Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-12 Board of Public Works Meeting Agenda1-4 W- AIM A meeting of the Board of Public Works will be held on Monday, March 26, 2012, at 4:45 p.rn in Common Council Chambers - Third Floor, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New Vor�- 041541; XMiN&IUM Approval I LVZO • .1 March • 2012, Regular Meeting Minuti III , 11:1l11;1;1l1j TO M 8. VOTING ITEMS 8.1 Buildings, Properties, Refuse and Transit A. Award • Contract for Construction • a New Salt Storage Building - Resolution 8.2 Highways, Streets and Sidewalks A. A Proposed Resolution to Declare Lead Agency Status for-the Floral Avenue Multiuse Facility B. A Proposed Resolution to Declare Lead Agency Status for-the Green and Seneca Street Bulbouts 8.3 Parking and Traffic 8.4 Creeks, Bridnes-and-Parks 8.5 Water and Sewer ,M • r - If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you to fully participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 607- 274 -6570 at least 48 hours before the meeting. The Board of Public Works meets on the first, second and fourth Mondays of the months at 4:45 p.m. All meetings are voting meetings, opening with a public comment period. Meeting agendas are created from prior public input, Department operating, planning issues, and requests made to the Superintendent. The Board reserves the right to limit verbal comments to three minutes and to request written comments on lengthy or complex issues. This information may then be used to create committee agendas, with the speaker or author invited to attend. Storage 8,1A Award of Contract for Construction ofa New Salt ' Resolution Bids for project be received o •. y, March 23, 2012. The •• tabulation and resolution for award of - contract will be distributed at the m__ s on • R t 9.1 Recommendation for Detours during Clinton Street/Prospect Street Reconstruction Project The detour that will be signed as part of the project is provided here. I have requested that Tim Logue review the detour, the related construction - caused transportation impacts studied as part of the environmental review, the traffic projections for the detour, and any traffic calming recommended as part of the federally funded project. I know Tim has started, and may have completed this work, but it is not available to me at the time of this agenda. We will provide it electronically as soon as it is available, or distribute it at the meeting. I know from his initial work that there was no significant traffic impacts anticipated outside the detour, and no traffic measures called out in the contract drawings. He is not recommending any initial steps prior to the start of the contract, beyond collection of some new traffic counts and speeds in order to be able to judge impacts from the construction detour and design responses if required. He has run computer models of the expected traffic changes. This stepwise approach will allow us to test the computer model, and to measure impacts of any measure that may be installed if they are needed, which will be valuable in the future. While this approach appeals to the engineer and economist in me, I expect there will be other views. Page 2 9.4 Appeal of Recycling Violation for 631 Hudson Street Recyclable materials that were left at the curb side were picked up and a bill was sent. The process followed city code requirements and long established DPW practice. The protest fro the property owner, as well as the staff response, is attached. I WULLP nt-J. C, Kn ' P.E. S,vtperbn,tetA,dev�t of -PL'CbUC WOKhS M v'I rCJA 21, 2012 Page 3 Page 4 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-6590 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER Telephone: 607/274-6530 Fax: 607/274-6587 To: Board of Public Works From: Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer Date: March 7, 2012 Re: Environmental Review for Floral Avenue Multiuse Facility PIN 375463, CP # 770 Please find enclosed for your consideration: 1. A resolution to declare lead agency for the environmental review of the Floral Avenue Multiuse Facility (trail) project. 2. Preliminary plans for the project 3. Short Environmental Assessment Forms (one for the State Environmental Quality Review and one for the City Environmental Quality Review) 4. A proposed resolution to declare that the project will have no significant adverse environmental impact. I am proposing that the environmental review for this project be conducted as an uncoordinated review. Both SEQR and CEQR provide for this manner of review provided that the action is an Unlisted Action and provided that the action is not determined to have a significant negative impact on the environment. If during the uncoordinated review, the lead 4- agency determines that the action will have a significant negative impac', then it must coordinate with other involved agencies. My list of involved agencies includes: Common Council, NYSDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, NYS DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers. Based on previous experience, it does not seem likely that any of these agencies would like to be the lead agency, so it seems reasonable to proceed with an uncoordinated review. If you have any questions, feel free to reach me at 274-6535 or tin-ilo@cityofithaca.org. Page 5 CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information: To be completed by applicant or project sponsor. Date: _ 1. Applicant /Sponsor: 2. Project Name: 3. Project Location: 4. Is Proposed Action: VNew *Expansion o Modification/Alteration 5. Describe project briefly: 6. Precise Location (Road Interse(6ions, Prominent Landmarks, etc. or provide map) 1,1A Z,� 0 b 0 ( l fit V'.0' _tv- � v"o k°--7 'F>via x, c n v alet S 7. Amount of Land Affected: Initially 1 r s or S t. Ultimately I r or S, t. 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? AYes o No If No, describe briefly: 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project: Residential o Industrial o Agricultural 3@ Pare nd /O n �9 o Commercial ,6 Other P004 1 CkAC -1-X 1 Describe: 10. Does action involve a permit /approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from governmental agency (Federal, State or Local): ,A Yes o No If�Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval p Type: �° its, fi a 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? o Yes A No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit /Approval Type: 12. As a result of proposed action will existing permit /approval require modification? o Yes o No " I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: DATE: # PREPARER'S TITLE: ,s , REPRESENTING: � j: \forms \city seaf form.doc SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Part II To Be Completed By Staff In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), the preparer is to use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. Name of Proiect: Floral Avenue Multiuse Facilitv Yes No 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter ❑ X more than one acre of land? 2. Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site or to any ❑ X site designated a unique natural area or critical environmental area by a local or state agency? 3. Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing waterway? ❑ X 4. Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? ❑ X 5. Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? ❑ X Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? ❑ X 7. Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality? ❑ X S. Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views ❑ X or vistas known to be important to the community: q. Will the project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, pre - historic, or ❑ X paleontological importance or any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark district? 10. Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? ❑ X Positive effect by extending a popular recreational facility 11. Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing ❑ X transportation systems? 12. Will the project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical ❑ X disturbance as a result of the project's operation during construction or after completion? 13. Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? ❑ X 14. Will the project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in ❑ X 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? 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? ❑ X If any question has been answered YES, a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) is necessary. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: DATE: 3/45'/12 PREPARER'S TITLE: City Transportation En ` er REPRESENTING: City of Ithaca DPW /ENG 617.20 Appendix State Environmental QuaI4 Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I , , 0 PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION To be completed by Applicant or Project S onsor) 1. APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME City of Ithaca DPW /ENG Floral Avenue Multiuse Facility 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality City of Ithaca County Tompkins 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) Along the west bank of the Flood Control Channel, just east of Floral Avenue (Rt 79), extending the existing trail from under the West State/MLK Jr. Street (Rt 79) bridge, approximately 0.4 miles to the south. Project also includes two spurs and midblock pedestrian crossings of Floral Avenue: one near the Cedar Creek apartments and the other near 214 Floral Ave. 5, PROPOSED ACTION IS: ® New 0 Expansion ® Modification /alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Construct an asphalt, multiuse trail with two spurs and mid -block pedestrian crossings. Project may also include amenities such as landscaping, benches and pedestrian scale lighting. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially t acres Ultimately 1 acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? 0 Yes ® No If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? Residential Industrial ® Commercial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space � Other Describe: The west side of Floral Avenue is predominantly residential. The area in between Floral Avenue and the Flood Control Channel is primarily open space, though there is one house at 201 Floral Avenue. Immediately east of the proposed trail is the Flood Control Channel. The east side of the Flood Control Channel is primarily industrial /commercial. 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? Yes ® No If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit /approvals: NYS DEC - permit for Protection of Waters and for Use of Flood Control Lands. Funding is 80% federal (FHWA) and 20% local. 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ® Yes ® No If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit /approvals: Federal funding is approved. 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT /APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? E] Yes ® No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant /sponsor name: Tim Logue Date: 3/8/12 Signature: lea c✓- �" If the action - you e Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 Reset A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. ® Yes ✓❑ No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. n Yes n No 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 pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: No. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: No. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: No. 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 briefly: No. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: No. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05? Explain briefly: No. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: No. D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? ® Yes n No If Yes, explain briefly: E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? F] Yes 0 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 relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question D of Part It was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. ® Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FU 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 WI' NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determinati( City of Ithaca Board of Public Works Name of Lead Agency 3/8/12 Date William J. Gray, P.E. Superintendent of Public Works Print or Type Name of Responsible O icer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Reset Board of Public Works Proposed Resolution Environmental Review for the Floral Avenue Multiuse Facility, PIN 375463 WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has declared itself to be the lead agency for the environmental review for a project ( "the Project ") entitled "Floral Avenue Multiuse Facility" (PIN 375463) in accordance with Section 176 of the Ithaca City Code (CEQR) and in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (SEQR), and WHEREAS, the Project includes construction of a multiuse trail and appurtenances between Floral Avenue and the Flood Control Channel, including two spurs and midblock pedestrian crossings, and WHERAS, the Project is an Unlisted action according to CEQR and an Unlisted Action according to SEQR, and WHERAS, a Short Environmental Assessment form was prepared by staff for CEQR and for SEQR, and WHERAS, on March 2012, the Board of Public Works declared itself lead agency for an uncoordinated environmental review for CEQR /SEQR, and WHEREAS, the Conservation Advisory Council has received a copy of the CEQR /SEQR short forms and a set of plans for the project, and WHERAS, the Board of Public Works, acting as lead agency, has, on March , 2012, reviewed and accepted as complete Short Environmental Assessment Forms Part I and Part II prepared by staff, and Project plans prepared on behalf of the City by Erdman Anthony, and other project materials, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Board of Public Works determines that the project for the Floral Avenue Multiuse Facility located in the City of Ithaca will result in no significant negative environmental impact and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Section 176 of the City Code be filed in accordance with the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. WHEREAS, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEAR) and the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQR), Section 176 of the City Code, require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding • carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, SEQR and CEQR both provide for an uncoordinated review for "Unlisted" projects that involve more than one agency, and WHEREAS, the proposed construction of Green and Seneca Street Bulbout project (PIN 375462, Capital Project # 769) is a "Unlisted" action under SEQR and is an "Unlisted" action under CEQR; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed construction of the Green and Seneca Street Bulbout project. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-6590 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER Telephone: 607/274-6530 Fax: 607/274-6587 To: Board of Public Works From: Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer Date: March 7, 2012 Re: Environmental Review for Green and Seneca Street Bulbouts PIN 375462, CP # 769 Please find enclosed for your consideration: 5. A resolution to declare lead agency for the environmental review of the Green and Seneca Street Bulbout project. 6. Preliminary plans for the project 7. Short Environmental Assessment Forms (one for the State Environmental Quality Review and one for the City- Environmental Quality Review') 8. A proposed resolution to declare that the project will have no significant adverse environmental impact. I am proposing that the environmental review for this project be conducted as an uncoordinated review, Both SEQR and CEQR provide for this manner of review provided that the action is an Unlisted Action and provided that the action is not determined to have a significant negative impact on the environment. If during the uncoordinated review, the lead agency determines that the action will have a significant negative impact, then it must coordinate with other involved agencies. My list of involved agencies includes: Common Council, NYSDOT, and the Federal Highway Administration. Based on previous experience, it does not seem likely that any of these agencies would like to be the lead agency, so it seems reasonable to proceed with an uncoordinated review. If you have any quest timlo @cityofithaca.org. ions, feel to reach me at 274-653,53 or ti o@c;tyofithaca.o-g. Page 7 j: \forms \city seaf form.doc SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Part II To Be Completed By Staff In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), the preparer is to use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. name of Proiect: Green and Seneca Street Bulbouts Yes No 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter ❑ X more than one acre of land? 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 ❑ X agency? 3. Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing waterway? ❑ X 4. Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? ❑ X 5. Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? ❑ X 5. Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? ❑ X 7. Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality? ❑ X S. Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views ❑ X or vistas known to be important to the community: 9. Will the project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, pre - historic, or ❑ X paleontological importance or any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark district? 10. Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? ❑ X 11. Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing ❑ X transportation systems? 12. Will the project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical F-1 disturbance as a result of the project's operation during construction or after X completion? 13. Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? ❑ X 14. Will the 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 F-1 X negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? ❑ X If any question has been answered YES, a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) is necessary. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: T DATE: 3/7/12 PREPARER'S TITLE: Transportation Engin REPRESENTING: City of Ithaca — Office of the City Engineer Appendix State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ' f 1. APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME City of Ithaca - DPW /ENG Green & Seneca Street Bulbouts, PIN 375462 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality City of Ithaca County Tompkins 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) The following four intersections: W. Green/S. Plain, W. Green/S. Corn, W. Seneca/N. Plain, W. Seneca/N. Corn streets 5. PROPOSED ACTION IS: New E] Expansion u Modification /alteration S. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: The improvements consist of two curbed bulb -outs on the upstream traffic side of each of the subject intersections. Curb ramps with detectable warning surfaces will be constructed to comply with ADA standards. Existing drainage will be modified. Pavement markings and signage will be included. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially 0.018 acres Ultimately 0.018 acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ® Yes 11 No If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? Iw l Residential ® Industrial P/l Commercial ® Agriculture ® Park/Forest/Open Space ® Other Describe: The north side of West Seneca Street and the south side of West Green Street is almost all residential. The south side of West Seneca Street and the north side of West Green Street is mostly commercial. 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? Yes ❑ No If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit/approvals: NYSDOT - Highway Work Permit 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? Yes F,-(] No If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit/approvals: 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: Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer Date: 3/8/12 Signature:jr If the action is in - Coastal and you are a state agency, • • - - the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT To be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. ® Yes Z No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. ® Yes z No 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 pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: No. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural; archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: No. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: No. 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 briefly: No. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: No. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05? Explain briefly: No. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) -� Explain briefly No. D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENViROtJfviENTAL AREA (CEA)? ® Yes z✓ No If Yes, explain briefly: E. 