental review. Existing structures, roads, _
in, but may ,not be replaced without a special
driveways, etc. may rema
permit and environmental review (with the same exceptions as for new con-
struction). In the absence of a permit for replacement, demolition must
return the site to a stable, vegetated condition. Replacement of existing
I may not result in an increase in density.
2a. Construction activities in an overlay zone must make provisions
for protecting the zone from environmental damage: to avoid such problems
l
as erosion and increased runoff, compaction of soil around trees, piling
of soil around trees, trash and pollution, etc. The owner /contractor
must spell out in advance what actions will be taken, and if problems
arise during or after construction, must take corrective action.
2b. Construction activities outside of the overlay zones may not encroach
on the areas inside the zones. Appropriate construction fencing must
be installed to ensure that this provision is not violated. Any debris
that gets into the overlay zone must be removed by the projects contractor
or owner, and any accidental damage must be remedied by same. Water runoff
from such nearby activities must be controlled by same.
3. No trees above 12" DBH, and no more than 10 trees above 2" DBH,
may be cut in either zone without a special permit and environmental review.
Criteria to consider before granting or denying a permit should include
such things as species of trees and appropriateness of habitat, health
of the trees, endangerment of nearby structures and utilities.
Note: Loss of tree cover is one of the major threats to our waterways.
The CAC views this provision of the proposal as vital.
4. Consideration in granting or denying permits shall be given to such
things as slope, existing vegetation, views, size and appearance of project,
and of course, findings of the environmental review. The reviewing board
may place any conditions on the owner /developer that it deems necessary
to ensure the protection of the critical area. The board should have
broad powers in terms of design and layout of structures, both of which
should blend with their surroundings and be as unobtrusive as possible.
If mitigating measures, spelled out in the permit, prove to be inadequate
as a project proceeds, the review board may require additional protective
measures before work may proceed.
Note: The CAC recognizes that there will be controversy concerning
the degree of specificity that is needed in identifying the criteria.
It would be very difficult in Ithaca to come up with very specific criteria
because each situation is likely to be so different from every other;
what might be entirely appropriate in one setting could be disastrous
in another. The CAC feels that it would be best to leave each determination
up to the good sense of the reviewing board (whatever body that may be),
acting with advise from the CAC and possibly outside experts.
5. A no -build buffer zone should'be established in especially critical
areas such as along waterways, in which no new structures could be built - -that
is, a permit could not be issued. Exemptions to such a provision- -along
the flats but not the gorges - -could include boat launching sites, boathouses,
poles, lean -tos, docks, fences, bridges (list taken from state guidelines --
Appendix R of the Stream Corridor Management Manual - -a DEC publication).
(Replacement of existing structures might be exempted.) These same guidelines
recommend buffer strips of varying widths, depending on slope of the land,
in watersheds and other critical areas:
0% 50' (from high water mark)
10% 90'
20% 130
30% 170"
40% 210
etc.
6. Members of the CAC and the reviewing board may enter any site in
an overlay zone in order to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposal
and, after work has begun, to assess compliance with protective measures
and the possible need for additional measures.
7. Accessory uses that are permitted without a permit, PROVIDED these
do not come closer than 50 feet to the edge of a creeks high water mark
nor closer than 50 feet to slopes that are greater than 15% adjacent to
a creek (whichever is farther) (or use guidelines in #5):
a. Driveways larger than (360 - 400 ? ?) square feet
b. Parking lots for 4 or fewer vehicles
c. New attached construction that would not increase the existing footprint
by more than (10% ?) nor density of use by more than (10% ?).
d. Small garden sheds, children's play apparatus, picnic tables, patios
for single or double- family homes, and similar small-scale residential
uses.
8. Any dispute regarding the intent of this ordinance shall be resolved
to give the maximum protection to the critical area.
9. Except for small projects as described under #7 above, granting
of permits in an overlay zone may not be treated as ministerial acts.
10. Severability: If any provision of this ordinance or the application
thereof is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance and the application
thereof to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such
holding and shall remain in full force and effect.
IV. Areas to be covered
osed overlay zones is available for
A large map marked with the prop
examination in the Planning Dept.
In some municipalities with overlay zoning, 200 feet in each direction
is the standard distance from critical areas.
A. Waterways
The CAC took a trip (with a 100 tape measure) to five different sites
in the city to see what the implications of various distances would be. In
most cases, the CAC is recommending a distance of 200 feet in each direction,
measured horizontally from the center of a stream. Where a stream is unusually
wide, such as along the Flood Control Channel and Cayuga Inlet, the measurement
has been taken from the top of the bank next to the creek. A few other
exceptions to the 200 -foot rule (in some spots leaving less than 200
and in other spots, more than 2000:
a) From College Ave., going east along the south side of Cascadilla
Creek, follow the north side of Oak Ave. to rt. 366.
b) From College Ave., going east along the north side of Cascadilla,
the distance shall be 250 from the center of the creek until reaching
the east end of the Theory Center. From there, follow Campus Rd. east
to the stairs (leading to the stadium) just before the bridge at rt. 366.