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 relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question D of Part II was checked yes, the determination of significance mustevaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. ® 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': City of Ithaca Board of Public Works 3/8/12 Name of Lead Agency Date William Gray, P.E. Superintendent of Public Works Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Tim Logue Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Board of Public Works Proposed Resolution Environmental Review for the Green and Seneca Street Bulbout Project WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has declared itself to be the lead agency for the environmental review for a project ( "the Project ") entitled "Green and Seneca Street Bulbouts" (PIN 375462) in accordance with Section 176 of the Ithaca City Code (CEQR) and in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (SEQR), and WHEREAS, the Project includes construction on curb bulbouts on Green and Seneca Streets on the upstream side of the intersections with Plain Street and Corn Street, which should improve conditions for pedestrians, and WHERAS, the Project is an Unlisted action according to CEQR and an Unlisted Action according to SEAR, and WHERAS, a Short Environmental Assessment form was prepared by staff for CEQR and for SEAR, and WHERAS, on March , 2012, the Board of Public Works declared itself lead agency for an uncoordinated environmental review for CEQR /SEQR, and WHEREAS, the Conservation Advisory Council has received a copy of the CEQR /SEQR short forms and a set of plans for the project, and WHERAS, the Board of Public Works, acting as lead agency, has, on March 2012, reviewed and accepted as complete Short Environmental Assessment Forms Part I and Part II prepared by staff, and Project plans prepared on behalf of the City by Erdman Anthony, and other project materials, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Board of Public Works determines that the project for Green and Seneca Street Bulbouts located in the City of Ithaca will result in no significant negative environmental impact and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Section 176 of the City Code be filed in accordance with the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. 0 a 0 c a 0 d t c J i c 0 m U C .Q 2 A �< v �a Q 4 Y 5= a- N V � V C � .0 3 o 0 p U J z m o m L O 'gym i m a Z � N W � w J a a o � 0 zI I IN PLACE ITYP,1 3' TOPSOIL AND ESTABLISH TURF (TYPJ~ UN GARDEN PLANTS (TYPJ 6" r UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL ITYPJ f STONE CUB GRANITE TYPE CITYPJ 3' MULCH I '({ HMA TOP — COURSE ITYPJ _ _ — - - — — — — SAWCUT ITYPJ y \ 'li HNA BINDER COURSE (TYPJ 6' HNA BASE COURSE ITYPJ — - - - - - - — J�__'12' SUBBASE COURSE dTYPJ _._ _ - - - - - - - _ _ — _. — _ - ExISTIT� PAVEiENT SECTIOe1 CLLIERT AND TRENCH EXCAVATION & uNDERDRAIN DRY SWALE SOIL ITYP,) FILTER, TYPE I ITYPJ EMBANKMENT IN PLACE (TYPJ GEE NOTE 31 PERFORATED CORRUGATED POLY, WEST GREEN—LTREET STONE CURB, GRANITE TYPE C ITYP,) SAWCUi (TYPJ� 11g HNA TOP COURSE iTYPa ----- - - - - -- _ 2 !e FAA BINDER COURSE ITYPJ — — S S HNA BASE COURSE (TYP,1 --------- - - - - -- 1t SUBBASE Ctii RSE (TYP,) \-EXISTING PAVEkE-NT SECTION CLLVERT AND TRENCH EXCAVATION & INDERORAIN FILTER, TYPE I ITYPJ (SEE NOTE 31 WEST SENECA STREET 2' -0' 2'-O' AND TURF (TYP,) I --- - - - - -- I EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL ITYPJ PEW ORATEO CORRUGATED w• INDERDRAIN PIPE, 4' OM (TYPJ (SEE NOTE 31 •--- I NOTES- 1. WIDTH OF RAIN GARDEN 15 DEPENDENT ON THE LOCATION OF EXISTING SIDEWALK AND NEW CURB. SEE DWG. NO. XX -X FOR CONTOURS. 2. GRADE LANDSCAPE AREA TO DRAIN TOWARDS ROADWAY, MATCH INTO EXISTING SIDEWALK WITH A MAX. 33% SLOPE, 3. SEE DWG. NO. XX-X FOR LNDERORAIN DETAIL. ERDMAN ANTHONY 2165 Brighton Henrietta Town Line Road Rochester, NY 14623 [T] 585.427.8888 [F] 585.427.8914 erdmononthony.com DATE DATE NOTE: UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS DRAWING IS A VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145, SECTION 7209. REVISIONS NO.I DESCRIPTION I BY DATE CLIENT !h � TT,� �x All s e�' CITY OF ITHACA PROJECT NAME ITHACA BULB -OUTS WEST GREEN STREET & WEST SENECA STREET TOMPIQNS COUNTY, CITY OF ITHACA DRAWING TITLE i TYPICAL SECTIONS j SCALE DATE P.I.N. EM PROJECT N0. 3754.62 19373.00 SHEET NO. DRAWING NO. zz DF x TYP-I I 3' MULCH - - 18' 810- RENTION AND DRY SWALE SOIL ITYP,) EMBANKMENT IN PLACE (TYPJ 6' INXIERDRAIN FILTER, TYPE I ITYPJ PERFORATED CORRUGATED POLY, GEOTEXTILE SEPERATION ITYPJ UND IRAIN PIPE, 4' DIA, (TYPJ IEEE NOTE 3) NOTES- 1. WIDTH OF RAIN GARDEN 15 DEPENDENT ON THE LOCATION OF EXISTING SIDEWALK AND NEW CURB. SEE DWG. NO. XX -X FOR CONTOURS. 2. GRADE LANDSCAPE AREA TO DRAIN TOWARDS ROADWAY, MATCH INTO EXISTING SIDEWALK WITH A MAX. 33% SLOPE, 3. SEE DWG. NO. XX-X FOR LNDERORAIN DETAIL. ERDMAN ANTHONY 2165 Brighton Henrietta Town Line Road Rochester, NY 14623 [T] 585.427.8888 [F] 585.427.8914 erdmononthony.com DATE DATE NOTE: UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS DRAWING IS A VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145, SECTION 7209. REVISIONS NO.I DESCRIPTION I BY DATE CLIENT !h � TT,� �x All s e�' CITY OF ITHACA PROJECT NAME ITHACA BULB -OUTS WEST GREEN STREET & WEST SENECA STREET TOMPIQNS COUNTY, CITY OF ITHACA DRAWING TITLE i TYPICAL SECTIONS j SCALE DATE P.I.N. EM PROJECT N0. 3754.62 19373.00 SHEET NO. DRAWING NO. zz DF x TYP-I m ° x U ° w F li 0 m ° W m 0 w Y x V C 0 d C rn U N rm C w � z � w c ° � Y a `g 0 i V C � a � A n ° w a a m 4 U w m 0 0 0 M - � 0, N fi N w ` o W Z Cs m a. a m W ° CC Z,= > W W m J C .4 W d W Ln N Z w m i.1 NO PARKING v 18" MAPLE OU O STOP I } 18" MAP CON[ LE SW 111111 �� / 391 gt - - !— — ° coNG —14" MAPLE ' v WAY NO PARKING 79 WEST PROPOSED GRANITE I CURB, TYPE C ITYP.1 1 WEST SENECA STREET 9�/ l WS 8 +71 WS 9 +00 — _ _ WS VOO 14" MAPLE 0 Ln 3' REMOVE EXISTING CURB PROPOSED CAST IRON DETECTABLE WARNING 1 SURFACE ITYP.1 I I RELOCATE SIGN 11 I ' I v IX , i E WAYI — 1 t ADJUST FRAME AND GRATE TO GRAD PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN LOCATION CONC,SW R =I 2'•0" OD PROPOSED SAWCUT ITYP.1 I • ADJUST MANHOLE e U N NYSEG I TO GRAD COVER 1 - -- NYT118 ' D� - i2�'CIP ST CIP ST a \\ N* .WAY R- 25' -G- N_tti19 CONC yA o 24" LOCUST 0 ` ♦ i I 111/1- - /3g�i CON[ SW I l n u l a ♦ S I 1 1 1 1 1 111.. ♦ 111 _ 103 STO -0- NO PARKING ° 16'-3' / J U 2" CIP f I 91 C� o W z dr 0 'NEST SENECA STREET AND CORN STREET INT RS T1ON SCALE; 1 " -20' I 1t i IU S 1 1 \ 1 a 14" MAPLE i i WS 11 +00- \ 392 NO PARKING \ \ � 392 CON[ CONC ' 0 WAY _392— / CONC SW PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN LOCATION NYSEG RELOCATE SIGN L125 7-187 NYT 117 ADJUST FRAME AND GRATE TO GRADE REMOVE EXISTING CURB 18" MAPLE ER AN ANTHONY e 2165 Brighton Henrietta Town Line Road Rochester, NY 14623 (T] 585.427.8888 [F] 585.427.8914 erdmonanthony.com DATE DATE NOTE: UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS DRAWING IS A VIOLATION OE THE NEM YOflK STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145. SECTION 7209. CLIENT 04 IT CITY OF ITHACA PROJECT NAME ITHACA BULB -OUTS WEST % REED" CTaEET 0 WEST SENECA STREET TOMPKINS COUNTY, CITY OF ITHACA DRAWING TITLE GENERAL PLAN SCALE DATE 1 ° =20' ???T P.f.N. EAA PROJECT NO. 3754.62 19373.00 SHEET NO. DRAWING NO. 2z OF X GNP -1 a w w m 0 w 0 CONC SW ,8" MAPLE m WEST 79 w � / —395— — WEST SENECA STREET ®.