The gorge is unusually wide in many areas of the stretch from College
Ave. to the rt. 366 intersection. Furthermore, the north side has a number
of buildings in close proximity to the gorge. Further infilling in that
area would be harmful to the gorge and the water quality of the creek,
as well as to aesthetic values.
Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel,
c) Along the connector between
follow Taber St. on the south side.
d) Along south side of Six-Mile Creek, east of Aurora St. Bridge, follow
Hudson and. Giles Streets; except note additional protective band along
south side of road (under 'other protected areas ").
e) Along north side of Six -Mile Creek, east of Aurora St., follow State
St. to Ferris Pl. From there, go southeast along a line 250 below State
St., to the city line; except note additional protective band ( "under
other protected areas ").
f) Going east along south side of Fall Creek, near Johnson Art Museum,
starting at N -S intersecting rd. (Central Ave.), follow north side of
University Ave. and first part of Forest Home Dr. Thereafter follow a
line 200 south of Forest Home Drive, to the city line (south side of
Beebe Lake). (See map.)
g) Going northeast along the NW shore of Beebe Lake, follow the service
road that leads to Newman Gym; from there follow a line 250 from the
old north shore of Beebe lake, east to the city line.
B. Other protected zones: (see map)
a) Linn St. Woods (on EMC s unique areas list) and narrow band of woods
north and east of Lake St. on the south side of Fall Creek (use treeline
as the boundary in both instances). (Not precisely marked on map.)
b) 200 feet from, and including, Fuertes Sanctuary. This is one of
the best examples in the state of now -rare old- growth flood plain forest.
C) 200 feet from, and including, Cornell's Biological Field Station
(boundary needs to be more clearly delineated on map).
d) 100 feet from, and including, rare remnant old- growth flood plain
forest and other mature woods at SE corner of SW Park and along the southern,
eastern, and northern boundaries of SW Park. Use line of mature trees
as boundary- -not accurately marked on map.
e) Wooded area of SW Park (not precisely marked on map).
f) Zone extending from Ferris Pl. southeast to the city line, and from
State St. south and southwest to the boundary of the creek overlay zone. This
area has seen intensive development in close proximity to the gorge. Serious
damage to the creek and the gorge could result from further increases
in density. Furthermore, there would be severe loss of neighborhood and
aesthetic values and of wildlife and plant diversity (with all that this
entails).
g) Zone extending 200 to 300 feet - -as shown on map - -south from Giles
St. between Columbia and Van Atta s Dam, to where the area abuts the City
Watershed holdings. (See map) This area consists of important protective
forest.
h) As much as possible of the remaining woodland (now about 100 acres ?)
on West Hill, with help from the West Hill neighborhood in defining the
boundary of the protected area.
i) The Hogs Hole next to Cass Park, an area with valuable wetlands
and a large stand of massive trees (boundaries to be determined). Important
habitat for birds- -and birders! Valuable remnant of the once -vast wetland
that used to border this end of the lake. Now owned by the state park
system.
(j. Other possible areas.)
Resolution from the Conservation Advisory Council
to Common Council
November, 1988
We would like to recommend that the City, together with the Town and
County, develop a park- and -ride facility in conjunction with planning
for Rt. 96. We envision a parking lot near the hospital, with small
buses taking people into the city, and especially to major centers of
employment, at nominal or no cost.
The Optional Plan A alternative would cost about $12 million. The various
Plan C,s would cost about $40 million. The difference -- $28,000 -- invested
at 3% * interest per year, would generate $840,000 per year, or about
$3360 per work day (figured at 250 work days per year) - -an amount that
would probably be sufficient to operate such a facility with no fares.
This is not intended as an endorsement of Plan A, but merely to illustrate
the extent to which the State is willing to subsidize the private automo-
bile.
Several problems would be alleviated under such a plan:
1) Less traffic through the Octopus;
2) Less traffic in downtown Ithaca, and less of a parking problem.
3) Less air pollution, and in particular less CO2 added to the atmosphere.
(CO2 is the most important of the greenhouse gases.)
4) Less dependence on foreign oil.
We heavily subsidize private automobiles. Its time we subsidized public
transportation as a way of dealing with congested streets and global
warming.
* 3% allows for inflation. Actual interest of course would be a lot
higher.
Six -Mile Creek Acquisitions
November, 1988
Conservation Advisory Council policy statement
In view of the City's recent acquisition of land along Six -Mile Creek,
and with the prospect of further acquisitions, the CAC recommends that
Common Council state what its policy will be regarding these lands.
Over the course of several meetings, we came up with the following recommenda-
tions for your consideration:
1. The overall objective for the lands below the rr bed, and for a buffer
zone 200 - feet -wide above it, should be to protect the natural character
of these areas. Recreation should be entirely of the passive sort -- walking
and bird- watching, for example. The CAC feels that the City must commit
itself to not putting in active recreational facilities below the tracks.
Perhaps, although at least some of the land would be officially designated
as "park," it could be called the Six -Mile Creek Natural Areas Park.
The Adirondack Park sets a good precedent: the term "park" does not
need to imply active uses of the land, and the state recognizes this.
The city is fairly well endowed with developed parks and vast expanses
of mowed grass. Unfortunately, it is not well supplied with areas of
unspoiled natural beauty where one can go for quiet reflection and renewal.
This type of recreation is just as important as ballfields and skating
rinks; each type of facility meets different needs. As the City expands,
we will continue to need both types of recreational areas; the need
for natural areas could well grow disproportionately, considering the
continual growth of the city and surrounding towns.
Open areas (abandoned fields) below the rr tracks should be left to
continue their succession back to forest.
2. We understand that the two acres of frontage along Coddington Rd. on
the Maylin /Brahm parcel were appraised at $30,000 ($15,000 each). It
would seem reasonable to sell off this portion, or perhaps one slightly
larger, for housing. The remaining 14 acres of the upper parcel is
appraised at only $700 per acre. The city acquired it for even less
than this. In other words, we got a terrific deal, and it would not
make economic sense to sell it for the paltry returns that could be
expected - -at most, $9800.
The CAC feels that it would be prudent for the city to hold onto thal
above - the-rr land as protectioin for the watershed.
Another reason to hold onto the above - the -rr property is that NYSEG
currently sprays herbicides in certain areas below their power line.
Last June or July. Darlington and others observed large bands of dead
woody plants, and a letter to NYSEG confirmed that they spray in that
area. NYSEG claims to stay 600 feet from any stream, but at least one
recent spraying went much closer to the stream on the upper section
of the Maylin /Brahm parcel -- Darlington estimates perhaps only fifty
feet away. NYSEG does not spray on City watershed holdings. Unless
the new property is already officially part of the "city watershed,"
we request that the City look into so designating it.
In any case the City would undoubtedly have more leverage in convincing
NYSEG not to spray there than would a private owner. (There are, of
course, good reasons to avoid spray.)
C 9 O -{9 Sno,_1.)
3. Without having explored the parcel a bit to the SE of the Maylin /Brahm
piece (and adjoining it on the downhill side of the rr bed) (see map),
our tentative recommendation is that the City purchase only the portion
below the rr bed and a buffer of at least 200 feet above the rr bed - -the
quantity of land should be determined by the natural and recreational
value of it. For example, if the upper part of the parcel includes the
stream that is near its boundary, the city should retain a buffer of
at least 200 feet in each direction along the stream. (This stream
runs through the Maylin /Brahm parcel below the rr, and drains into the
Reservoir.)
Alternatively, the City could purchase the entire parcel and sell
off whatever it decides is not needed.
_ ?Ocl &e stvta",
1 ocAJ L0h
2R
°_% i / / 1 rokj; -sW"
4. The 7 1/2 -acre triangle just outside the city, below the switchback,
goes down very close to the creek and is in one of the most beautiful,
unusual, and unspoiled areas of the watershed. (See map.) It is exactly
this sort of area that we must pass on to future generations in an unspoiled
state. This must be kept off limits (to city crews) for anything but
the most minimal trail maintenance. Natural refuges such as this will
be needed more than ever as the City grows and takes on more of the
problems associated with large size.
f ower .r
Z0� l7ew. Y25w'��
1iaC.
5. The CAC recommends that any future acquisitions follow these guidelines:
a. Hands -off policy on acquisitions below the rr bed and for a 200 -foot-
wide buffer above it. For example, no facilities for active recreation,
and no clearing of trees or other vegetation.
b. On the north side of Six -Mile Creek there is no neat dividing line
(such as a rr bed). Distances to the water are generally shorter and
steeper than on the Coddington side. Any acquisitions on the north side
must be protected from overuse. The Six -Mile Creek Committee has made
recommendations for acquisitions in that area, and we recommend that
the City follow their advice.
c. We feel that the City must exercise great care regarding any lands
that it decides to condemn and purchase, especially those on which the
owners reside. The City must not find itself in the position of taking
property for preservation or passive recreation purposes, and then of
turning around and selling portions for possible development. There
may be many instances in which the current owners are planning to give
their properties long -term protection from development; the City must
.
be able to assure such owners that the City's aim in acquiring the land
is to protect it as a natural area and to protect the City's water supply,
not to either develop it as a high -use recreation area nor to sell it
for development.
d. We propose that the City acquire conservation easements along any
streams that flow between Coddington Rd. and the rr bed, even if the
adjacent property is not one the City wishes to buy. We recommend a
band extending at least 200 feet in each direction from the banks of
such streams, in order to give the water the needed protection from
pollution. Alternatively, the City could purchase these waterway bands,
or negotiate restrictive deed covenants with the owners.
e. Except for item (d), we suggest that the City aim to acquire only
lands below the rr bed and 200 feet above it (as a buffer). Exceptions
could be made, however, for critical or unique areas above the rr bed.
6. Acquisition and protection of lands in the Six -Mile Creek corridor
is of such overriding importance to the City that it must be seen on
its own merits and not be contingent upon any other city projects.