— .— .— .— .— .— .— •— •-- 1— • —• —•— — — — — _ - Ws I5 +00 Ca \ \ o \ w \ Y \ V NYSEG 14 \ w \ = V 08NO STANDING NYf1-4 \ _ O� T7 0 a c rT -c U m c � z a � w i n cn � c � Y cr C) N V � V C_ g 3 +� m o O W a a � z m a U S` ca r 0 0 0 M — � O C \ E w Z 0+ sn C- a' W w of O Z H N W W � J — W Q d �. o Ln N w 0 PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP.) NO STANDING POLE N Td — 18" OAK A S I i vI j 28" OAK I o 'U- NO PARKING NO PARKING N REMOVE EXISTING CURB 20'-2" \ STOP �sssus �' ':�����.' ♦ R =24'-6" C( LE WAY PROPOSED GRANITE CURB. TYPE C (TYP.) V C781 PROPOSED SAWCUT (TYP.) NYSEG L125 207 kilns ...... 7' 781 YT ST - O PROPOSED CAST IRON I DETECTABLE WARNING ADJUST FRAME AND GRATE TO GRADE 1 rn \ SURFACE (TYP.) r— PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN LOCATION I � - RELOCATE SIGN I � I ... ONE WAY CONG SW ' 0 12" DEAD ASTIR ST S 5T 6" RCP ' s:::�i ` ST i i N R- 12' -0" !n —NYSEG 205 NYT III ' - --" ST ST ` ST- � ' ONE W 28" LOCUST CONC SW rss j ,wry 4 RELOCATE SIGN PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN LOCATION ( � I 57ba ADJUST FRAME AND GRATE TO GRADE ® 20°- i REMOVE EXISTING CURB - 6 °' I ` AP ST �1 t 1 / 1-- Li, Lai � N z 0 U Q 10 28" OAK WEST SENECA STREET AND PLAIN STREET INIERSECTIQN SCALE: 1' =20' WS 17427 ST ST - ER ®MAN ANTHONY alA 2165 Brighton Henrietta Town Line Road Rochester, NY 14623 [T] 585.427.8888 [F] 585.427.8914 erdmananthony.com UATE DATE NOTE: UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS DRAWING IS A VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145. SECTION 7209. CLIENT CITY OF ITHACA PROJECT NAME ITHACA BULB -OUTS WEST GREEN STREET & WEST SENECA STREET TOMPIUNS COUNTY, CITY OF ITHACA DRAWING TITLE GENERAL PLAN SCALE DATE 1"=2V ???? PJX EAA PROJECT NO. 3754.62 19373.00 SHEET NO. DRAWING NO. a OF X GNP -2 r m 0 m 0 w Cr m 0 w f- w 0 w Y W U c 0 c c a 2 V N 03 m c w c Z CL a N Cr � w a Q' o 0 0 Cr a V) V c V c � 3 o Z � a U g m C) 0 0 M - � — N = N E ✓� N q w CC z m to a- o: w w ¢ Cc 2 2 W O Z M W W � J 4 a- L. Q Ln N CD cn 0 L21 7 -160 I e-1 v � � ! r Z NO PARKIN O 12- CIP 15'-3" REMOVE EXI`IST1 IURB RELOCATE SIGN 6'O ( 1 STOB / I, CONC SW \ ONE WAYS / '� +-: _L I NO ST 0 MA R =22' -6 24" PPE 392 � 30" MAPLE - BOX US MAIL � � — •1 / Iq `���' - -- — ° —� ,�' R =12'-0• N o �v I PROPOSED GRAN,TE CURB, TYPE C (TYP.1 . ®. ®. ®. ®. ®.�.�._._ _._.e._. _._._. _._ ._._.e. ®. ®. ®. ®. ®. ® -- SS I ST 12" RCP SPEED -- Q T5- RCP LIMIT 30 WG 6 +76 WG 9 +00 EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145. SECTION 7209. 0 — — WG 1+8(1 NO. WEST GREEN STREET BY 147 I NYT 2.5 CLIENT STOP tV - - - - --- 1 PROJECT NAME ITHACA BULB -OUTS ° ��,� ���` R- 12'-0• 24" MAPLE OO �3gT� I II- SCALE R =24'-0" 18- MAPLE 30" MAPLE — —� \ 16" MAPLE �• o + � SHEET NO. a I \ \ N — NYSEG 53 O CONC " - -- —392— o — � ° ' 1 RELOCATE SIGN — 0 NYT 7 l _ _ ,��� NO RIGHT TURN CONC NE NE #NAY _ ONE V REMOVE EXISTING CURB STREET SIGN / RELOCATE SIGN I N 26" MAPLE z S D PROPOSED SAMCLIT (TYPd 7 -ts9 NYSEG 24" LOCUST 159 --1 0 sir b e -� . . . . , NO STANDING O -- ,__- ` - -_ - PROPOSED CAST IRON DETECTABLE WARNING - = ; SLIR?ACE (TYP.) ' (+ d " u WEST GREEN STREET AND CORN STREET INTERSECTION SCALE. 1- -20' CONCRETE (TYP.) WG I1 +00 SPEED NYSEG LIMIT 30 11272 .& CONC ° C ` _393— 6• MAPLE — — — CONCISW EROMAN ANTHONY 2165 Brighton Henrietta Town Line Road Rochester, NY 14623 [T] 585.427.8888 [F] 585.427.8914 erdmanonthony.com I DATE DATE NOTE. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS DRAWING IS A VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145. SECTION 7209. NYSEG NO. DESCRIPTION BY 147 I NYT 2.5 CLIENT STOP (Ha 1 PROJECT NAME ITHACA BULB -OUTS WEST GREEN STREET & rn 24" MAPLE I I li t• I II- SCALE I 1! LLJJ P.I.N. I + � SHEET NO. a I r N C7-- r \ I Ca L.! NO PARKING ' (+ d " u WEST GREEN STREET AND CORN STREET INTERSECTION SCALE. 1- -20' CONCRETE (TYP.) WG I1 +00 SPEED NYSEG LIMIT 30 11272 .& CONC ° C ` _393— 6• MAPLE — — — CONCISW EROMAN ANTHONY 2165 Brighton Henrietta Town Line Road Rochester, NY 14623 [T] 585.427.8888 [F] 585.427.8914 erdmanonthony.com I DATE DATE NOTE. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS DRAWING IS A VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145. SECTION 7209. REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION BY DATE CLIENT o4 <rT,?�q my/ (Ha CITY OF ITHACA PROJECT NAME ITHACA BULB -OUTS WEST GREEN STREET & WEST SENECA STREET TOMMNS COUNTY, CITY OF ITHACA DRAWING TITLE GENERAL PLAN SCALE DATE 20' ???? P.I.N. EAA PROJECT x0. 3754.62 19373.00 SHEET NO. DRAWING NO. zz OF X GNP -3 i i c 4 c c 4 F- 9 4 0 W Y V v C 0 c rn r L U N m fm a e w N_ o �M F9 Y cr Cc � o � U � V C � a z m a V m CT _ 7 O CD M � � M O C O� N q to N m Z O m d CL w W Cr z \ � W W w J W - a a � o � N w I o I— a �a ' I NYSEG L -23 i 4 NYT34 I I M Z ✓ i I H 0 RIM 395.64 2" OA 12" OAK v I� o I dd v3 O U V NO PARKING �� 0 NO PARKING ' 20' -0" 1 A f I ST 12" DIP ST -[J I ADJUST FRAME AND I STOP I I GRATE TO GRADE i 0-0 I I TSP RELOCATE SIGN © f - - REMOVE EXISTING CURB nn..1 TRAFFIC \ �� , , , , , , e ' CONC SW CRABAPPLE _ — _i_8" MAPLE— — — — CONC SW , ,,e ^I oe O6 I MH 4" — _ _ - - 0 °L PROPOSED CAST IRON NO STANDING ( N CONC '-395 _ p. 18" MAPLE ONE WAY , - e ,,�� DETECTABLE WARNING. R =22'•6" 0 ` ,' \ \ 9, 0 20 "MAPLE i' — —396 CONC — 7 — — ° — J % _ / T SURFACE (TYP.) i �` — — — — — TRUCKS _ S - - -T I � NO STANDING NO LEFT "�• Y ' - - �� ' i 12" CIP ST 1 RCP TURN ;- - - j PROPOSED SAMCUT (TYP.) 2" ' R.12 I '-0' � � —396 -- — /5g5_,/ o - -- - -- i WEST GREEN STREET-- - - - ®,® ®-- .--- - -. - -- �- — — — — — — — •— • —• —•. i-- — — — — — — — — ------ - - - - -- --� ¢_ — -1-�— -i- — — — — — .-------- - - -. —. WG 15000LIGalti +00 WG 17000 WG 17+14 _ O \D ®�- - - - - -- R- 12' -a' NYSEG ` — _/ ® 235 ��: _ _ _ _ NYT 1 OIE WA1, ` R =24' -0" r �'< ST —6" RCP �— 28" LOCUST ¢ 26" LOCUST pyJ , ,� I ! Imo' s TSP ° - -39 CONIC ZO" RTE 79 � ,�� LOCUST CONIC SW 28" Locust CONC SW � PROPOSED GRANITE - = 1 CURB. TYPE C tTYP� s� 1 - - — . F� r— RELOCATE SIGN O7' ; sl E 11 ADJUST PULLBOX TO GRADE �P - REMOVE EXISTING CURB i 1 OO STOP 1 PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK ITYP,I 15'-2" 0 11 -267 � { NYT 5 -396- U Z U z 6" CRAPAAPPLE 0 ~ ZL U T4" CRABAPPLE CL 0 CL 1+ 80d NO PARKING f °' a. I WEST GREEN STREET AND PLAIN STREET INTERSECTION SCALE: 1 - =20' DATE DATE NOTE: UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS DRAWING IS A VIOLATION Of THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145. SECTION 7209. REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION BY DATE CLIENT $ IT � Eye �x CITY OF ITHACA PROJECT NAME ITHACA BULB -OUTS VVEST GREEN STREET & WEST SENECA STREET TOMPKINS COUNTY, CITY OF ITHACA DRAWING TITLE GENERAL PLAN SCALE DATE 1"= 20' I ???? P.I.N. EAA PROJECT NO. 3754.62 19373.00 SHEET NO. DRAWING N0. a OF X GNP -4 Wo ZuW ww a wj of rn E cm L0 W5 zw wLL 5 M CD jlc _J! ti it calo ---------- Lu 9613 --j RT (SATE FTE M4-9 j AA H WEST SATE STREET rl n' j u LJ u �j 1-4 ii L�f J ;brY ---------- ORTH -1 W E Sf 5E: CA STREET ---------- Lu 9613 --j RT (SATE FTE M4-9 j AA H WEST SATE STREET rl B �j 1-4 6B" F LEFT LANE M -4 TO� 1 J L f F Ou. - P17 n j-4 L-J 1�41 8 H Lj 66 S , T CLINTON ST _j . . ..... 