7. The CAC recommends that the City set up a special fund for acquisition
of Six -Mile Creek land. We also recommend that any income from sale
of road - frontage land on Coddington or Slaterville Rds. be put into
this fund. EQBA funds should also be sought -- matching funds in particular
may be relatively easy to get.
8. We also passed the following resolution:
Be it resolved that
the City of Ithaca create, maintain, and support by budget allocationn
a small (5 person maximum) Committee for Land Acquisition Within the
Six-Mile Creek Watershed that is empowered to publicize City Policy
in this area, make and receive offers for the purchase of land (subject
to Common Council approval), prepare and administer a budget, seek outside
funding, and develop creative procedures in an aggressive program of
land acquisition and watershed protection.
4
1A
Cornell University Office of Government Affairs i 10 Day Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853 -2801
(60 7) 25.=x4344 —State Relations
(60 7) 255 -4345 — Federal Relations
December 14, 1988
Betsy Darlington
Conservation Advisory Council Chair
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
Dear Ms. Darlington:
John Burness asked me to respond to your letter of December 7
regarding Francis Paolangeli's removing dirt from campus
construction sites to property he owns at 1345 Slaterville Road.
I understand that your concern is not with construction debris.
As you may know, we have entered into discussions with Tompkins
County to help reduce the off - campus disposal of construction
debris.
I reviewed your letter with Associate Vice President Paul M.
Griffen who is responsible for campus facilities planning and
construction. He reports that as a general practice Cornell
takes all top soil, gravel, and hardfill for specific on- campus
needs. Non - stable fill, i.e. clay, is normally removed from
campus lands by contractors, as in this case.
The contract with Mr. Paolangeli provides for the removal of
construction site earth. As is normal practice in the
construction industry, he has the option of using the dirt for
his own landfill purposes. We do not believe it is appropriate
for Cornell to proscribe what a property owner may do on land he
owns. There are, of course, a number of areas where the courts
have given such proscriptive authority to local, state, or
federal governments. We believe that the courts (or government
if it is granted such authority) are a more appropriate place for
this decision to be made.
,f
_,
I
Betsy Darlington
December 14, 1988
Page 2
I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
!l
Stephen Philip Johnson
Executive Director of Government Affairs
:pc
CC: John Burness
Paul Griffen
David Stewart
Mayor Gutenberger
Common Council
Statement of the City of Ithaca's Conservation Advisory Council i
on the DEIS for Rt. 96
Dec. 14, 1988
(Portions to be read by Betsy Darlington, Chair,
and Barbara Hotchkiss, Secretary)
The Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) prepared, and unanimously
approved the following statement:
The CAC has devoted considerable time to studying the rt. 96 DEIS
and the various alternatives. We have toured the area on foot and measured
distances of the proposed ROW ,s. We have heard and read arguments for
and against the various alternatives, and have discussed them with the
DOT consultants.
While all the alternatives have some drawbacks and some advantages,
the CAC feels that both Plan B and Plan C have major problems, as summarized
below (as well as in the DEIS in Tables 22 and 23, pages IV -79 and VI -38).
Plan A with one of the optional 89 alignments avoids most of these,
at the same time as meeting the four design criteria, in an elegantly
simple, sensible, and straightforward manner.
PLANS B AND C
1. Octopus
Neither Plan B nor C adequately solves our single biggest problem,
the Octopus. Although rt. 96 would have its own new highway and bridge,
the Octopus would retain its current configuration. On West Hill to
the west of the City a number of subdivisions are already in the planning
stages, and more are sure to follow. This will mean more traffic entering
the Octopus on rt. 79- Hector St. Furthermore, as development increases
out along the current rt. 96, more cars will come in on Cliff St. rather
than backtrack to the new highway. Sprawl makes it more difficult to
mitigate traffic problems with mass transportation, although park- and -ride
facilities would help. (Regardless of which plan is chosen, the CAC
recommends developing such facilities.)
By the design year (2010), the Octopus would be just as much of an
aggravation as it is today. Under Plan B or C, according to DOT projections,
the peak -hour traffic count in the Octopus would be higher in the year
2010 than in 1985. (1770 vehicles going westerly, compared to 1550.)
2. Park Rd. Connector
The Park Rd. Connector- -the bridge over the new rt. 96, from Park
Rd. to Cliff St. - -is another problem with Plans B and C. Stopping at
Cliff St. when roads are slippery could be hazardous. It would also
be unsightly. And B or C would put all of rt. 89 and some of Cass Park
traffic onto the new rt. 96, near the skating rink. The rest of Cass
Park traffic would go on the overpass to Cliff St. At the numerous
peak times during summer months, there would be tie -ups at both these
points.
3. Visual impacts
Both B and C would result in a significant visual impact on West Hill;
high -level C would also be unsightly and disruptive all the way from
Meadow St. to Cass Park. The Park Rd. Connector would be just a part
of the visual impact. Worse would be the scar along what is now a steep
hillside of unbroken woodland. We are told by the DOT consultants that
the road would look much like rt. 13 on the east side of the lake, except
that it would continue for a greater distance before veering off up
the hill. The visual impact would be most severe with Plan C, but B
would produce nearly as bad a scar.
The visual impact of the destruction of woodland on West Hill would
be especially severe from vantage points in Cass Park, Stewart Park,
and many points on East Hill and South Hill.
Request: For the FEIS, the CAC requests that the DOT supply accurate
artist's renderings or computer simulations depicting clearings, cut -
and- fill areas, cross - sections, walls, fill slopes, bridges, etc. from
various vantage points - e.g. Cass Park, Stewart Park, Inlet Island,
the hospital and the PRI, and points on East and South Hill.
Note: The Visual Supplement, p.4, makes the surprising claim that
commuters, shoppers and workers are "low in sensitivity and awareness."
The CAC takes issue with this unfounded claim.
4. Environmental impacts on West Hill
a. Fragmentation of forests is a major cause of declines in populations
of large predatory birds such as red - shouldered hawks and barred owls,
other large woodland birds like pileated woodpeckers, and many neotropical
migrant songbirds -- various vireos, warblers, and thrushes, for example.
In fact, some scientists now believe that major declines in numbers
of neotropical migrant songbirds can be blamed at least as much on forest
fragmentation as on the destruction of tropical rainforests.(1)
B or C would, without any doubt, generate development near and beyond
the hospital. This would, in turn, lead to further fragmentation of
woodlands and greater declines in those species that require unbroken
expanses of woodland in order to breed.
b. The DEC points out in the DEIS that a significant amount of wildlife
habitat would be removed, and the deer population "severely impacted."
(3-15, memo of July 11/86)
c. Whether or not any rare species of plants, particularly spring
wildflowers, exist in the project area cannot. be known without an inventory.
Scientists estimate that 10,000 plant and animal species, worldwide,
will become extinct each year in the 1990's, mainly through loss of
habitat.(2) They also estimate that in 1989, 700 more plants will become
extinct in the United States alone.(3) While this one project would
presumably not cause the extinction of any species, the cumulative impact
of this and similar projects all over the country is leading to declines
and eventual extinctions.
d. In addition to damage the highway would cause to numerous small
ravines, the CAC is concerned about the impact on Williams Glen, a very
beautiful and unspoiled gorge.
1. See, e.g., The Auk, vol. 105 #4, Oct. 1988, p. 756 -768, article by
Richard Holmes and Thomas Sherry; and Breeding Bird Survey, its first
15 years, 1965 -1979, by Chandler Robbins.
2. Foresight Institute.
3. Center for Plant Conservation
2
r
Requests to the DOT:
1. For the FEIS, a careful inventory of migrating and nesting birds
should be done in the spring and early summer to determine what species
would be affected. Other wildlife should be inventoried at the same
time. The DEC already has stated (in the DEIS) that B or C would have
a severe impact on wildlife, and it specifically mentioned the white - tailed
deer population and several gamebird species. Yet no wildlife inventory
was done.
2. For the FEIS, a thorough plant inventory should be done in late
April and early May.
3. If B or C is chosen, the suggestion for strategic clearing of trees
along West Hill to improve the view from the new road should be struck
from the plans. The amount to be cleared would already be too great.
4.1n the event that B or C is chosen:
a. Planting of native trees such as red, white, and chestnut oak;
hickory; red and sugar maple; black cherry; and hemlock, should be
mandated on the fill slopes.
b. Rapid seeding of fill slopes should be mandated.
c. Regardless of which option by the hospital might be chosen, as
little vegetation as possible should be removed.
d. How would building an earth barrier at the new 96 -89 intersection
relieve ponding problems? (III- 48 -49)
e. Any land clearing should be done between August and March, when
most birds are not nesting.
5. Erosion and siltation of streams
As the DEIS points out, the steep hillside is highly erodible (IV- 36 -37).
The DOT would, of course, have to mandate many measures to control this,
during and after construction. But the DEIS also states (IV -69) that
actual measures to disperse runoff would be limited due to the steepness
of the...hillside." The implication is that even with mitigating measures,
there would be some erosion and siltation. Both B and C require major
stripping of vegetation. For holding soil, there is no substitute for
vegetation, especially trees..
Request: With regard to siltation and erosion, the DEIS says (IV -40),
"it may be desirable to preclude ... instream work during high flow
periods." This should be mandatory.
6. De -icing salts are addressed in the DEIS only in terms of their impact
on water quality. (IV- 37,38) What about on vegetation, including trees
planted by the DOT next to the highway?
7. Grade and noise
The steepest grade along the new highway (6.3 %) would be steeper than
Cliff St. and than rt. 13 at its steepest point (5.9 1/0), near the Cayuga
Heights interchange. Not only might this create safety problems, but
noise would be greater than on these other roads.
Noise was not tested in Stewart Park, the Golf Course, or the residential
North Central neighborhood. Rt. 13 is already a source of noise pollution
at Stewart Park, and also in residential neighborhoods uphill from it,
4
despite a large woodland buffer . The new highway would simply make
the problem at Stewart Park worse.