96R g, r L CLOSED DETOUR PR H AHEAD _j RI 1 -4 MOD f r .13 _J NOTES: 1, SEE WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE luz REQUIREMENTS. RID GE OUT 2. THIS SPECIAL SIGN SHALL HAVE BLACK LEGEND ON AN ORANGE BACKGROUND AS INDICATED BY T -5 OF THE 2009 nkHEAVLFE�: TABLE 2A L M.U.T.C.D, FOR LETTERING CRITERIA REFER TO SECTION 20.05 OF THE 2009 M.U.T.C.D. t7 _Lj T' UL 'i L A- J-- 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE THIS SIGN AT EACH END OF THE BRIDGE A MINIMUM OF 21 DAYS PRIOR TO THE CLOSING DATE OF THE J BRIDGE. LOCATION OF THE SIGNS DURING THE ADVANCE NOTICE PERIOD SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN /BICYCLE FLOW OR SIGHT DISTANCE. 4. (2) PVMS TO BE INSTALLED FOR A PERIOD OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO BRIDGE CLOSURE. SEE CONSTRUCTION PHASING NOTES ON DWG. NO. MPN-01. h p 7 - DETO] F & M4-9 ROUTE 1 END RFTIX ........ . . . vR._. 1-41 NOPK ZONE AREA LIKE NOTE 1) in F1170TES 2 L I UN IT I 't u RITP#f L-L _J 11 A E-J, rM r7 9 t VV � LEFT M1-4 1 :TOUR B L-21 1-4 . . . ....... SOUTHBOUND %10 J M4-9 ---------- ORTH -1 ........... rROAD h p 7 - DETO] F & M4-9 ROUTE 1 END RFTIX ........ . . . vR._. 1-41 NOPK ZONE AREA LIKE NOTE 1) in F1170TES 2 L I UN IT I 't u RITP#f L-L _J 11 A E-J, rM r7 9 t VV � LEFT M1-4 1 :TOUR I L J CLOSED F I i BEGINNING r C3 J L_ cl LM -10 L�311 ''AHEAD Ej '�4jq _G V Ll E:j 1, ; !­.�� tFr- 'M71 _J P116 3754.57 Rith 2210440 CITY OF ITHACA PROSPECT STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENT OF THE EAST CLINTON STREET BRIDGE OFFSITE VEHICULAR DETOUR SIGNING PLAN SCALE DRAWING NO, ADEULA NONE he$-ot '_�ATE SHEET I r r I ho B 1-4 OUR J M4-9 ---------- ORTH -1 I L J CLOSED F I i BEGINNING r C3 J L_ cl LM -10 L�311 ''AHEAD Ej '�4jq _G V Ll E:j 1, ; !­.�� tFr- 'M71 _J P116 3754.57 Rith 2210440 CITY OF ITHACA PROSPECT STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENT OF THE EAST CLINTON STREET BRIDGE OFFSITE VEHICULAR DETOUR SIGNING PLAN SCALE DRAWING NO, ADEULA NONE he$-ot '_�ATE SHEET I r r I ho 1 ~�� (/J 7/�~ March 12, 2012 Please accept this letter as a formal request byustnbe allowed tu move our Hot Truck location from 635 Stewart Avenue 1o410 College Avenue, in front ufShe|denCourt. if allowed, xxe would like tomake the move during this summer. The Hot Truck, Inc would intend to pay all costs of this move. We would be moving the Hot Truck from in front of one University dormitory in a residential area 'LO :11-1 front uf another University dormitory ina commercial area. This move would bring the Hot Truck back close to it's beginning that started only feet away at Johnny,s Big Red Grill on Dryden Road. We believe that this the second best location for a food truck in the City. it is our understanding that since May of 2009 when Common Council adopted a comprehensive revision of Chapter 170 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code that the regulation of the two existing food trucks in the City falls under the control of The Board of Public Works. it is our hope to get the Hot Truck moved under the direction of this Board. A full study of food trucks could involve several City Boards as well as Common Council and it could take years tocomplete. it is our hope to get the Hot Truck settled in this location that works long term, sign an agreement with the city, follow all rules and regulations, and to pay our annual fee. Albert Smith, President m CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 -6590 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS William J. Gray, P.E. Superintendent / City Engineer Telephone: 607/274-6527 Fax: 607/274-6587 i TO: William J. Gray, P.E., Superintendent of Public Works Board of Public Works FROM: Kathy Gehring, Executive Assistant DATE: March 21, 2012 RE: Request to Relocate the "Hot Truck" to 410 College Avenue Mr. Albert Smith submitted a formal request to the Board of Public Works on March 12, 2012, requesting that he be allowed to relocate his vending truck from Stewart Avenue to 410 College Avenue. Though I am an advocate for mobile vending within the City of Ithaca, following staff discussions of this and similar requests, I am opposed to the relocation of the "Hot Truck" to the requested location for several reasons. 1. The width of the street is barely wide enough for two passenger vehicles to pass each other when other passenger vehicles are parked next to the curb, not to mention when delivery trucks or buses are traveling through the area. 2. Parking lanes are normally between seven and eight feet wide. The width of the parking lane in the 400 block of College Avenue is approximately seven feet wide. The normal width of a vending truck is eight feet wide. Even with the vending truck pulled right up to the curb, this parking lane is not wide enough for the vending truck. 3. The 400 block of College Avenue is home to many businesses, most of which are restaurants. On the east side of College Avenue, there are six restaurants located in seven buildings. The west side of the street has a large dormitory, two restaurants and an apartment building. To park a competing vending truck within this block will cause too much contention between the mobile vendor and the brick - and -mortar restaurant owners. 4. The parking lanes within this block are used only as loading zones for the businesses during business hours. To allow a semi - permanent or permanent vending truck to park in the loading zone would take valuable space away from the businesses that currently exist and would limit their ability to receive deliveries. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." Board of Public Works Page 2 of 5 March 20, 2012 5. A large vending truck parked in the parking lane would cause a sight obstruction for motorists, which compromises public safety when pedestrians cross the street mid-block. 6. The sidewalk is not wide enough for patrons to loiter at a vending truck waiting to be served and accommodate pedestrian traffic traveling in both directions. During a site visit to the 400 block of College Avenue on March I9`", I took several photos of the location Mr. Smith wants to park his truck, as well as the surrounding area. 400 Block of College Avenue from Oak Avenue looking South Loading Zone Sign at 410 College Ave. Parking Lane at 410 College Avenue Delivery Truck Outside of a Business in the Parking Lane Board of Public Works Page 3 of 5 March 20, 2012 TCAT Bus Traveling Through Collegetown Businesses on East Side of College Ave. After looking at the 400 block of College Avenue, I walked within a few blocks and other locations that might be better suited for a vending truck. The first street, Oak Avenue, connects to College Avenue at the north end of the 400 block, it has scenic areas for patrons to sit while eating, and is within walking distance of Cascadilla Creek gorge and the bridges crossing the gorge. This street has wider travel lanes than College Avenue, with a wider parking lane and less traffic on a consistent basis. Though this is a residential area, this location would be