The DEIS states that increased noise in Cass Park will not "cause
any annoyance" to park users.(IV -66) We strenuously disagree with this
assessment! The DEIS, in fact, says that Park Rd. is a "major noise
sourcell at the Archery Range. (Noise supplement: A -14 and p. 29) Yet
Park Rd. is considerably farther away than the new highway would be,
carries less traffic, and is flat. We do not consider an increase of
6 to 7 dBA's insignificant.* "Noise abatement criteria" for parks should
be higher than for business or residential areas.
We feel that noise from B or C would significantly reduce the recrea-
tional value of Cass Park, the Treman Marina, Stewart Park, and the
City Golf Course. Parks are meant as refuges from city noises. Large
highways do not belong in or next to them.
Noise at residences uphill from the highway - -in one case only 30 feet
from the right -of- way - -could be intolerable. While in most cases some
trees would remain between the highway and the homes, the amount of
vegetation would by no means be an' adequate buffer. Residents of Chestnut
St., for example, are extremely bothered by noise from the Industrial
Park, although a rather large wooded hillside separates them. And rt . 13
is very noisy at points above it, despite the large woodland in between
and the somewhat gentler grade. The DEIS Noise Supplement (page A -15),
states that despite dense woods between Williams Glen Rd. and Cliff
St., there is "near constant background noise... clearly audible" along
Williams Glen Rd., from Cliff St. Yet the DEIS claims that remaining
woods between Cliff St. homes and the new highway would make sounds
from the new highway negligible. (In many cases the band of woods would
be negligible or nonexistent.)
Noise could also be a major problem at the hospital.
The proposed bikeway along the RR bed to Taughannock, right below
the highway, would hardly be a pleasant place to bicycle.
In summary, the CAC feels that there would be major noise impacts
at a variety of locations, and these are understated in the DEIS.
Request: tests and noise projections should be made in Stewart Park,
the Golf Course, and the North Central neighborhood.
8. Dust and fumes
Although projected levels of these pollutants might not exceed federal
standards, they could be significant nuisances along the proposed bikeway
to Taughannock, and at Cass Park, the hospital, and nearby residences.
Studies have shown that people exercising in high traffic areas can
suffer detrimental health effects.
Request: If there is a way to test for air contaminants at sites similar
to a new rt. 96, the CAC feels the DOT should do so. Also, other pollutants
than CO and lead should be addressed -- asbestos, nitrogen compounds,etc.
9. Fill slopes
According to DOT consultants, soil conditions may make it impossible
to use retaining walls instead of fill slopes along the west side of
Cass Park (south of the new 96 -89 intersection). In the event that
-6 A
C
fill slopes are required, significantly more of Cass Park would be destroyed
and scarred.
Also, fill slopes with C and maybe B, would require that the power
lines be relocated into Cass Park, with further loss of park space and
vegetation.
Question: What land would the city acquire in exchange for park land
taken for the highway? The city should know this before final decisions
are made.
10. Traffic
a. Plan B shares with Plan A (without the optional alignment of 89)
the disadvantage that traffic would be concentrated at fewer intersections.
This would lead to continued tie -ups after a train has passed. Also,
these two plans would channel an undo amount of traffic onto residential
West Buffalo St.
b. The CAC contends that more highways generate more traffic. In this
instance, the effect would mainly come from greater suburban development
near and beyond the hospital. While B or C may get this traffic into
the city with fewer hassles (at least in the early years), what happens
then? Parking and traffic are already problems in the city. We do
not need new traffic generators.
(Also see under #1, Octopus)
11. Neighborhood cohesion
The DEIS (IV -46) points out that Plan C, especially the high -level
alternative, would have a major disrupting impact on the West End residential
neighborhood and would lower property values there.
12. Tourism and Ithaca character
One reason tourists visit this area is to get away from exactly the
type of unsightly, Syracuse -like tangle of big highways, and the suburban
sprawl that would be generated by B or C. Moreover, residents of Ithaca
by and large prefer the sight of wooded hillsides and undisturbed gorges
to highway scars and sprawl.
PLAN A- OPTIONAL RT. 89 ALIGNMENT and PLAN A- OPTION 2
I. As the DEIS states (IV -78), A or A- optional would do the most to
relieve congestion at the Octopus. These plans have the advantage of
dividing main traffic routes onto separate bridges over the Flood Control
Channel (three, in the case of the optional plans) and dispersing it
onto several city streets, rather than concentrating it in just a few
spots. Traffic would flow unimpeded through the area, and there would
be minimal traffic backups after a train has passed.
2. Although there have been only 2 runaway trucks since 1974, runaway
vehicles on Hector and Cliff are legitimate concerns. By providing
each with a separate bridge, the hazard posed by runaways would be signifi-
cantly reduced, a point the DEIS fails to make. While B or C would
put many trucks on a new highway, there would still be enough traffic
over the Octopus bridge -- especially by 2010 - -to indicate that this inter-
section would be less safe than under A or A- optional. Also, the new
highway "s 6.3% grade -- steeper than Cliff St.- -could produce its own
problems with runaways and possible accidents, especially at the new
rt. 89 intersection.