very easy to find and walk to from the dormitories and apartments on College Avenue. Oak Avenue Board of Public Works Page 4 of 5 March 20, 2012 The orange dot shows the requested new location for the "Hot Truck." As you can see, it is very close to flak Avenue. The second location that may be suitable for a vending truck is on Dryden Road cast of College Avenue. it also is in a residential area, but is within a block of the business district, easily within walking distance, and has space enough for a large vending truck to park in the parking lane without causing visibility issues (indicated by the blue line on the map below). Dryden Rd. looking East from College Ave. Dryden Rd. looking East from Linden Ave, (1 block from College Ave.) Z.t ll f �q FS Dryden Rd. looking East from Linden Ave, (1 block from College Ave.) Board of Public Works Page 5 of 5 March 20, 2012 ti e_ a i S A third possible location is the 300 block of College Avenue. However, in the evening after school is ended for the day and this block is full to capacity with parked cars, TCAT buses routinely hit mirrors in this location with other large trucks as they pass each other, and parked cars, in this narrow space. Having a vending truck in the parking lane would only cause more obstruction and complications. My recommendation, at this point, is to deny the request from Mr. Smith to move the "Hot Truck" to 410 College Avenue. However, he may be interested in relocating to a metered parking space on either Oak Avenue or Dryden Road, both of which are within a block of his requested location. kdg 1.490 --w Ilm ty T To m - un- ml MAR 1 9,2012- otficc, of the SLit. and Engineering W • The Carl Sagan Bridge is a pedestrian bridge over Cascadilla Street built in 199 I 2000. It was a great collaboration of Cornell students and professors, the Ithaca Department • Works, a landscape architect, local professionals and community tiembers. I believe that there is value in adding a commemorative plaque to the bridge for three reasons: 1. The bridge is officially called the Carl Sagan Bridge, dedicated in 2000. There is no indication • this on the bridge. Carl Sagan's legacy continues to live on in Ithaca, and should be remembered here, especially considering the bridge's prox- imity to the Science Center and part of the Planet Walk. 2. The bridge is unique as one • the first using Fiber Reinfocing Bars, an inven- Jon of Petru Petrina, the Cornell professor who spearheadded the project. This- Lechnology is rapidly becoming used world wide, and it's humble beginnings here in Ithaca should be marked publicly. For these reasons, I am proposing to fabricate and install a commemorative plaque describing the details of the project. This would include the dedication of the bridge, a brief description of its fabrication techniques, a list of those involved, and the dates of work completed. I believe that the community would benefit from knowing what a special bridge this is, and what great effort went into creat- ing it. r E • The Carl Sagan Bridge is located over Cascadilla Creek, connecting the west and east ends • Adams Street. It is uniquely situated to provide access from the neighborhoods east • Cascadilla Creek to Conley Park and the Science Center. As such, I believe that it is a useful and visible part of the communs public walking path. W wridge view from east Adams St. p• 3 • liq Professor Petrina with students who designed and built the bridge. Installation of the Carl Saqan pedestrian Bridge in Ithaca, New York. June, 2000 The spans of the bridge were placed over the creek on June 12. Landscape artist Mary Rebell de- signed the symbols of the earth for each occulus. TE Imm In Memory ufDavid Duncan, Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences at Cornell University. Ingenuity and education came together in this bridge designed and built by students in Cornell's School of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The bridge is con- structed of Fiber Reinforced Polymer bars set in concrete, making it one of the most unique and structurally effiecient bridges of its kind. The following students volunteered their design and building skills: Erik Boe, Steven Caldwell, Babak Farhad, Dan Mullins, Dave Pittman, and Wei Kir Creative guidance, supervision, and mentorship was given by Dr. Petru Petrina; pro- fessor at Cornell's School of CCE and developer of the FRP composite rebar. III 111111111111111 NIS June 3,2O12 ME As part • this plaque proposal, I am interested to know if the City • Ithaca would a- • to carry any cost for the plaque fabrication • installation. Thank you very much for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me with questions, ideas, or concerns. Sincerely, Emily Sullivan, AIA IM CITY OF ITHACA 108 E GREEN STREET ITHACA NY 14850 Bill to : THOMAS J MARINO 631 HUDSON St ITHACA NY 14850 Invoice Date: 01/27/2012 Invoice # : 00016039 Account # 00001515 Due Date: Refuse and Garbage General Billing Information (607) 274-6580 Information specific to bill (607) 272-1718 Property : 629-31 Hudson St Invoice From: Refuse and Garbage Invoice Ref. WORK ORDER 7536 Entry Date item Category item Description Qty Price Total 01/20/2012 NOT A RECYCLING COLLECTION NAME FOUND NONE 1.00 $20.00 $20.00 WEEK 01/20/2012 NOT A RECYCLING COLLECTION NAME FOUND NONE 1,00 $210.00 $20.00 WEEK Total: $20.00 Additional Description: SOLID WASTE FEE - 631 HUDSON STREET Return this portion with your payment Make check payable to : I nvoice Date: 0, /v7, 20 1 CITY OF ITHACA CHAMBERLAIN'S OFFICE Invoice 00016039 108 E GREEN STREET ITHACA NY 14850 Pagel of Kathrin Gehring - Fwd: Re: From Tom Marino,, 631 Hudson St From: Dan Spencer To: Gehring, Kathrin Date: 3/14/2012 8:38 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: From Tom Marino, 631 Hudson St CC: Benjamin, Ray; Gray, Bill Attachments: 631 Hudson St, recycling violation.doc; 631 Hudson St. phone call.doc Kathy and Bill My recommendation is that the appeal from Mr. Marino be denied. I make this recommendation for many reasons. In his own words he admits to having placed his recycling at the curb on January 18 2012. He also admits to leaving the recycling at the curb an extra day. Why it was not collected on January 12 2012 is not the matter here. The recycling at the curb on January 19 2012 on a non collection week is the problem. The proper warning sticker was placed on his recycling bin on January 19 2012. He does not dispute that the warning sticker was in place. On Friday January 20 2012 the recycling was still at the curb. Mr. Marino states that he took them in. This is not the case. I collected the recycling from in front of his house on Friday January 20 2012. 1 placed the empty bin behind the sidewalk with the warning sticker still in place. When I collect a recycling violation and no name can be found 1 write a short note to put into the file. 1 am including the note that was written for 631 Hudson St. on January 20 2012. Attachment 631 Hudson St. recycling violation. I would also like to include the notes I took of our conversation on February 8 2012. 