3. As can be seen on the DEIS accident maps, the accident rate on Cliff
St. itself is very low except at the Octopus, the hospital, and Hayts
Corners. With B and C s lack of change in the Octopus configuration,
accidents would again become a problem there, as traffic increased with
development. As the DEIS states, Cliff St. is well able to handle both
today ,s traffic and future anticipated increases, as long as it is put
on its own bridge over the Flood Control Channel.
4. The DEIS minimizes the amount of traffic and duration of delays on
rt. 89 -Park Rd. But during summer months, heavy traffic and long delays
on 89 are frequent, especially after plays at the Hangar Theater and
daily ball games. We question the 5- minute maximum delay figure given
in the DEIS (III- 54 -55); members of the CAC have experienced delays
of 20 minutes or more. Traffic going to the Treman Marina, cottages
along the lake, Taughannock State Park, and points north can also be
considerable. With the anticipated construction of a second skating
rink, such traffic might carry over to the winter months as well. It
only makes sense to put a third bridge across the Flood Control Channel
to handle this traffic, as proposed for either A- optional or A- option-
2. Moreover, if there were such a bridge, some people travelling to
Ithaca along rt. 96 from beyond Perry City Rd. might choose to take
that road down to rt. 89, thus lessening traffic on 96.
5. With the various A plans, there would be none of the environmental,
aesthetic, or recreational losses associated with Plans B and C.
6. One disadvantage with the A plans is access to rt. 96 and 89 from
Floral, Elm, and Hector Sts. However, the distance over the bridge
and back again would be minimal; or, depending on where one was going,
one could travel up Hector St. and cross over to Cliff St. at Vinegar
Hill or Campbell Ave. In balance, the CAC does not think that either
of these should be a significant problem, especially when weighed against
the numerous advantages of the A plans and the severe impacts of Plans
B and C. To choose B or C over any of the A alternatives would be like
using a steam roller to squash a fly.
Requests, questions, comments:
1. The CAC would like the DOT to take a second look at A- option 2, which
we have been including in our analysis. It appears to us to be the
best solution of all. The reasons given for its being discarded seem
spurious to us: The RR could be realigned with little more cost than
that entailed by low -C. Far less park land would be taken than with
Plan B or C, although this is used as one reason for rejecting it - -and
much of what would be taken is on Inlet Island, in the process of being
alienated, and not used as park land anyway. The cost for A- option 2
would be only $2 million more than for Plan A- optional, yet would have
the benefit of greater dispersal of traffic and less taking of developable
land on Inlet Island. (A- option 2 would be only about half the cost
of Plan B.)
Not mentioned in the DEIS, but according to a DOT consultant, the
City Planning Dept. objects to this alignment because of extra traffic
on Esty St., east of Meadow St. If that became a problem, Esty St. could
be blocked off on the east side of Meadow or signage could prohibit
admittance from the west. However, since traffic would only be from
rt . 89, and this would be dispersed over several possible routes, it
appears to us unlikely that the problem would arise. Plan B would concen-
trate traffic impacts on Buffalo, State and Seneca. The CAC feels it
makes sense to disperse traffic over as many streets as possible, so
no one neighborhood has to bear all of it.
The one problem remaining with A- option 2 is that a new bridge would
have to be built over Cayuga Inlet, as with low -C. However, this was
not significant enough for low -C to be rejected. (One possibility for
either of these plans would be a drawbridge -- common in many other places - -if
the City decided it did not want to limit access for large boats south
of that point. It would operate only during the summer, and an employee
at the adjacent marina could operate it.)
2. How A- optional separate the local community (IV -45), since the
new 89 road would merely cross the island, and no one lives there?
3. The RR tracks are still an issue to some in the community because
of fire and medical concerns. Regardless of which alternative (other
than high -C) is chosen, communication between emergency vehicle operators
and train dispatchers should be improved. The CAC also feels that it
may be worthwhile to upgrade the RR tracks and speed up the train.
A bridge over the tracks, perhaps farther south of the Octopus, may
be worth looking into. However, we do not see the RR tracks as posing
a significant problem for emergency access to the hospital or to fires.
Furthermore, a fire station is to be built on West Hill, and the Guthrie
Clinic will soon have a satellite facility on Warren Rd. which we understand
will eventually take emergency cases. In addition, emergency patients
are normally stabilized before being moved.
Summary
1. Plans B and C would not solve long -range safety and traffic problems
at the Octopus.
2. Plans B and C would have major ecological, visual, and noise impacts.
Since B and C are unnecessary to the solution of our traffic problems- -and
indeed would create new ones - -we feel that the great loss of habitat,
the extensive visual scarring, and the noise that B or C would entail
are unacceptable.
3. Plan A, A- optional, or A- option 2 would solve the traffic problems
in a sensible, balanced manner without causing significant new problems.
Comment: Although we disagree with some of the DEIS's conclusions, and
have a variety of questions, we feel that the DOT consultants did a
mostly thorough and even - handed job with the DEIS, and we thank them.
We also applaud the provision for the Cayuga Bike Trail in all of the
plans.
Memo to: P &D Board
Our subcommittee for EAF s met yesterday to consider this LEAF. Our feeling
is that if certain questions are satisfactorily addressed, first in part
II and then in Part III, a negative declaration (no significant impact)
would probably be appropriate:
Page 2, #1, Impact on land: "Other" is checked, but nothing written in. Is
there anything beyond demolishing the barn, building two buildings, and
landscaping the property?
Page 3, #5, Will project affect any non - protected body of water? Six -Mile
Creek should be checked in column 2. (As application points out, project
is across the street from it.) Muddy runoff could enter the creek, and
control measures must be mandated. The fact that the site is flat should
make this a simple matter. (E.g. hay bales to prevent muddy water from
getting to the street, perhaps.) Also, the landlord should make sure trash
from tenants doesn't blow into the creek.
(Page 4, last threshold under #6 (siltation, etc.): same comment as above.)
Page 10, #19 Controversy? Our impression was that opposition from the
local community was considerable. Column 2, not 1?
A couple of other concerns:
1. During construction, protective fencing should be placed around trees
at least as far out as the drip -line of the branches. A recent article
stated that tree deaths are common -- though often not immediate - -from damage
to roots from soil compaction by heavy equipment (roots go out even beyond
the drip line, by the way), mechanical damage to the trunks, and piling
of dirt and debris around the tree. (If you want to see the article, I.11
make you a copy, but this really is nothing new.)
2. Rather than planting maples by the street, we recommend Mr. Ronsvalle
consult the Shade Tree Advisory Committee or their booklet of recommendations.
Beautiful as maples are, the city has too many; the risk of an epidemic
killing them off is increased because of this concentration. (Some possib-
ilities are red or white oak, tulip, or various species of basswood (linden).)
3. We hope the applicant will plant a lot of trees on the property, to
lessen the visual impact of the projectTin addition to all their other
benefits!).
4. Traffic and parking problems, should the units be rented to 16 unrelated
people rather than to four families: We do not feel qualified to evaluate
this. On the one hand, the site is near bus service. But more people
than ever - -even students - -seem to be owning cars than one might expect
from the availability of bus service. Also, Mr. Ronsvalle has indicated
his intention to rent to families. This would help relieve a little of
the city s critical need for family housing, and wouldn't put undo strain
on parking and traffic in the neighborhood. Is there any way to ensure
rental to families? This seems to be a matter the P &D Bd. is more qualified
to address than the CAC.
Jon Meigs, Planning
Ron Ronsvalle
From:
Betsy Darlington, Chair, CAC
Re:
LEAF for Ronsvalle subdivision at 109 South Titus
Cc:
Common Council members
Mayor Gutenberger
CAC members
Date:
Dec. 16, 1988
Our subcommittee for EAF s met yesterday to consider this LEAF. Our feeling
is that if certain questions are satisfactorily addressed, first in part
II and then in Part III, a negative declaration (no significant impact)
would probably be appropriate:
Page 2, #1, Impact on land: "Other" is checked, but nothing written in. Is
there anything beyond demolishing the barn, building two buildings, and
landscaping the property?
Page 3, #5, Will project affect any non - protected body of water? Six -Mile
Creek should be checked in column 2. (As application points out, project
is across the street from it.) Muddy runoff could enter the creek, and
control measures must be mandated. The fact that the site is flat should
make this a simple matter. (E.g. hay bales to prevent muddy water from
getting to the street, perhaps.) Also, the landlord should make sure trash
from tenants doesn't blow into the creek.
(Page 4, last threshold under #6 (siltation, etc.): same comment as above.)
Page 10, #19 Controversy? Our impression was that opposition from the
local community was considerable. Column 2, not 1?
A couple of other concerns:
1. During construction, protective fencing should be placed around trees
at least as far out as the drip -line of the branches. A recent article
stated that tree deaths are common -- though often not immediate - -from damage
to roots from soil compaction by heavy equipment (roots go out even beyond
the drip line, by the way), mechanical damage to the trunks, and piling
of dirt and debris around the tree. (If you want to see the article, I.11
make you a copy, but this really is nothing new.)
2. Rather than planting maples by the street, we recommend Mr. Ronsvalle
consult the Shade Tree Advisory Committee or their booklet of recommendations.
Beautiful as maples are, the city has too many; the risk of an epidemic
killing them off is increased because of this concentration. (Some possib-
ilities are red or white oak, tulip, or various species of basswood (linden).)
3. We hope the applicant will plant a lot of trees on the property, to
lessen the visual impact of the projectTin addition to all their other
benefits!).
4. Traffic and parking problems, should the units be rented to 16 unrelated
people rather than to four families: We do not feel qualified to evaluate
this. On the one hand, the site is near bus service. But more people
than ever - -even students - -seem to be owning cars than one might expect
from the availability of bus service. Also, Mr. Ronsvalle has indicated
his intention to rent to families. This would help relieve a little of
the city s critical need for family housing, and wouldn't put undo strain
on parking and traffic in the neighborhood. Is there any way to ensure
rental to families? This seems to be a matter the P &D Bd. is more qualified
to address than the CAC.