1 believe it will give a clear understanding why I ended our conversation by hanging the phone up. Attachment 631 Hudson St. Phone call, The same method of placing a warning sticker on recycling out on a wrong week was used at 631 Hudson St. as is used and has been used for years. For that reason and those listed above I would recommend that the appeal be denied. Dan Spencer >>> Kathrin Gehring 3/13/2012 11:20 AM >>> Hi Dan, Would you please send me information about this situation and your recommendation regarding the appeal? Once we receive your information, we can refer the appeal to the Board of Public Works for their decision. Please provide the information in writing either by return e-mall or merno to Bill. Thank you, Kathy Gehring Executive Assistant Superintendent of Public Works 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 274-6527 (607) 274-6587 Fax file://C:\Documents and Settings\kgehring\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4F6059IFcoi... 3/21/2012 Page 2 of 3 >>> Deborah Whitney 3/12/2012 3:49 PM >>> Mr Marino: In regards to your below appeal, I have been in touch with Dan Spencer and have his recount of the whole initial conversation between you and he. I also have contacted Leo Riley at Tompkins County Recycling. In short, the County can not say why your recycling was not picked up on 1/12/12 as it was a recycling week within the City. Dan Spencer, however, was correct in issuing you a fine on 1/19/12 as it was not a recycling week for the City. I am going to forward your email, Dan Spencer's recount of the conversation and Leo Riley's email to our office of Superintendent of Public Works. Because the guidelines I've been given does not grant me the right to dismiss a fine that was issued correctly, if you wish to pursue your appeal, please contact Kathy Gehring, Assistant to the Superintendent of Public Works at 274 -6527. She will place you on the agenda to be heard before the Board of Public Works. For future note Mr. Marino, when you put your recycling out on a day you know is a recycling day within the City of Ithaca and it is not collected, please call the Tompkins County Recycling & Solid Waste Management Division at 273 -6632. They contract with Casella for recycling collection. You may have received one of their calenders in the mail, but if not, it is also available at their website htti)://www.recvcletomr)kins.o[gZeditorstree/view/"162/­221. Please do let me know if you should have further question or concern. Deborah Whitnev Fiscal Manager City Chamberlain's Office 108 E Green St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Ph: (607) 274 -6583 Fax: (607) 272 - 7348 >>> Blocktrade <blocktrade @aol.com> 3/12/2012 12:30 AM >>> This is an appeal of a fine given to me 1/27/12 and paid 2/27/12 . The invoice ref. is WORK ORDER 7536 . The fine was given for putting out recycles on the curb the wrong week . What happened - I put out my recyclables correctly on the night of January 11 . My recyclables were not picked up as they should have been on January 12 . I have no explanation as to why they were not picked up . They were put along the curb the same place they have been picked up from the last 20 years . As they were not picked up I assumed 1 must have been mixed up on which week was recycling week and put them out again on January 18 . When they were not picked up on January 18 1 left them out an extra day in case recycling was a day late due to the MLK holiday . I then took them in . A little over a week later I got notice of the fine for $20 in the mail . As I thought(and still think) the fine should have been waived as my fault was caused by the city's fault - I called into the City to ask about an appeal process and was referred to a Don Spencer . When I explained my situation Mr. Spencer lectured me on how I had to pay as there was a sticker put on my recycling bucket on January 18 . ( I do not dispute the sticker being there - but I did not see the sticker as I get home after dark .Acard in the mailbox would be better.) Unfortunately I got annoyed at Mr.Spencer for not seeing my side of things and he in turn gave me a lecture on how I was being disrespectful . When 1 stated that he was the one being disrespectful he slammed the phone on me . I actually am not so bothered by his behavior as my behavior was not so great either . I am only bothered that he gave me no impression I had appeal rights even though this is what I originally asked him about . I only discovered I could appeal when I paid the fine at the city office . So what am I asking for ? I still believe my fine should be waived and $20 returned. I believe this because I did the right thing when I put out my recyclables the right day . I only had recyclables out on the wrong day because of a mistake made by municipal employees in not picking up my recyclables when they should have . Sincerely - Tom Marino file : / /C: \Documents and Settings\kgehring \Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \4F60591Fcoi... 3/21/2012 631 Hudson St. Recycling violation number 7536 Tagged 1/19/12 Picked 1/20/12 One recycling bin with mixed plastic. Most of the plastic was the type carryout food come in. The warning sticker was placed on the upper lip of the bin facing the house. After I emptied the bin I placed it behind the sidewalk. The warning sticker was still on the bin. No name was found - Dan Spencer 2/8/12 I called him back at 11:45 am on 2/8/12. Right from the start he was very angry. I tried to talk to him a bit and explain the process. I told him that on I /19/12 his recycling was at the curb on a non recycling week. A green sticker was placed on the bin telling him that he had 24 hours to remove it from the curb or a special collection fee of $20.00 would be charged. I told him it was still at the curb on 1/20/12 and collected. It was then he really got upset. 'in his words he told me this 1`1 fucking stupid and he should not be charged. He kept swearing at me many times using the "IF" word. I told him to please be respectful to me as I was being respectful to him. He then said I was not being so by giving him a fucking $20.00 charge. I asked him again to please not use that language to me as I was not talking to him like that. He was being very loud and getting more upset by the minute. He then said to me that he never saw any green sticker on his bin. I told him that it was there and I knew it was because on Thursday 1/26/12 1 drove past his house and saw that he had refilled his bin and placed it back to the curb for collection on his regular collection day. I told him that I saw the green warning sticker still on the bin where it was placed on 1/19/12. It was then he told me "f**k your green stickers, I don't care about your f'**king stickers" It was at that point I was not going to listen to anymore and I hung up the phone. I had told him two or three time I was not talking to him like that and he had no reason to speak to me like that. I was just trying to explain how the system works. Just a side note to this: I drove past his house on 2/9/12 as I was checking the route and noticed that his bin was out for collection. This is a pick up week and that was fine. What I did notice though is that the same warning sticker is still on his bin. He has just folded it over the edge of the bin. - Dan Spencer